ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-1, NEW DELHI vs. DINESH KUMAR MATHUR, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) could be made by the Revenue in the absence of any obligation to deduct

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

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

disallowing expenditure of Rs.54,16,55,012 (being 30% of total amount of Rs. 1,80,55,16,707) incurred towards quarterly target/turnover discount and trade discount of Rs. 17,07,28,214 (being 30% of total amount of Rs.56,90,94,045) given to the dealers/customers under section 40

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

disallowed under section 40(a)(ia)of the Act. AO: The AO disallowed the aforesaid expenses, invoking section 40(a)(ia), for the alleged

LINKEDIN TECHNOLOGY INFORMATION PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DELHI -4 , DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

40(a)(ia), all payments made to residents without deduction of applicable TDS, but the quantum of disallowance was restricted to 30% of the payment. As far as parity of disallowance for payments without TDS, remained the same for non- residents and residents, the difference in the quantum of disallowance persisted: 100% for non-residents under Section

M/S ECORYS NEDERLANDS B.V.,,DELHI vs. ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleasstt. Year 2011-12

section- 40(a) (i)/ 40(a) (iii). 1.4 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CITA while sustaining the 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

SERCO INDIA PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. DCIT, GURGAON

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shrianil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

disallowed under section 40(a)(i) of the Act as the Assessee has already deducted TDS under section 192 of the Act and therefore

ASSERTIVE INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 3(3), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 40(a)(ia), it is proposed that the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act shall extend

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

disallowance of Rs.155,05,28,276/- and Rs.58,31,18,115/- under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act on account

AVAYA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 466/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Avaya India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, 202, Platina, 2Nd Floor, Plot No. Circle-1(1), C-59, G-Block, Bandra Kurla New Delhi Complex, Bandra(E), Mumabi, Maharashtra-400051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaeca3592N Assessee By : Sh. Kamal Sawhney, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Surender Pal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.07.2021

disallowed the ‘cess’ paid by the assessee on the ground that there has been no material change in the provisions of Section 10(4) of the old Act and Section 40

DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI vs. CAMPUS EAI INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2017-18

disallowed as per the provisions of section 40(a)(i) of the Act for non-deduction of TDS. The submissions

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) could not be made. The correct course of action would be to invoke section

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 7, NEW DELHI vs. PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) could not be made. The correct course of action would be to invoke section

PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 19(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) could not be made. The correct course of action would be to invoke section

M/S. PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) could not be made. The correct course of action would be to invoke section

ACIT CIRCLE 54(1), NEW DELHI vs. SWADESH KUMAR MISHRA, GURGAON

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee i

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

disallowance was not called for in view of second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) and first proviso to Section

M/S HONDA CARS IMITED,NOIDA vs. DCIOT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh

disallowance in terms of section 40(a)(i) of the Act amounting to Rs.1525,83,26,392/-for non-deduction