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 which requires the payer to furnish information relating to payment of any sum in such form and manner as may be prescribed by the Board. This provision is brought into force only from 1.4.2008. It will not apply

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

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 which requires the payer to furnish information relating to payment of any sum in such form and manner as may be prescribed by the Board. This provision is brought into force only from 1.4.2008. It will not apply

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

section 195(2) of the Act from the assessing officer only in a case where the payer is of the view that the payment is liable to tax in India, but is not certain as to what part of payment would constitute 'income' chargeable to tax in India. In that view of the matter, the disallowance

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 which requires the payer to furnish information relating to payment of any sum in such form and manner as may be prescribed by the Board. This provision is brought into force only from 1.4.2008. It will not apply

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 which requires the payer to furnish information relating to payment of any sum in such form and manner as may be prescribed by the Board. This provision is brought into force only from 1.4.2008. It will not apply

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

2 to 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

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

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

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)

disallowable as income of foreign agents is chargeable to tax as per the income tax act, 1961 as the agents have the „business connection‟ in India and ITO Vs Kulbeer Singh (Assessment Year: 2010-11 tax should have been deducted under section 195 of the income tax 1961 which assessee has failed to do so. 2

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

2 appended to 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 - 4 DELHI vs. MITSUBISHI CORPORATION (INDIA) PVT LTD

The appeals are dismissed against the

2 appended to 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

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

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

Section. Accordingly, respectfully following the decision of the coordinate bench in assessee‟s own case for assessment year 2007 – 08 and 2008 – 09 we set-aside this ground of appeal back to the file of the learned assessing officer. 49. Ground number 13 is with respect to Proportionate cost of Model Fee considered in valuation of closing stock

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

disallowance of any sum paid without deduction of TDS if the sum is of a nature that the Act requires TDS to be deducted. The question is: What is the nature of the sum paid to SITV? If the sum represents payment for advertisement services rendered by SITV (or reimbursement of advertisement services procured by SITV), then it falls within

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

disallowance of any sum paid without deduction of TDS if the sum is of a nature that the Act requires TDS to be deducted. The question is: What is the nature of the sum paid to SITV? If the sum represents payment for advertisement services rendered by SITV (or reimbursement of advertisement services procured by SITV), then it falls within

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

disallowance of any sum paid without deduction of TDS if the sum is of a nature that the Act requires TDS to be deducted. The question is: What is the nature of the sum paid to SITV? If the sum represents payment for advertisement services rendered by SITV (or reimbursement of advertisement services procured by SITV), then it falls within