DCIT CIRCLE - 25(1), NEW DELHI vs. TATA TELESERVICES LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, this issue is raised in grounds of appeal No.4 of the Revenue in all these years is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.5665/Del/2019 (Assessment Year 2012-13)

194H of the Act are not applicable on the discount extended to distributors. Further, learned CIT(A) has erred in relying on the decision passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, reported as CIT vs. Idea Cellular Ltd. (2010) 325 ITR 148 without appreciating the fact that the said decision is not applicable in the Appellant's case

TATA TELESERVICES LTD.,NOIDA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 25(1), NEW DELHI

Accordingly, this issue is raised in grounds of appeal No.4 of the Revenue in all these years is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.5665/Del/2019 (Assessment Year 2012-13)

194H of the Act are not applicable on the discount extended to distributors. Further, learned CIT(A) has erred in relying on the decision passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, reported as CIT vs. Idea Cellular Ltd. (2010) 325 ITR 148 without appreciating the fact that the said decision is not applicable in the Appellant's case

TATA TELESERVICES LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE - 25(1), NEW DELHI

Accordingly, this issue is raised in grounds of appeal No.4 of the Revenue in all these years is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.5665/Del/2019 (Assessment Year 2012-13)

194H of the Act are not applicable on the discount extended to distributors. Further, learned CIT(A) has erred in relying on the decision passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, reported as CIT vs. Idea Cellular Ltd. (2010) 325 ITR 148 without appreciating the fact that the said decision is not applicable in the Appellant's case

DCIT CIRCLE - 25(1), NEW DELHI vs. TATA TELESERVICES LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, this issue is raised in grounds of appeal No.4 of the Revenue in all these years is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.5665/Del/2019 (Assessment Year 2012-13)

194H of the Act are not applicable on the discount extended to distributors. Further, learned CIT(A) has erred in relying on the decision passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, reported as CIT vs. Idea Cellular Ltd. (2010) 325 ITR 148 without appreciating the fact that the said decision is not applicable in the Appellant's case

ACIT CIRCLE 25(1) , DELHI vs. TATA TELESERVICES LTD. , DELHI

Accordingly, this issue is raised in grounds of appeal No.4 of the Revenue in all these years is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.5665/Del/2019 (Assessment Year 2012-13)

194H of the Act are not applicable on the discount extended to distributors. Further, learned CIT(A) has erred in relying on the decision passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, reported as CIT vs. Idea Cellular Ltd. (2010) 325 ITR 148 without appreciating the fact that the said decision is not applicable in the Appellant's case

DCIT CIRCLE 25(1), NEW DELHI vs. TATA TELESERVICES LTD., NEW DELHI

Accordingly, this issue is raised in grounds of appeal No.4 of the Revenue in all these years is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.5665/Del/2019 (Assessment Year 2012-13)

194H of the Act are not applicable on the discount extended to distributors. Further, learned CIT(A) has erred in relying on the decision passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, reported as CIT vs. Idea Cellular Ltd. (2010) 325 ITR 148 without appreciating the fact that the said decision is not applicable in the Appellant's case

TATA TELESERVICES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-25(1), NEW DELHI

Accordingly, this issue is raised in grounds of appeal No.4 of the Revenue in all these years is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.5665/Del/2019 (Assessment Year 2012-13)

194H of the Act are not applicable on the discount extended to distributors. Further, learned CIT(A) has erred in relying on the decision passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, reported as CIT vs. Idea Cellular Ltd. (2010) 325 ITR 148 without appreciating the fact that the said decision is not applicable in the Appellant's case

TATA TELESERVICES LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE - 25(1), NEW DELHI

Accordingly, this issue is raised in grounds of appeal No.4 of the Revenue in all these years is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.5665/Del/2019 (Assessment Year 2012-13)

194H of the Act are not applicable on the discount extended to distributors. Further, learned CIT(A) has erred in relying on the decision passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, reported as CIT vs. Idea Cellular Ltd. (2010) 325 ITR 148 without appreciating the fact that the said decision is not applicable in the Appellant's case

M/S BHARTI HEXACOM LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed and department’s appeal dismissed

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra: & Shri A.T. Varkey:

194H as well as provisions of section 194J are not attracted and therefore, there was no amount on which tax was deductible. Therefore, section 40(a)(ia) cannot come into play. The machinery provisions cannot operate independently and before the computation provisions contained in section 40(a)(ia) can come into the play, the effect of applicability of machinery provision

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

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

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

194H of the Act. 41. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in disallowing under section 40(a)(ia), expenditure of Rs 71.42 crores being payment made to dealers towards repair/maintenance of vehicles of the customers under free service coupons on the ground that the appellant failed to deduct tax at source therefrom under section 194J

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

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

194H of the Act. 9.3 Without prejudice, that the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that since the appellant was under a bona fide belief that no tax was required to be deducted therefrom, no disallowance was warranted under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 9.4 Without prejudice, the assessing officer erred on facts

M/S. BHARTI CELLULAR LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

194H of the Act. 4.3 Without prejudice, that the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act should have been restricted only to transactions where no tax has been deducted at source at all. 4.4 Further, without prejudice, that the AO failed to appreciate that disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act was, in any case

TATA TELESERVICES LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE - 25(1), NEW DELHI

depreciation was allowed. Financial penalties for subscriber verification failure were also deemed allowable as expenditure under Section 37(1).", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "37(1)", "40(a)(ia)", "194H

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 7244/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Nokia India Sales Pvt. Ltd., Vs Addl. Cit, 807, New Delhi House, Special Range-6, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccn9141L Assessee By : Sh. Nageshwar Rao, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Surenderpal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.10.2021

194H of the Act. 2.3 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO and Hon’ble DRP have erred in observing that the amounts incurred by the Appellant towards such trade offers/ discounts extended to HCL/ other distributors alternatively fall within the ambit of 'fees for technical services’ as defined under Explanation

HERO MOTOCORP LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sh. I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishihero Motocorp Limited, Jcit, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Range-1, New Delhi Vs. Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0812J (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community Vs. New Delhi Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community

194H of the Act. 16. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in disallowing expenditure of Rs. 1,56,12,424 incurred by way of payment to FX Enterprises Solutions Pvt Ltd., towards reimbursement of cost of gifts distributed to customers, on the ground that aforesaid payments were made under a contract for carrying out work

PERNOD RICARD INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the recalled matter of the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

depreciation under section 32 of the Act while disallowing brand expenses as being capital in nature. 10.1 We find that issue in dispute has been decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal (supra) in order dated 15/03/2019 for assessment year 2007-08 as under: “23. Ground Nos. 9 to 9.2 relates to disallowance

PERNOD RICARD INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the recalled matter of the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

depreciation under section 32 of the Act while disallowing brand expenses as being capital in nature. 10.1 We find that issue in dispute has been decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal (supra) in order dated 15/03/2019 for assessment year 2007-08 as under: “23. Ground Nos. 9 to 9.2 relates to disallowance

PERNOD RICARD INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the recalled matter of the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

depreciation under section 32 of the Act while disallowing brand expenses as being capital in nature. 10.1 We find that issue in dispute has been decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal (supra) in order dated 15/03/2019 for assessment year 2007-08 as under: “23. Ground Nos. 9 to 9.2 relates to disallowance