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 1 IB. The fact that the assessee deposited surcharge does not reduce the TDS liability on the principal amount. The assessee's conflation of TDS and surcharge is a fundamental error in understanding the statutory scheme. The AO correctly disallowed the proportionate amount based on the TDS shortfall alone. Verification of Rs. 9,72

A2Z INFRASERVICES LIMITED,HARYANA vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 27, DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम A2Z Infra Services Limited Dcit, O-116, 1St Floor, Dlf Shopping Mall, Vs. Central Circle-2, Arjun Nagar, Dlf Phase-1, Shankar Chowk, Phase-V, Gurgaon, Haryana. Udyog Vihar, Sector-19, Gurugram, Haryana. Pan No.Aahca0139L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 बनाम A2Z Infra Services Limited Dcit, O-116, 1St Floor, Dlf Shopping Mall, Vs. Central Circle-27, Arjun Marg, Dlf Qe S.O., New Delhi. Sikanderpur, Gurgaon, Haryana. Pan No.Aahca0139L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

72,25,525/- Total 11,15,61,113/-. 2. That no additions u/s 36(1)(va) could be done, as per the mandate of u/s 143(1)(a), thus there wa no adherence of relevant section and therefore it is clear cut case of mistake of law. 3. That the appellant is only contractor and/or sub- contractor, providing Facility management

A2Z INFRASERVICES LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम A2Z Infra Services Limited Dcit, O-116, 1St Floor, Dlf Shopping Mall, Vs. Central Circle-2, Arjun Nagar, Dlf Phase-1, Shankar Chowk, Phase-V, Gurgaon, Haryana. Udyog Vihar, Sector-19, Gurugram, Haryana. Pan No.Aahca0139L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 बनाम A2Z Infra Services Limited Dcit, O-116, 1St Floor, Dlf Shopping Mall, Vs. Central Circle-27, Arjun Marg, Dlf Qe S.O., New Delhi. Sikanderpur, Gurgaon, Haryana. Pan No.Aahca0139L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

72,25,525/- Total 11,15,61,113/-. 2. That no additions u/s 36(1)(va) could be done, as per the mandate of u/s 143(1)(a), thus there wa no adherence of relevant section and therefore it is clear cut case of mistake of law. 3. That the appellant is only contractor and/or sub- contractor, providing Facility management

RANBIR SINGH SOROUT,FARIDABAD vs. ITO,WARD-2(2), FARIDABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

disallowance of employees contribution to PF & ESI u/s 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 43B of the Income Tax Act. Assessee in its appeals raised the following grounds: Grounds of ITA No.52/D/2023, AY 2017-18: 1. “That on the Facts and Circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred

RANBIR SINGH SOROUT,FARIDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), FARIDABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

disallowance of employees contribution to PF & ESI u/s 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 43B of the Income Tax Act. Assessee in its appeals raised the following grounds: Grounds of ITA No.52/D/2023, AY 2017-18: 1. “That on the Facts and Circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred

EBRO INDIA PVT.LTD. ,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI

In the result, the ground no 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

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

1) of the Act proceeded to treat the aforesaid sum of Rs.134.99 crores as unexplained credit under section 68 of the Act. While making the said addition, the NFAC vaguely alleged that the assessee has not filed the requisite details/ documentary evidence to establish the nature and source of credit in the form of share capital, nor it is proved

ASIA SATELLITE TELECOMMUNICATIONS CO. LTD. vs. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

disallowing provisions thereof would be inapplicable. 23. As regards the levy of interest under Sections 234A and 234B was concerned, the Tribunal held that the appellant would be liable to pay interest under Section 234A. However, with regard to levy of interest under Section 234B, the Tribunal held that if the receipt of income by the appellant was of such

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)

1) SCC 21 and Novopan India Ltd. v. CCE & C 1994 (73) ELT 769 (SC), has been summed up in the words of Lord Lohen, "in case of ambiguity, a taxing statute should be construed in favour of a taxpayer does not apply to a provision giving taxpayer relief in certain cases from a section clearly imposing liability". This exception

ARVIND KUMAR AGARWAL,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-18(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

disallowance referring to sub-sections (5) & (6) of section 10A/10B of the I.T. Act, which are applicable to the deduction u/s 10AA of the I.T. Act also. The provisions of sub-sections (5) & (6) of section 10A of the I.T. Act shall apply to the exemption u/s 10AA of the I.T. Act also by virtue of subsection (8) of section

(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

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 vs. SUMITOMO CORPORATION INDIA (P) LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

disallowances. On 07 April and 28 July 2021, the petitioner was served with notices under Section 92CA intimating it of a reference having been made to the TPO. The TPO issued a show cause notice on 03 September 2021 apprising the writ petitioner of various adjustments which were proposed to be made. Since the additions proposed would have been binding

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

disallowances. On 07 April and 28 July 2021, the petitioner was served with notices under Section 92CA intimating it of a reference having been made to the TPO. The TPO issued a show cause notice on 03 September 2021 apprising the writ petitioner of various adjustments which were proposed to be made. Since the additions proposed would have been binding

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MICROSOFT INDIA ( R & D) PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

disallowances. On 07 April and 28 July 2021, the petitioner was served with notices under Section 92CA intimating it of a reference having been made to the TPO. The TPO issued a show cause notice on 03 September 2021 apprising the writ petitioner of various adjustments which were proposed to be made. Since the additions proposed would have been binding

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

M.R.OVERSEAS PVT LTD ,DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 16(1) , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita Nos. 2470 & 2469/Del/2022 (Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20) M. R. Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit 204, Wason Chambers, Circle – 16(1) B-9, Model Town-Ii, New Delhi Delhi-110 009 Pan No. Aaccm 1636 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Nivedita, Adv. Revenue By Ms. Kirti Sankratyayan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 09.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.06.2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Dated 05.08.2022 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Nfac, Delhi Relating To Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2019-20. 2. Before Us, At The Outset, Both The Parties Submitted That Though The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are For Two Different Assessment Years But The Facts & Issues Involved In Both The

72,43,090/- by inter alia disallowing Rs.2,83,900/- u/s 36(1)(va) on account of delayed deposit of employees contribution of PF/ESI. 5. Aggrieved by the intimation issued u/s 143(1) of the Act, assessee carried the matter before CIT(A) who vide order dated 05.08.2022 in Appeal No. NFAC/2017-18/10022488 dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved

M R OVERSEAS P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita Nos. 2470 & 2469/Del/2022 (Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20) M. R. Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit 204, Wason Chambers, Circle – 16(1) B-9, Model Town-Ii, New Delhi Delhi-110 009 Pan No. Aaccm 1636 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Nivedita, Adv. Revenue By Ms. Kirti Sankratyayan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 09.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.06.2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Dated 05.08.2022 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Nfac, Delhi Relating To Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2019-20. 2. Before Us, At The Outset, Both The Parties Submitted That Though The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are For Two Different Assessment Years But The Facts & Issues Involved In Both The

72,43,090/- by inter alia disallowing Rs.2,83,900/- u/s 36(1)(va) on account of delayed deposit of employees contribution of PF/ESI. 5. Aggrieved by the intimation issued u/s 143(1) of the Act, assessee carried the matter before CIT(A) who vide order dated 05.08.2022 in Appeal No. NFAC/2017-18/10022488 dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved

GE CAPITAL SERVICES INDIA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishia N D Shri K. Narasimha Chary

Section 14A of the Act confirmed by the learned CIT (Appeals). During the year, assessee has earned dividend income of Rs. 16,00,010/-. Assessee was asked to show cause about the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act, as it has not considered any expenditure as disallowable. Assessee explained that assessee is a non-banking finance company dealing in loan

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

72,216 3,46,484 25,986 20,416 5,570 and Fixtures Vehicles 3,91,971 14,83,455 1,48,346 39,197 1,09,149 Total 66,95,884 1,76,84,338 20,41,601 8,18,386 12,23,215 ITA No.316/Del/2013 The AO observed that the deprecation on building is claimed by the assessee