ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PHILIA ESTATE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

194H or 194C were not applicable . 5.5. The appellant states that a bonafide claim of deduction has been disallowed. The appellant had furnished all relevant facts and details on record and had not concealed any facts. The facts and details furnished by the appellant were not found to be bogus or false by any authority. No inaccurate particulars had been

ACIT, CIRCLE- 19(2), NEW DELHI vs. PC JEWELLERS LTD., DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 6649/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 6650/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Acit, Vs Pc Jewellers Ltd., Circle-19(2), C-54, Preet Vihar, New Delhi New Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcp5443Q Co No. 68/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Co No. 74/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Pc Jewellers Ltd., Vs Acit, C-54, Preet Vihar, Circle-19(2), New Delhi-110092 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcp5443Q Assessee By : Sh. S. S. Nagar, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Hemant Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 07.12.2021

purchases was also bogus. 3. On the facts and under the circumstances, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law by deleting the addition/disallowance of Rs. 1,57,049/- made by the AO u/s 2(24)(X) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) on account of delayed payment of EPF and ESIC, ignoring the clarification issued by the binding Circular No. 22/2015

ACIT, CIRCLE- 19(2), NEW DELHI vs. PC JEWELLERS LTD., DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 6649/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 6650/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Acit, Vs Pc Jewellers Ltd., Circle-19(2), C-54, Preet Vihar, New Delhi New Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcp5443Q Co No. 68/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Co No. 74/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Pc Jewellers Ltd., Vs Acit, C-54, Preet Vihar, Circle-19(2), New Delhi-110092 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcp5443Q Assessee By : Sh. S. S. Nagar, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Hemant Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 07.12.2021

purchases was also bogus. 3. On the facts and under the circumstances, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law by deleting the addition/disallowance of Rs. 1,57,049/- made by the AO u/s 2(24)(X) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) on account of delayed payment of EPF and ESIC, ignoring the clarification issued by the binding Circular No. 22/2015

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PHILANA BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

194H or 194C were not applicable . 6.5. The appellant states that a bonafide claim of deduction has been disallowed. The appellant had furnished all relevant facts and details on record and had not concealed any facts. The facts and details furnished by the appellant were not found to be bogus or false by any authority. No inaccurate particulars had been

NOKIA INDIA SALES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-6, , NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

194H of the Act and the Assessing Officer has alternatively alleged that such trade offers and discounts fall under the definition of fee for technical services liable for deduction at source under section 194J of the Act. The Assessing Officer relied on the findings in earlier assessments in case of NIPL. The Ld. AR further submitted that as the Assessee

ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-6, , NEW DELHI vs. NOKIA INDIA SALES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

194H of the Act and the Assessing Officer has alternatively alleged that such trade offers and discounts fall under the definition of fee for technical services liable for deduction at source under section 194J of the Act. The Assessing Officer relied on the findings in earlier assessments in case of NIPL. The Ld. AR further submitted that as the Assessee

ACIT, NOIDA vs. M/S NARAYAN OVERSEAS, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is jettisoned

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P. Kant

bogus purchases. On the other hand, the ld. AR submitted that in the present case, the AO made addition solely on the basis of assessment order of another company M/s Nath International. The ld. AR also submitted that entire stock registers along with stock registers of M/s Nath 5 International were also physically produced before the AO. On the basis

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SHRI RAJIV KAPOOR, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Shri Laliet Kumarita No. 4989/Del /2012 [Assessment Year: 2008-09] The A.C.I.T Vs. Shri Rajiv Kapooor Circle - 22(1) C/O H.L. Kapoor Investment & New Delhi Financial Consultants 5, Trimurti Building [Basement], Community Centre, New Friends Colony, New Delhi Pan : Aampk 0195 Q [Appellant] [Respondent] Department By : Shri Kartar Singh, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Amit Sharma, Ca Shri Prashant Sharma, Ca Date Of Hearing : 09.03.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.03.2016 Order

194H of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ['the Act' for short] which stipulates that no such commission or brokerage is liable to TDS. The ld. AR further contended taht the assessee’s investment activities are not ancilliary activities and cannot be regarded as commercial activities. 5. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) came

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PENTHEA BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

194H or 194C were not applicable . 6.5. The appellant states that a bonafide claim of deduction has been disallowed. The appellant had furnished all relevant facts and details on record and had not concealed any facts. The facts and details furnished by the appellant were not found to be bogus or false by any authority. No inaccurate particulars had been

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 13, NEW DELHI vs. JAY NIKKI INDUSTRIES LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla

bogus. Thus, here it is submitted that once the said document has been accepted to be recorded in books of accounts and no addition has been made with regards to the same, in the hands of M/s Jay Ace Technologies Ltd., the same document “cannot be treated as incriminating”, and that is why, even though the learned AO has referred

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-13, NEW DELHI vs. JAY IRON & STEEL LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla

bogus. Thus, here it is submitted that once the said document has been accepted to be recorded in books of accounts and no addition has been made with regards to the same, in the hands of M/s Jay Ace Technologies Ltd., the same document “cannot be treated as incriminating”, and that is why, even though the learned AO has referred

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-13, NEW DELHI vs. JAY IRON & STEEL LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla

bogus. Thus, here it is submitted that once the said document has been accepted to be recorded in books of accounts and no addition has been made with regards to the same, in the hands of M/s Jay Ace Technologies Ltd., the same document “cannot be treated as incriminating”, and that is why, even though the learned AO has referred

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 13, NEW DELHI vs. JAY AUTO COMPONENTS LTD. , NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla

bogus. Thus, here it is submitted that once the said document has been accepted to be recorded in books of accounts and no addition has been made with regards to the same, in the hands of M/s Jay Ace Technologies Ltd., the same document “cannot be treated as incriminating”, and that is why, even though the learned AO has referred

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-13, NEW DELHI vs. JAY IRON & STEEL LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla

bogus. Thus, here it is submitted that once the said document has been accepted to be recorded in books of accounts and no addition has been made with regards to the same, in the hands of M/s Jay Ace Technologies Ltd., the same document “cannot be treated as incriminating”, and that is why, even though the learned AO has referred

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-13, NEW DELHI vs. JAY IRON & STEEL LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla

bogus. Thus, here it is submitted that once the said document has been accepted to be recorded in books of accounts and no addition has been made with regards to the same, in the hands of M/s Jay Ace Technologies Ltd., the same document “cannot be treated as incriminating”, and that is why, even though the learned AO has referred

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 13, NEW DELHI vs. JAY AUTO COMPONENTS LTD. , NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla

bogus. Thus, here it is submitted that once the said document has been accepted to be recorded in books of accounts and no addition has been made with regards to the same, in the hands of M/s Jay Ace Technologies Ltd., the same document “cannot be treated as incriminating”, and that is why, even though the learned AO has referred

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 13, NEW DELHI vs. JPM TOOLS LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla

bogus. Thus, here it is submitted that once the said document has been accepted to be recorded in books of accounts and no addition has been made with regards to the same, in the hands of M/s Jay Ace Technologies Ltd., the same document “cannot be treated as incriminating”, and that is why, even though the learned AO has referred

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-13, NEW DELHI vs. JJF CASTING LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS JPM RENEWABLE ENERGY LTD), DELHI

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla

bogus. Thus, here it is submitted that once the said document has been accepted to be recorded in books of accounts and no addition has been made with regards to the same, in the hands of M/s Jay Ace Technologies Ltd., the same document “cannot be treated as incriminating”, and that is why, even though the learned AO has referred