ADIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PARPOOL LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, solitary ground of appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri H S Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

disallow such claim for deduction. Similarly, vide Finance Act, 2008, w.e.f. 1.4.2008 sub-section (6) has been inserted in Section 195

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

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

disallow such claim for deduction. Similarly, vide Finance Act, 2008, w.e.f. 1.4.2008 sub-section (6) has been inserted in Section 195

ROLLS ROYCE MILITARY AERO ENGINES LTD vs. DDIT INTL. TAXATION CIRCLE-2 (1),

In the result all the five appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

disallow such claim for deduction. Similarly, vide Finance Act, 2008, w.e.f. 1.4.2008 sub-section (6) has been inserted in Section 195

ROLLS ROYCE MILITARY AERO ENGINES LTD vs. DDIT INT. TAXATION CIRCLE 2 (1),

In the result all the five appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

disallow such claim for deduction. Similarly, vide Finance Act, 2008, w.e.f. 1.4.2008 sub-section (6) has been inserted in Section 195

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)

Section 40(a)(i), inserted vide Finance Act, 1988 w.e.f. 1.4.89, payment in respect of royalty, fees technical services or other sums chargeable under the Income Tax Act would not get the benefit of deduction if the assessee fails to deduct TAS in respect of payments outside India which are chargeable under the IT. Act. This provision ensures effective compliance

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S XANSA INDIA LTD., NOIDA

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

disallowance of subsistence allowance. My conclusions in this regard are as follows: (a) Section 40falfi) read with section 195 of the Act - Whether

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)

195 of the Act specifying payments on which tax is deductible at source; (b) Duties of person deducting tax at source, including section 200 of the Act, prescribing the period within which the deducted amount should be paid to the Government and also mandating filing of TDS return; (c) Section 201 provides for the consequences of failure to deduct

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

section 195).However, the Tribunal's holding in Cairn Energy was context-specific. That case arose in the demerger of a single company into multiple entities, where apportionment of preexisting overhead between the demerged entities is a necessary and routine accounting exercise. The tribunal's finding that such apportionment involves no "income" applied only in that restructuring context. Sahara

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

section 195).However, the Tribunal's holding in Cairn Energy was context-specific. That case arose in the demerger of a single company into multiple entities, where apportionment of preexisting overhead between the demerged entities is a necessary and routine accounting exercise. The tribunal's finding that such apportionment involves no "income" applied only in that restructuring context. Sahara

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

section 195).However, the Tribunal's holding in Cairn Energy was context-specific. That case arose in the demerger of a single company into multiple entities, where apportionment of preexisting overhead between the demerged entities is a necessary and routine accounting exercise. The tribunal's finding that such apportionment involves no "income" applied only in that restructuring context. Sahara

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. SH. KULBEER SINGH, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiito, Vs. Kulbeer Singh, Ward-26(1), H-432, Vikas Puri, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Amqps5847P (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 195 of the act. Accordingly he disallowed Rs. 44140860 paid as export commission under section 40 (a) (i) ITO Vs Kulbeer

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4 DELHI vs. MITSUBISHI CORPORATION (INDIA) PVT LTD

The appeals are dismissed against the

Section 195 of the Act (which was inserted in the Act via FA 2012, albeit with effect from 01.04.1962) concluded that payments made by the respondent/assessee to its group companies were chargeable to tax in India and hence, the disallowance

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 04 DELHI vs. MITSUBISHI CORPORATION (INDIA) PVT LTD

The appeal is dismissed against the Revenue

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

Section 195 of the Act (which was inserted in the Act via FA 2012, albeit with effect from 01.04.1962) concluded that payments made by the respondent/assessee to its group companies were chargeable to tax in India and hence, the disallowance

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

section 115JB falling under Chapter XII-B of the Act. Covered in favour of the assessee by order passed by the IT ATfor AY 2015- 16 It would further be appreciated that similar addition made by the assessing officer in the assessment year, viz., AY 2015-16 was deleted by the Tribunal vide recent order dated 14.04.2021 by relying

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9 vs. UNISION HOTELS LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

Section 195(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and in case it is failure to do so, it warranted disallowance

ACIT, CIRCLE- 47(1), NEW DELHI vs. J. KISHORE EXPORTS, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Acit, Vs J.Kishore Exports, Circle-47(1), 558, Katra Ishwar Bhawan, New Delhi. Khari Baoli, New Delhi-110006. Pan-Aagfj9713M Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh. Ashwani Kalia, Ca Respondent By Sh. Umesh Takyar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 01.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 23.11.2021

section 195(1) for [Assessment Year : 2014-15] treating the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue on account of non deduction of tax at source from the commission payment to the non-resident and the consequential non- making of disallowance

CIENA INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

disallow such claim for deduction. Similarly, vide Finance Act, 2008, w.e.f. 1.4.2008 sub-Section (6) has been inserted in Section 195

CIENA INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

disallow such claim for deduction. Similarly, vide Finance Act, 2008, w.e.f. 1.4.2008 sub-Section (6) has been inserted in Section 195