GALLERIA CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION,GURGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(5), GURGAON, GURUGRAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment

Bench: Shri Amit Shuklaas S.M.C. (Through Video Conferencing)

house property, as amount received by AOP is for maintenance charges and common charges which is further paid by AOP for common expenses and is not chargeable on the basis of concept of mutuality. Page 5 of 10 6. That the assessment order is void and invalid in law as Assessing Officer not take effect of Tax deducted at source

GALLERIA CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION,GURGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), GURGAON, GURGAON

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment

Bench: Shri Amit Shuklaas S.M.C. (Through Video Conferencing)

house property, as amount received by AOP is for maintenance charges and common charges which is further paid by AOP for common expenses and is not chargeable on the basis of concept of mutuality. Page 5 of 10 6. That the assessment order is void and invalid in law as Assessing Officer not take effect of Tax deducted at source

GALLERIA CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION,GURGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), GURGAON, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Galleria Condominium Vs Ito, Association, Galleria Building, Ward-1(3), Dlf Phase Iv, Dlf City, Gurgaon. Gurgaon, Haryana-122002. Pan-Aaaag3018P Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Rishabh Aggarwal, Ca & Ms. Jaishree, Ca Respondent By Shri Mithalesh Kumar Pandey, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 19.09.2022

section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. As interest income is disbursed to members who had contributed to it. 4. Further as per verdict of Bangalore Club v/s Commissioner of Income Tax, Interest income is not taxable as concept of mutuality has been extended to define groups of people who contribute to a common fund, controlled

RBS BUSINESS SERVICES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (TDS) 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 3081/Mum./2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 3082/Mum./2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Rbs Business Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit(Tds)-1(1), (Formerly Known As Abn Amro Mumbai-400002 Central Enterprises Service Pvt. Ltd.), Empire Complex, 414, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadca1780D Assessee By : Sh. S. K. Agarwal, Ca Revenue By : Sh. T. Kipgen, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.08.2022

194J. (1) Any person, not being an individual or a Hindu undivided family, who is responsible for paying to a resident any sum by way of— (a) fees for professional services, or (b) fees for technical services, or (ba) any remuneration or fees or commission by whatever name called, other than those on which tax is deductible under section

RBS BUSINESS SERVICES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (TDS) 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 3081/Mum./2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 3082/Mum./2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Rbs Business Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit(Tds)-1(1), (Formerly Known As Abn Amro Mumbai-400002 Central Enterprises Service Pvt. Ltd.), Empire Complex, 414, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadca1780D Assessee By : Sh. S. K. Agarwal, Ca Revenue By : Sh. T. Kipgen, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.08.2022

194J. (1) Any person, not being an individual or a Hindu undivided family, who is responsible for paying to a resident any sum by way of— (a) fees for professional services, or (b) fees for technical services, or (ba) any remuneration or fees or commission by whatever name called, other than those on which tax is deductible under section

DCIT, CIRCLE-5(2), NEW DELHI vs. CAPARO POWER LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

House, 21, K.G. Marg, New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AADCB8619C Assessee by : Sh. Ved Jain, CA Revenue by : Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT DR Date of Hearing: 24.08.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 24.08.2021 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been filed by the revenue against the order of ld. CIT(A)-2, New Delhi

DLF LIMITED,DELHI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

section 115BAA from AY 2020-21 onwards. Accordingly, the excess margins accounted for in the books of accounts of the Appellant in earlier years (as per POCM) have already been offered to tax at a higher rate of 35% and the said margins would again be taxed in the subsequent years at the time of sale of built-up units

DLF LIMITED,DELHI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

section 115BAA from AY 2020-21 onwards. Accordingly, the excess margins accounted for in the books of accounts of the Appellant in earlier years (as per POCM) have already been offered to tax at a higher rate of 35% and the said margins would again be taxed in the subsequent years at the time of sale of built-up units

DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI vs. DLF LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

section 115BAA from AY 2020-21 onwards. Accordingly, the excess margins accounted for in the books of accounts of the Appellant in earlier years (as per POCM) have already been offered to tax at a higher rate of 35% and the said margins would again be taxed in the subsequent years at the time of sale of built-up units

DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI vs. DLF LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

section 115BAA from AY 2020-21 onwards. Accordingly, the excess margins accounted for in the books of accounts of the Appellant in earlier years (as per POCM) have already been offered to tax at a higher rate of 35% and the said margins would again be taxed in the subsequent years at the time of sale of built-up units

DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI vs. DLF LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

section 115BAA from AY 2020-21 onwards. Accordingly, the excess margins accounted for in the books of accounts of the Appellant in earlier years (as per POCM) have already been offered to tax at a higher rate of 35% and the said margins would again be taxed in the subsequent years at the time of sale of built-up units

SUNIL GHORAWAT,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-9(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmash. Sunil Ghorawat, Vs. Acit, G-73, 2Nd Floor, Lajpat Circle-9(2), Nagar-1, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Acspg7932M

house property, income from business and profession, income from capital gain and income from other sources. The ld AO observed that the assessee has claimed short term capital loss of Rs. 92,91,495/- during the year under consideration and sought for complete details of the same from the assessee, which were duly furnished. Out of the total short term

BOOKING.COM B.V.,THE NETHERLANDS vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(2), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarbooking.Com B.V. Vs. Acit, Circle -1(1)(2) Oosterdokskade 163, International Taxation, 1011 Dl, Amsterdam, The Civic Centre, Minto Road, Netherlands, New Delhi – 110002 Haryana 122002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aagcb2395A Appellant .. Respondent

194J, etc.). The recorded reasons in the notice under section 148A(b) of the Act fail to establish how the Appellant's income is taxable under the Act or the DTAA except saying that there are receipts from India and those have been subjected to withholding. 23. There is no linkage between the material on record and the formation

TUPPERWARE INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 9, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2013-14

House, Special Range-9, 15, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi. Connaught Place, New Delhi-110 001 PAN AAACT3770D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Rohit Tiwari, Advocate Shri Shrey Chakarborty, Advocate Department by: Shri Mahesh Shah, CIT(DR) Date of Hearing 05.05.2022 Date of pronouncement 01.08.2022 O R D E R PER ASTHA CHANDRA The appeal filed by the assessee is directed

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

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

194J of the Act. 10.1 That the assessing officer erred on fact and in law in not accepting the invoices raise by the vendors for reimbursement of expenses on the ground that the said claims were raised on the basis of sell- serving vouchers. 10.2 Without prejudice, that the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in not appreciating

HERO MOTOCROP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 11(1), NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2015-16

section 40A (2), disallowance on ground of excessive purchase price could not have been made under that section. Further, the Tribunal held that the transactions were entered by the assessee on account of commercial expediency and when the recipients had paid tax on payments received from the assessee company, disallowance could not be made by applying provisions of section

LOKENDRA PRASHAD ASTHANA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-61(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

property or of the unit-holder, or of the shareholder, as the case may be. (2) Any sum referred to in sub-section (1A) of Section 192 and paid to the Central Government shall be treated as the tax paid on behalf of the person in respect of whose income such payment of tax has been made. (3) The Board

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)

property in the year of inspection i.e., during 2011 and the claim made by the assessee during the current FY ie., 2008-09. We cannot rely on the report collected on the existence and occupation of the assessee, when the same was vacated by the assessee due to relocation. It is fact on record that the assessee was incurring interest