W SERVE TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharma

delay in filing of TDS statements. In this sense, insertion of Clause (c) to section 200A( 1), is only an addendum to the section to provide for the machinery provision to compute the fee payable u/s 234E at the time of processing of TDS statement and the same is enabling for processes in nature. This is very much evident

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GHAZIABAD vs. MAHALAXMI LIGHT HOUSE , HAPUR

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Mahalakshmi Light House, Income Tax 285, Avas Vikas Vihar, Room No. 201, First Floor, Hapur, Uttar Pradesh Cgo Complex, Hapurchungi, Pan: Aatfm3627N Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh Appellant Respondent

delay of 234 days in filing the Cross Objection is hereby condoned. 7. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee addressing on the Cross Objection, vehemently submitted that the assessment order has been 5 ITA Nos. 3514, & C.O No. 109/Del/2024 DCIT Vs. Mahalaxmi Light House passed without issuing notice u/s 148A (b) of the Act, order u/s 148A (d) and notice

ACIT CIRCLE 2 vs. NIIT ONLINE LEARNING LTD,

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the additional grounds of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

234, Okhla Industrial Area, Circle-2, Phase-I, New Delhi-110020 New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAABCN1113B Assessee by : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. & Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. G. C. Srivastava, Special Counsel, Sh. Karlav Mehrotra, Adv. Date of Hearing: 10.05.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 05.08.2022 ORDER Per Bench: The appeals filed by the Revenue

ACIT CIRCLE 2 vs. NIIT ONLINE LEARNING LTD,

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the additional grounds of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

234, Okhla Industrial Area, Circle-2, Phase-I, New Delhi-110020 New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAABCN1113B Assessee by : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. & Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. G. C. Srivastava, Special Counsel, Sh. Karlav Mehrotra, Adv. Date of Hearing: 10.05.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 05.08.2022 ORDER Per Bench: The appeals filed by the Revenue

ACIT CIRCLE 2 vs. NIIT ONLINE LEARNING LTD,

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the additional grounds of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

234, Okhla Industrial Area, Circle-2, Phase-I, New Delhi-110020 New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAABCN1113B Assessee by : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. & Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. G. C. Srivastava, Special Counsel, Sh. Karlav Mehrotra, Adv. Date of Hearing: 10.05.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 05.08.2022 ORDER Per Bench: The appeals filed by the Revenue

ABHISHEK MALHOTRA ,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-73(1), DELHI

Appeal of the Assessee are disposed off and the Appeal filed by the assessee

section 234E could be made for TDS deducted for respective years / periods prior to 01/06/2015. Accordingly, the assessee is not liable to pay fees u/s 234E Page 2 of 10 Abhishek Malhotra vs. AO of Rs.6,52,690/- toward late filing of TDS for financial years 2013-14 and 2014-15. 5. To condone the delay in filing the appeal

MAVENIR INDIA PVT. LTD. (EARLIER KNOWN AS COMVERSE NETWORK SYSTEM INDIA PVT. LTD.),GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 3(1), GURGOAN

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Anadee Nath Misshrar Assessment Year: 2016-17

condone the delay of 25 days and admit the appeal for adjudication on merit. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, & in law the assessment order passed by the Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/ Income-tax Officer, National e-Assessment Centre (‘the 3 Ld. AO’) under Section

GAC MARINE LLC,GURGAON vs. ITO, WARD 1(3)(2), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishragac Marine Llc Vs. Ito, Ward – 1(3)(2), 1St Floor, Ahip Palms, International Taxation, Plot No.242 & 243, New Delhi – 110 002 Phase-Iv, Gurgaon Haryana – 122 015 Pan : Aaecg 2882 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Gaurav Singhal, Adv. & Ms. Mahima Jain, Adv. Respondent By Shri Vijay B. Vasanta, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing 28/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18/12/2024 O R D E R Per Vimal Kumar, Jm:

section 144 r.w.s 147of the Act at a total income of Rs.10,06,14,234/-. 3. Appellant/assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(A) along with application and sought condonation of delay

IYCWORLD SOFTINFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CELL - TDS

In the result, in ITA No. 906, 907 & 908/Del/2024 are allowed and ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

delay. Accordingly, the demand on account of 234E is cancelled. 8. Similarly interest u/s 220(2) cannot be levied when fee u/s 234E itself is not leviable. In so far as charging of interest u/s 201(IA), the same cannot be charged as admittedly no order u/s 201(1) has been passed holding the assessee to be "assessee in default

IYCWORLD SOFTINFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CELL - TDS

In the result, in ITA No. 906, 907 & 908/Del/2024 are allowed and ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

delay. Accordingly, the demand on account of 234E is cancelled. 8. Similarly interest u/s 220(2) cannot be levied when fee u/s 234E itself is not leviable. In so far as charging of interest u/s 201(IA), the same cannot be charged as admittedly no order u/s 201(1) has been passed holding the assessee to be "assessee in default

IYCWORLD SOFTINFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CELL - TDS

In the result, in ITA No. 906, 907 & 908/Del/2024 are allowed and ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

delay. Accordingly, the demand on account of 234E is cancelled. 8. Similarly interest u/s 220(2) cannot be levied when fee u/s 234E itself is not leviable. In so far as charging of interest u/s 201(IA), the same cannot be charged as admittedly no order u/s 201(1) has been passed holding the assessee to be "assessee in default

IYCWORLD SOFTINFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CELL - TDS

In the result, in ITA No. 906, 907 & 908/Del/2024 are allowed and ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

delay. Accordingly, the demand on account of 234E is cancelled. 8. Similarly interest u/s 220(2) cannot be levied when fee u/s 234E itself is not leviable. In so far as charging of interest u/s 201(IA), the same cannot be charged as admittedly no order u/s 201(1) has been passed holding the assessee to be "assessee in default

M/S MORPHEUS DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 17(2), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Vs M/S Morpheus Developers Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt.Ltd. Income Tax Circle- 17(2) 1, Main Road Maujpur Delhi- Delhi 110053 Pan No. Aaicm1972A (Respondent) (Appellant)

234 B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 10. That the appellant craves the leave to add modify amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income

MADHAVA HOME DECOR PVT LTD,FARIDABAD vs. ITO WARD - 1(5), FARIDABAD

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

delay of 19 days of filing the present appeal is condoned. 2. The assessee has raised the following Concise grounds of appeal:- “1. That the Id. CIT (A) has erred in law as well as on facts in confirming addition of Rs. 96,00,000 us 68 of the IT Act, 1961 on account of alleged unexplained share premium

JYOTI APPARELS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

delay is accordingly condoned and the CM is allowed. CM No. 2678/06 Allowed subject to just exceptions. CM No. 2676/06 Learned counsel for the appellant does not press the prayer for an interim stay. The application is accordingly dismissed. ITA 298/2006 ADMIT. The following substantial questions of law are formulated for determination : ?(i) Whether the ITAT was right

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-30, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. SH. RADHEY SHYAM BANSAL, NEW DELHI

Accordingly. Hence, the AO is directed to restrict the additions only to the income on account of commission @0.50% as mentioned in the table above. These grounds may be treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

condone the delay and admit all the three appeals for adjudication. 4. Briefly stated the facts are that assessee is a Chartered Accountant by profession and is practicing Chartered Accountant, rendering professional services including preparation and filing of income tax returns besides providing services related to accounting, auditing, and other allied matters. A search and seizure action

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-30, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. SH. RADHEY SHYAM BANSAL, NEW DELHI

Accordingly. Hence, the AO is directed to restrict the additions only to the income on account of commission @0.50% as mentioned in the table above. These grounds may be treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

condone the delay and admit all the three appeals for adjudication. 4. Briefly stated the facts are that assessee is a Chartered Accountant by profession and is practicing Chartered Accountant, rendering professional services including preparation and filing of income tax returns besides providing services related to accounting, auditing, and other allied matters. A search and seizure action

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-30, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. SH. RADHEY SHYAM BANSAL, NEW DELHI

Accordingly. Hence, the AO is directed to restrict the additions only to the income on account of commission @0.50% as mentioned in the table above. These grounds may be treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

condone the delay and admit all the three appeals for adjudication. 4. Briefly stated the facts are that assessee is a Chartered Accountant by profession and is practicing Chartered Accountant, rendering professional services including preparation and filing of income tax returns besides providing services related to accounting, auditing, and other allied matters. A search and seizure action