ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DEWSOFT OVERSEAS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Appeal is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Ms. Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-3945/Del/2010 (A.Y 2007-08)

Section 194J of the Income Tax Act. Thus, the aggregate payment of Rs.58,700/- made to Shri Gaurav Mehra was disallowed u/s 40(a) (ia) and added to the total income of the assessee. The Assessing Officer also made an addition in respect of short term capital gain

BHARTI AIRTEL LTD.,GURGAON vs. ITO (TDS), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the Appeals of the Assessee are allowed and all the Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy

Capital gains") for- (i) the transfer of all or any rights (including the granting of a licence) in respect of a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade mark or similar property; (ii) the imparting of any information concerning the working of, or the use of, a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade

ITO (TDS), NEW DELHI vs. BHARTI AIRTEL LTD., GURGAON

In the result, all the Appeals of the Assessee are allowed and all the Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy

Capital gains") for- (i) the transfer of all or any rights (including the granting of a licence) in respect of a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade mark or similar property; (ii) the imparting of any information concerning the working of, or the use of, a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade

BHARTI AIRTEL LTD.,GURGAON vs. ITO (TDS), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the Appeals of the Assessee are allowed and all the Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy

Capital gains") for- (i) the transfer of all or any rights (including the granting of a licence) in respect of a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade mark or similar property; (ii) the imparting of any information concerning the working of, or the use of, a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade

BHARTI AIRTEL LTD.,GURGAON vs. ITO (TDS), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the Appeals of the Assessee are allowed and all the Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy

Capital gains") for- (i) the transfer of all or any rights (including the granting of a licence) in respect of a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade mark or similar property; (ii) the imparting of any information concerning the working of, or the use of, a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade

ITO (TDS), NEW DELHI vs. BHARTI AIRTEL LTD., GURGAON

In the result, all the Appeals of the Assessee are allowed and all the Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy

Capital gains") for- (i) the transfer of all or any rights (including the granting of a licence) in respect of a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade mark or similar property; (ii) the imparting of any information concerning the working of, or the use of, a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade

BHARTI AIRTEL LTD.,GURGAON vs. ITO (TDS), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the Appeals of the Assessee are allowed and all the Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy

Capital gains") for- (i) the transfer of all or any rights (including the granting of a licence) in respect of a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade mark or similar property; (ii) the imparting of any information concerning the working of, or the use of, a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade

HERO MOTO CORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. NEAC, DELHI

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

194J of the Act. 10.1 That the assessing officer erred on fact and in law in not accepting the invoices raise by the vendors for reimbursement of expenses on the ground that the said claims were raised on the basis of sell- serving vouchers. 10.2 Without prejudice, that the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in not appreciating

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is party allowed

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Kul Bharat

capital expenses. The Ld. AO has also erred in not allowing earlier years' depreciation in respect of the FOC phones. 7. The above grounds of appeals are independent and without prejudice to one another. 8. The appellant craves leave to add; withdraw or amend any ground of appeal at the time of hearing.” 5. Apart from that, the assessee

M/S. BHARTI AIRTEL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee with respect to ground No

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishibharti Airtel Ltd, Addl Cit, Bharti Crescent, 1, Vs. Range-2, Cr Building, Ip Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Estate, New Delhi Kunj, New Delhi Pan:Aaacb2894G (Appellant) (Respondent) Bharti Airtel Ltd, Addl Cit, Bharti Crescent, 1, Vs. Range-2, Cr Building, Ip Nelson Mandela Road, Vaxant Estate, New Delhi Kunj, New Delhi Pan:Aaacb2894G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Capital Markets (India) (P.) Ltd: 379 ITR 146 wherein, again, it has been reiterated that where assessee was under bona fide belief that tax was not deductible at source, disallowance made under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act could not be sustained for non-deduction of tax at source. v. Further, the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SMT. SUCHITA VEMURI, NEW DELHI

In the result ground, No

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiacit, Vs. Suchita Vemuri, D-199, 2Nd Floor, Saket, Central Circle-13, Room No. 332, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Extn, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aanpv5042L (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gain only. Hence, we dismiss ground No. 1 to 4 of the appeal of the revenue on this aspect. 8. Ground No. 5 of the appeal was with respect to the disallowance deleted by first appellate authority of Rs. 670677/-. The assessee has filed a return of income u/s 44AD of the Income Tax Act, 1961 showing gross receipt

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SPICE COMMUNICATION LTD., NOIDA

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2006-07 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Spice Communication Ltd., Tax, Circle 9(1), Room No. 163, C/O- Idea Cellular Ltd., A-68, C.R. Building, New Delhi Sector-64, Noida. Gir/Pan : Aagcs6070H (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No. 77/Del/2011 [In Ita No. 988/Del/2011] Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Spice Communication Ltd., Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income C/O- Idea Cellular Ltd., A-68, Tax, Circle 9(1), Room No. 163, Sector-64, Noida. C.R. Building, New Delhi Gir/Pan : Aagcs6070H (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Idea Cellular Ltd., A-68, Vs. Acit, Circle-50(1), New Delhi Sector-64, Noida Gir/Pan : Aaacb2100P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Ronak G. Doshi, Ca Department By Sh. B.K. Singh, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 05.04.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 25.05.2016 & C.O. No. 77/Del/2011

194J, interest thereon and consequently not being the assessee in default. The orders of ld. CIT(A) are uphold.” Thus it is clear that the Jaipur bench has given a finding of fact that no intervention is required for providing roaming facility and consequently the roaming charges paid by the assessee to other service providers cannot be treated as fees

IDEA CELLULAR LTD.,NOIDA vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2006-07 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Spice Communication Ltd., Tax, Circle 9(1), Room No. 163, C/O- Idea Cellular Ltd., A-68, C.R. Building, New Delhi Sector-64, Noida. Gir/Pan : Aagcs6070H (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No. 77/Del/2011 [In Ita No. 988/Del/2011] Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Spice Communication Ltd., Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income C/O- Idea Cellular Ltd., A-68, Tax, Circle 9(1), Room No. 163, Sector-64, Noida. C.R. Building, New Delhi Gir/Pan : Aagcs6070H (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Idea Cellular Ltd., A-68, Vs. Acit, Circle-50(1), New Delhi Sector-64, Noida Gir/Pan : Aaacb2100P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Ronak G. Doshi, Ca Department By Sh. B.K. Singh, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 05.04.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 25.05.2016 & C.O. No. 77/Del/2011

194J, interest thereon and consequently not being the assessee in default. The orders of ld. CIT(A) are uphold.” Thus it is clear that the Jaipur bench has given a finding of fact that no intervention is required for providing roaming facility and consequently the roaming charges paid by the assessee to other service providers cannot be treated as fees

DCIT,C-11(1), NEW DELHI vs. HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

194J of the Act. CIT(A): The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance made by the assessing officer by relying on the order passed by the Hon’ble Tribunal in assessee’s own case for assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12. Submission: The aforesaid issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Delhi bench

SUNIL GHORAWAT,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-9(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmash. Sunil Ghorawat, Vs. Acit, G-73, 2Nd Floor, Lajpat Circle-9(2), Nagar-1, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Acspg7932M

gain / short term capital loss on sale of listed company shares qua the penny stock and had held as under:- “10. We have heard Mr. Hossain at length and given our thoughtful consideration to his contentions, but are not convinced with the same for the reasons stated hereinafter. 11. On a perusal of the record, it is easily discernible that

ANUJ MIGLANI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. R. K Panda & Sh. K. N. Charyassessment Year: 2011-12

Section / Name of Deductor / ( Nature of Income TDS No Date Filer Name Transaction 192B Plug Power Energy India Salary 14,95,034 4,32,574 1 Pvt Ltd 194J Plug Power Energy India Professional 11,66,665 1,16,666 2 Pvt Ltd Services 3 1.94C Reliance Communications Contract 31,857 637 Infrastructure Ltd Receipts 4 194C Reliance Infratel

YASHOVARDHAN TYAGI,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 2880/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ito Vs Sh. Yashovardhan Tyagi, Ward-34(3), 56, Madhya Marg, Dlf, Phase-Ii, New Delhi Gurgaon, Delhi-122002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaapt0403G

194J of the Act with relation to “Royalty” are as per the Explanation 2 to Clause (vi) of Sub- Section (1) of Section 9. 8. The Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vi) reads as under: “Explanation 2.—For the purposes of this clause, "royalty" means consideration (including any lump sum consideration but excluding any consideration which would

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. SH. YASHOVARDHAN TYAGI, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 2880/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ito Vs Sh. Yashovardhan Tyagi, Ward-34(3), 56, Madhya Marg, Dlf, Phase-Ii, New Delhi Gurgaon, Delhi-122002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaapt0403G

194J of the Act with relation to “Royalty” are as per the Explanation 2 to Clause (vi) of Sub- Section (1) of Section 9. 8. The Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vi) reads as under: “Explanation 2.—For the purposes of this clause, "royalty" means consideration (including any lump sum consideration but excluding any consideration which would

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

capital requirement of the JVC ii. Assessee to pay retainership fees of Rs. 3.30 crores plus cars/car & maintenance, travel & entertainment expenditure, per annum to M/s. Percept Finserve P Ltd.(unrelated party), for media management and marketing services. iii. Assessee to reimburse the sum of operating cost of the JVC. Thus, according to the aforesaid terms of the MOU, the assessee