ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. C.J. INTERNATIONAL HOTELS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Am & Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm

condonation of delay. That is how, there are three appeals by the Department for each of the years, namely, one original consolidated appeal by the Revenue under both the ITA Nos.21,22, 25&26/Del/2015 sub-sections of section 201 and then separate appeals for quantum and interest. 4.2. The ld. AR argued that separate appeals filed by the Revenue

M/S. CJ INTERNATIONAL HOTELS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Am & Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm

condonation of delay. That is how, there are three appeals by the Department for each of the years, namely, one original consolidated appeal by the Revenue under both the ITA Nos.21,22, 25&26/Del/2015 sub-sections of section 201 and then separate appeals for quantum and interest. 4.2. The ld. AR argued that separate appeals filed by the Revenue

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. C.J. INTERNATIONAL HOTELS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Am & Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm

condonation of delay. That is how, there are three appeals by the Department for each of the years, namely, one original consolidated appeal by the Revenue under both the ITA Nos.21,22, 25&26/Del/2015 sub-sections of section 201 and then separate appeals for quantum and interest. 4.2. The ld. AR argued that separate appeals filed by the Revenue

ACIT CIRCLE 54(1), NEW DELHI vs. SWADESH KUMAR MISHRA, GURGAON

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee i

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

194J. Therefore, we do not see any reason to disturb the findings of First Appellate Authority. Accordingly, the ground raised by the revenue is dismissed. 19. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed. 20. With regard to Assessee appeal, we observed that Ld CIT(A) has sustained following disallowances: a. Disallowance of Freight expenses

M/S HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,,NOIDA vs. ACIT (TDS), NOIDA

In the result appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishihcl Technologies Ltd, Acit(Tds), Plot No. 3A, Tower 6, 14Th Floor, Vs. Noida Sector-126, Noida Pan: Aaach1645P (Appellant) (Respondent)

194J of the Act holding that the assessee is an „ assessee in default‟ for non deduction of tax at source amounting to Rs. 23871484/- u/s 201(1) and consequential interest u/s 201(1A) of Rs. 19817482/- was determined, was confirmed. 2. The assessee raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. That the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)”] erred

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 vs. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INDIA PVT. LTD.

delay is, accordingly, condoned. The applications are disposed of. ITA 186/2023 ITA 187/2023 ITA 188/2023 5. These appeals concern Assessment Years (AY) 2010-11 [ITA 186/2023], 2015-16 [ITA 187/2023] and 2013-14 [ITA 188/2023]. 6. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, the “Tribunal”], via the common impugned order dated 20.10.2021, has ruled in favour of the respondent/assessee

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 vs. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INDIA PVT. LTD.

delay is, accordingly, condoned. The applications are disposed of. ITA 186/2023 ITA 187/2023 ITA 188/2023 5. These appeals concern Assessment Years (AY) 2010-11 [ITA 186/2023], 2015-16 [ITA 187/2023] and 2013-14 [ITA 188/2023]. 6. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, the “Tribunal”], via the common impugned order dated 20.10.2021, has ruled in favour of the respondent/assessee

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 vs. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INDIA PVT. LTD.

delay is, accordingly, condoned. The applications are disposed of. ITA 186/2023 ITA 187/2023 ITA 188/2023 5. These appeals concern Assessment Years (AY) 2010-11 [ITA 186/2023], 2015-16 [ITA 187/2023] and 2013-14 [ITA 188/2023]. 6. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, the “Tribunal”], via the common impugned order dated 20.10.2021, has ruled in favour of the respondent/assessee

GALLERIA CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION,GURGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), GURGAON, GURGAON

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment

Bench: Shri Amit Shuklaas S.M.C. (Through Video Conferencing)

delay in filing the appeals in all the three years is condoned. 5. The facts and issue raised in all the three appeals are arising out of identical set of facts, therefore, common order is passed in all the three appeals. Page 4 of 10 6. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. Accordingly, the appeals are decided ex-parte

GALLERIA CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION,GURGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(5), GURGAON, GURUGRAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment

Bench: Shri Amit Shuklaas S.M.C. (Through Video Conferencing)

delay in filing the appeals in all the three years is condoned. 5. The facts and issue raised in all the three appeals are arising out of identical set of facts, therefore, common order is passed in all the three appeals. Page 4 of 10 6. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. Accordingly, the appeals are decided ex-parte

GALLERIA CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION,GURGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), GURGAON, GURGAON

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment

Bench: Shri Amit Shuklaas S.M.C. (Through Video Conferencing)

delay in filing the appeals in all the three years is condoned. 5. The facts and issue raised in all the three appeals are arising out of identical set of facts, therefore, common order is passed in all the three appeals. Page 4 of 10 6. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. Accordingly, the appeals are decided ex-parte

ACIT (TDS), GURGAON vs. ARTEMIS MEDICARE SERVICE LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaacit (Tds), Vs. Artemis Medicares Services Ltd, 414/1, 4Th Floor, Dda Gurgaon Commercial Complex, District Centre, Janakpuri, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aafca0130M

condone the delay and admit the Cross Objection of the assessee. 3. Identical issues are involved in all these appeals and hence they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. 4. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. Relying upon the decision of Hon'ble ITAT, New Delhi

THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,UTTARKASHI vs. ITO, TDS, HARIDWAR

In the result these three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

194J(1)(a) of IT Act. 2.2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders of the AO U/s 201(1)/201(1A) of IT Act the Assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Vide aforesaid separate orders each dated 23.05.2017 of the Ld. CIT(A) the appeals filed by the Assessee were dismissed. 2.3. Aggrieved again, the Assessee has filed these

THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,UTTARKASHI vs. ITO, TDS, HARIDWAR

In the result these three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

194J(1)(a) of IT Act. 2.2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders of the AO U/s 201(1)/201(1A) of IT Act the Assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Vide aforesaid separate orders each dated 23.05.2017 of the Ld. CIT(A) the appeals filed by the Assessee were dismissed. 2.3. Aggrieved again, the Assessee has filed these

THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,UTTARKASHI vs. ITO, TDS, HARIDWAR

In the result these three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

194J(1)(a) of IT Act. 2.2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders of the AO U/s 201(1)/201(1A) of IT Act the Assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Vide aforesaid separate orders each dated 23.05.2017 of the Ld. CIT(A) the appeals filed by the Assessee were dismissed. 2.3. Aggrieved again, the Assessee has filed these

DR. RAJINDER PARSHAD GUPTA,GURGAON vs. DCIT (TDS), GURGAON

In the result appeals filed by assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Smt. Beena A Pillai

194J of the Act. Asessee received intimation under section 200 A of the Act, wherein interest was levied for late payment under section 234 E of the Act for the 4th quarter and for late filing of statement within the prescribed time period under section 200 (3) of the Act for 2nd and 3rd quarter. As per intimation received

DR. RAJINDER PARSHAD GUPTA,GURGAON vs. DCIT (TDS), GURGAON

In the result appeals filed by assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Smt. Beena A Pillai

194J of the Act. Asessee received intimation under section 200 A of the Act, wherein interest was levied for late payment under section 234 E of the Act for the 4th quarter and for late filing of statement within the prescribed time period under section 200 (3) of the Act for 2nd and 3rd quarter. As per intimation received

DR. RAJINDER PARSHAD GUPTA,GURGAON vs. DCIT (TDS), GURGAON

In the result appeals filed by assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Smt. Beena A Pillai

194J of the Act. Asessee received intimation under section 200 A of the Act, wherein interest was levied for late payment under section 234 E of the Act for the 4th quarter and for late filing of statement within the prescribed time period under section 200 (3) of the Act for 2nd and 3rd quarter. As per intimation received

ITO, MEERUT vs. M/S. CCS UNIVERSITY, MEERUT

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed being time barred

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. L. P. Sahu & Ito Ccs University (Tds & Survey) University Road Meerut Vs. Meerut

194J of the Income Tax Act. 2. Ld. CIT(A) considering, the issue in detailed held that even services rendered by the examiner cannot even be brought within the preview of Section 194C of the Income Tax Act. The appeals of the assessee were accordingly allowed. 3. According to the office of the Tribunal departmental appeals are time barred