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

1,34,94,094 and raised debit notes on the assessee for reimbursement of the said expenses on cost-to-cost basis, without any mark-up. SITV Network had duly deducted and deposited TDS on the said expenditure. Assessing officer's contention The assessing officer disallowed the reimbursement of expenditure made to SITV Network, under section

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)

disallowance, if at all, should be directed to be restricted only to 30% of the expenditure claimed in the year under consideration. 9. on the 4th aspect of the issue that the assessee ought to have been allowed the deduction of liability borne by the assessee in pursuance of an order passed under section 201 (1) of the income

RICHMOND EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,NOIDA vs. DCIT/ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

1), and the order,\ndirection or decree, by whatever name called, holding that such non-\ncompliance has occurred, has either not been disputed or has attained finality,\nthen, the Principal Commissioner or the Commissioner may, by an order in writing,\ncancel the registration of such trust or institution:\nProvided that the registration shall not be cancelled under this sub-section

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)

disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) in the return filed by the assessee for Assessment Year 2009-10. Therefore, notice is not time barred. The ld AO thereafter held that the assessee has not deducted tax of Rs. 23871484/- and therefore, he treated the assessee as the „assessee in default‟ for that sum. He further charged interest u/s 201(1A) amounting

(Now known as Sony India Limited)

Sections (1) and (2) to Section 92C are applicable to the assessed, as well as the Assessing Officer invoking power under Sub-Section (3) to Section 92C of the Act. As noted above, sub-section (2) to Section 92C stipulates that most appropriate method, out of the methods specified in sub-section (1) shall be applied to determine

ADIT, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. HALLIBURTON OFFSHORE SERVICES INC., DEHRADUN

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiadit, Halliburton Offshore Services International Taxation, Inc. , Vs. 13-A,Subhash Road, C/O. Nangia & Company, Ca, Aayakar Bhawan, 75/7, Rajpur Road, Dehradun Dehradun Pan:Aaach5154M (Appellant) (Respondent) Halliburton Offshore Services Addl. Cit, Inc. , International Taxation, Vs. C/O. Nangia & Company, Ca, Subhash Road, Suite-4A, Plaza M-6, Jasola, Dehradun New Delhi Pan:Aaach5154M (Appellant) (Respondent) Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. , Adit, C/O. Nangia & Company, Ca, International Taxation, Vs. Suite-4A, Plaza M-6, Jasola, 13-A,Subhash Road, New Delhi Aayakar Bhawan, Pan:Aaach5154M Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. Vs Ddit (International Taxation)

192 one finds that it imposes statutory obligation on the payer to deduct TAS when he pays any income "chargeable under the head salaries". Similarly, Section 195 imposes a statutory obligation on any person responsible for paying to a non-resident any sum 'chargeable under the provisions of the Act', which expression, as stated above, do not find place

INCEDO TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE -10(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

disallowance of Rs 10,83,500/- made by CPC in respect of employees contribution towards PF & ESI wrongly Incedo Technology Solutions Limited vs. DCIT 3 interpreting the provisions of section 43B r.w.s 36(1)(va) of the Act and invoking the provisions of section 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act. (ii) The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate

M/S CONTINENTAL DEVICE INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri A.T. Varkey

disallowance accordingly. 9 Section 43(1) reads as under: “43. In sections 28 to 41 and in this section, unless the context otherwise requires— ITA No.316/Del/2013 (1) "actual cost" means the actual cost of the assets to the assessee, reduced by that portion of the cost thereof, if any, as has been met directly or indirectly by any other person

M/S. CONTINENTAL DEVICE INDIA LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri A.T. Varkey

disallowance accordingly. 9 Section 43(1) reads as under: “43. In sections 28 to 41 and in this section, unless the context otherwise requires— ITA No.316/Del/2013 (1) "actual cost" means the actual cost of the assets to the assessee, reduced by that portion of the cost thereof, if any, as has been met directly or indirectly by any other person

M/S CONTINENTAL DEVICE INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri A.T. Varkey

disallowance accordingly. 9 Section 43(1) reads as under: “43. In sections 28 to 41 and in this section, unless the context otherwise requires— ITA No.316/Del/2013 (1) "actual cost" means the actual cost of the assets to the assessee, reduced by that portion of the cost thereof, if any, as has been met directly or indirectly by any other person

M/S CONTINENTAL DEVICE INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri A.T. Varkey

disallowance accordingly. 9 Section 43(1) reads as under: “43. In sections 28 to 41 and in this section, unless the context otherwise requires— ITA No.316/Del/2013 (1) "actual cost" means the actual cost of the assets to the assessee, reduced by that portion of the cost thereof, if any, as has been met directly or indirectly by any other person

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

disallowed. We do not think that the language of Sub-section (5) of Section 40A of the Act provides for or permits such a course. Sub-section (5) applies where an assessee claims a certain deduction saying that he has spent that money in providing, directly or indirectly, either as salary to an employee or in the provision of perquisite

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

disallowed. We do not think that the language of Sub-section (5) of Section 40A of the Act provides for or permits such a course. Sub-section (5) applies where an assessee claims a certain deduction saying that he has spent that money in providing, directly or indirectly, either as salary to an employee or in the provision of perquisite

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

disallowed. We do not think that the language of Sub-section (5) of Section 40A of the Act provides for or permits such a course. Sub-section (5) applies where an assessee claims a certain deduction saying that he has spent that money in providing, directly or indirectly, either as salary to an employee or in the provision of perquisite

DDIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SCORPION COURAGEOUS LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Cross Objection of the assessee is partly allowed

192 one finds that it imposes statutory obligation on the payer to deduct TAS when he pays any income "chargeable under the head salaries". Similarly, Section 195 imposes a statutory obligation on any person responsible for paying to a non-resident any sum 'chargeable under the provisions of the Act', which expression, as stated above, do not find place

ACIT, MORADABAD vs. M/S. PRATHMA BANK, MORADABAD

In the result, appeal of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita No. 4090/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S Prathma Bank, Tax, Circle-1, Ramganga Vihar, Moradabad Moradabad (U.P.) (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaajp0988Q Assessee By : Sh. Piyush Kaushik, Adv. Revenue By : Smt. Paramita Tripathy, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.07.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Department Against The Order Dated 17.04.2013 Of Ld. Cit(A), Bareilly.

disallowed the claim u/s 36(1)(viia) without mentioning the reasons of disagreement with the arguments advanced by the assessee. It may kindly be seen that the Ld. A.O. has adopted a cut short method in reaching his conclusions without making full appreciation of the specific arguments of the assessee. It may also kindly be seen that

DCIT, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. EXPRO GULF LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

192 one finds that it imposes statutory obligation on the payer to deduct TAS when he pays any income "chargeable under the head salaries". Similarly, Section 195 imposes a statutory obligation on any person responsible for paying to a non-resident any sum 'chargeable under the provisions of the Act', which expression, as stated above, do not find place

RISHI PARKASH,SONIPAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SONIPAT

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

disallowance of impugned contribution towards ESI and EPF under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the Act of 1961 made by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(1)(a) by order dated 16.12.2021 is hereby set-aside. Consequently, the order dated 15.07.2024 passed by the CIT (Appeals) and the subsequent order dated 26.09.2024 passed