DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 2954/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Dcit, Vs M/S Punjab National Bank, Circle-20(1), Ho: Finance Division, 5, Sansad New Delhi Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp0165G

disallowed and added to the income of the assessee.” 6.2 On this ground, the Ld. AR stated as under: "4.0 The learned Assessing Officer has invoked the provisions of section 14A of the Income Tax Act read with rule 8D and has disallowed a sum of Rs.2,86,69,45,381/-on a tax free income

ANSAL HOUSING LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Chandra Mohan Gargm/S. Ansal Housing Ltd. Vs. Dcit 606, 6Th Floor, Indra Cpc Prakash, 21, Barakhamba Bengaluru Road, New Delhi – 110001 Pan No. Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Gaurav Jain, Adv, Shri Sudarshan Roy, Ar Revenue By Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 11.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.06.2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am :

XVII-B of Rs.28,46,229/- and Rs.1,23,57,656/- on account of disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act being delayed deposit of PF/ESI. 4. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before CIT(A) who vide order dated 31.08.2020 in Appeal No.10599/19-20 granted partial relief to the assessee. Aggrieved by the order

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)

36 of 59 Tribunal was regarding disallowance of discount provided to distributor on sale of prepaid cash, roaming charges and interconnect charges on account of non-deduction of tax at source under section 194H/194J of the Act. In that assessee's case for the same assessment year, the Tribunal, while adjudicating appeal against order under section

MR. SANJEEV GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, ground No. 3 and 4 With respect to the disallowance of export commission of the appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishisanjeev Gupta, Vs. Addl. Cit, E-31, Kamla Nagar, Range-20, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Ahcpg7326A (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance made by the Ld. assessing officer. 7. We have carefully considered the rival contention and also perused the orders of the lower authorities. The issue involved before us is that assessee has paid a commission expenditure to a German National without deduction of tax at source under section 195 of the Income Tax Act, whether such commission expenditure

BCL SECURITIES PVT LTD,GURGAON vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

disallowing the appellant’s claim. Also, it is a matter which is in the domain of a business man where considering the commercial expediency of his business, an advance is given in course of his business. The same cannot be questioned by the Department.The Hon’ble S.C. in its recent decision has held that commercial expediency has to be adjudged

PRAGATI POWER CORPORATION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 20(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

36(1 )(iii) of the Act, applying average cost of debts to the amount of capital works-in-progress (CWIP), addition to fixed assets and capital advance, ignoring the material fact that borrowed amounts were not utilised by the assessee for acquiring capital asset and that the interest free owned funds (equity and reserves) were sufficient to meet out such

(Now known as Sony India Limited)

disallow a portion of the AMP expenditure under the notion that it was incurred on behalf of foreign trademark owner.‖ 24. Reference was made to the decisions in DHL Inc. and subsidiaries and GlaxoSmithKline Holding (America‘s) Inc., and Australian Tax Office Guidelines to hold that the AMP expenses should be separately benchmarked. 2015:DHC:2485-DB ITA 16/2014 & connected

M/S. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeals, namely, ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

XVII, New Delhi (for short “Ld. CIT(A)”) for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2010-11, both the assessee and the revenue preferred these appeals challenging the deletion and sustaining certain additions made by the Ld. AO in respect of these years while framing the assessment. 2. The Punjab National bank (hereinafter referred to as “assessee”) is a bank

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeals, namely, ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

XVII, New Delhi (for short “Ld. CIT(A)”) for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2010-11, both the assessee and the revenue preferred these appeals challenging the deletion and sustaining certain additions made by the Ld. AO in respect of these years while framing the assessment. 2. The Punjab National bank (hereinafter referred to as “assessee”) is a bank

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeals, namely, ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

XVII, New Delhi (for short “Ld. CIT(A)”) for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2010-11, both the assessee and the revenue preferred these appeals challenging the deletion and sustaining certain additions made by the Ld. AO in respect of these years while framing the assessment. 2. The Punjab National bank (hereinafter referred to as “assessee”) is a bank

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeals, namely, ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

XVII, New Delhi (for short “Ld. CIT(A)”) for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2010-11, both the assessee and the revenue preferred these appeals challenging the deletion and sustaining certain additions made by the Ld. AO in respect of these years while framing the assessment. 2. The Punjab National bank (hereinafter referred to as “assessee”) is a bank

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeals, namely, ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

XVII, New Delhi (for short “Ld. CIT(A)”) for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2010-11, both the assessee and the revenue preferred these appeals challenging the deletion and sustaining certain additions made by the Ld. AO in respect of these years while framing the assessment. 2. The Punjab National bank (hereinafter referred to as “assessee”) is a bank

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeals, namely, ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

XVII, New Delhi (for short “Ld. CIT(A)”) for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2010-11, both the assessee and the revenue preferred these appeals challenging the deletion and sustaining certain additions made by the Ld. AO in respect of these years while framing the assessment. 2. The Punjab National bank (hereinafter referred to as “assessee”) is a bank

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeals, namely, ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

XVII, New Delhi (for short “Ld. CIT(A)”) for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2010-11, both the assessee and the revenue preferred these appeals challenging the deletion and sustaining certain additions made by the Ld. AO in respect of these years while framing the assessment. 2. The Punjab National bank (hereinafter referred to as “assessee”) is a bank

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeals, namely, ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

XVII, New Delhi (for short “Ld. CIT(A)”) for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2010-11, both the assessee and the revenue preferred these appeals challenging the deletion and sustaining certain additions made by the Ld. AO in respect of these years while framing the assessment. 2. The Punjab National bank (hereinafter referred to as “assessee”) is a bank

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeals, namely, ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

XVII, New Delhi (for short “Ld. CIT(A)”) for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2010-11, both the assessee and the revenue preferred these appeals challenging the deletion and sustaining certain additions made by the Ld. AO in respect of these years while framing the assessment. 2. The Punjab National bank (hereinafter referred to as “assessee”) is a bank

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)

36 Code and, therefore, the provisions relating to TDS applies only to those sums which are "chargeable to tax" under the I.T. Act. It is true that the judgment in Eli Lilly (supra) was confined to Section 192 of the I.T. Act. However, there is some similarity between the two. If one looks at Section 192 one finds that

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

XVII-B on any such sum but is not deemed to be an assessee in default under the first proviso to sub-section (1) of section 201, then, for the purpose of this sub-clause, it shall be deemed that the assessee has deducted and paid the tax on such sum on the date of furnishing of return of income