M/S. VIPUL MEDCORPTPA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Amit Shukla

194J and consequence of failure to deduct tax or after deducting tax failure to pay on all such transactions would make the deductor (TPAs) deemed to be an assessee in default in respect of such tax and also liable for charging of interest under Section 201 (IA) and penalty under Section 271 C. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances

SH. LT. COL. DR. ARVIND KUMAR CHATURVEDI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri C.M. Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

section 271(1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The penalty so sustained by the Ld. CIT (A) is bad in law and may please be deleted. 2 ITA No.6809/Del./2013 2. That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law while confirming the levy & imposition of penalty u/s 271(l)(c) of IT Act, 1961 on the consultancy

VATIKA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

penalty levied u/s 271 (1) (C) of the income tax act, 1961 by the learned Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, central circle – 20, New Delhi for the Assessment Year 2008-09 as per order dated 28/3/2013 of INR 9507003/–. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 6476/Del/2013:- “1. That the learned

M/S. VIRGIN MOBILE INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT (TDS), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishivirgin Mobile India Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Jcit(Tds), C/O. Tata Teleservices Ltd, Range-51, Room No. 406, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, 2A, Old Ishwar Nagar, Mathura Road, New Delhi District Centre, Laxmi Pan: Aadcr5798J Nagar, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

194J of the income tax act. The assessee stated that it was covered by the exemption certificate under section 197 (1) of the income tax act dated 16th/1/2015. The learned assessing officer noted that the about tax deduction at source certificate has been given for the period from 10/12/2000 08/02/1931/3/2009 only. However, there was admittedly a failure on the part

TATA TELESERVICES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-76(1), NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Tata Vs. Assistant Commissioner Teleserviceslimited New Of Income Tax Circle 76(1) Delhi Districtcentral Laxmi Taxation Department Nagar New Delhi 110092 M/S Tata Teleservices Limited 2A, Old Ishwar Nahar Mathura Road New Delhi 110065 (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 9. GROUND 9: That the Ld. CIT (A) grossly erred in not considering the contentions and grounds raised by the Appellant Each of the grounds or sub-grounds are in the alternative and is without prejudice to each other. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw

ACIT, DELHI vs. M/S. UNITECH WIRELESS TAMILNADU PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the ground of appeal raised by the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

194J is deductible in case of roaming charges paid. ITA No. 2925/Del/2015 : A.Y. 2010-11 ITA No. 2926/Del/2015 : A.Y. 2011-12 24. The solitary grounds taken up by the revenue is as under: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the demand raised u/s 201(1A) on the basis

M/S. UNITECH WIRELESS (TAMILNADU) PVT. LTD.,,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the ground of appeal raised by the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

194J is deductible in case of roaming charges paid. ITA No. 2925/Del/2015 : A.Y. 2010-11 ITA No. 2926/Del/2015 : A.Y. 2011-12 24. The solitary grounds taken up by the revenue is as under: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the demand raised u/s 201(1A) on the basis

M/S. UNITECH WIRELESS (TAMILNADU) PVT. LTD.,,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the ground of appeal raised by the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

194J is deductible in case of roaming charges paid. ITA No. 2925/Del/2015 : A.Y. 2010-11 ITA No. 2926/Del/2015 : A.Y. 2011-12 24. The solitary grounds taken up by the revenue is as under: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the demand raised u/s 201(1A) on the basis

ACIT, DELHI vs. M/S. UNITECH WIRELESS TAMILNADU PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the ground of appeal raised by the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

194J is deductible in case of roaming charges paid. ITA No. 2925/Del/2015 : A.Y. 2010-11 ITA No. 2926/Del/2015 : A.Y. 2011-12 24. The solitary grounds taken up by the revenue is as under: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the demand raised u/s 201(1A) on the basis

BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. This ground, in our considered opinion is premature and as such Ground No.10 of the Appeal is also dismissed. A composite glance of the remaining grounds of appeal reveals that following three issues require our adjudication : (i) Validity of assumption of jurisdiction to reassess u/s 147 of the Act (ii) Disallowance

M/S AT & T GLOBAL NETWORK SERVICES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,,GURGAON vs. JCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

penalty proceedings under Section 271(i)(c) of the Act against the Appellant on account of the above adjustments made in the impugned final assessment order All the above grounds are without prejudice to each other. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal at any time before

AT & T GLOBAL NETWORK SERVICES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE-1, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

penalty proceedings under Section 271(i)(c) of the Act against the Appellant on account of the above adjustments made in the impugned final assessment order All the above grounds are without prejudice to each other. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal at any time before

NARESH CHAND RANA,SONEPAT vs. ITO, WARD- 2, SONEPAT

In the result, the assessee gets relief of Rs

Bench: Sh. A. D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumar

271 (B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is not correct.” 3. The assessee is engaged in the business of data collection and running the business in the name of NCR Research Group. The assessee filed his return of income for A.Y. 2008-09 on 28.11.2011 in response to the notice issued u/s 148 of the Income

M/S. AKUMS DRUGS & PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,DELHI vs. JCIT (TDS), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

271(1)(c) of the Act read with section 274 (1) initiated the penalty proceedings. Assessee submitted that immediately after the objections raised by the tax auditor, assessee company has deducted TDS on the above payment and deposited the same. AO, being dis-satisfied with the explanation, proceeded to impose the penalty to the tune of Rs.72,959/- and Rs.49

M/S. AKUMS DRUGS & PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,DELHI vs. JCIT (TDS), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

271(1)(c) of the Act read with section 274 (1) initiated the penalty proceedings. Assessee submitted that immediately after the objections raised by the tax auditor, assessee company has deducted TDS on the above payment and deposited the same. AO, being dis-satisfied with the explanation, proceeded to impose the penalty to the tune of Rs.72,959/- and Rs.49

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. AIR LIQUIDE NORTH PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhua.Y. : 2009-10

271(1)(C) of the Act vide his order dated 25.10.2013. 2 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid addition, assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A)-XII, New Delhi vide his impugned order dated 14.11.2014 has allowed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Against the order of the ld. CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. During

GLOBE CAST INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiassessment Years: 2012-13 Globe Cast India Private Ltd. Vs. Dcit Circle- 10(1) 601, 6Th Floor, Dlf South Court C.R. Building, New Saket, New Delhi Delhi Pan: Aaccg0015C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. R. Raghunath, Ca Department By : Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.06.2018 Order Per R.S. Syal, Vp: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A) On 14.7.2016 Confirming The Penalty Of Rs. 8,53,353/- Imposed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred Also Called The Act) In Relation To The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Briefly Stated Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Technical & Professional Services Relating To News /Events Fields Etc. A Sum Of Rs. 30,03,000/- Was Debited To The Profit & Loss Account Under The Head `Legal & Professional Charges’. This Amount Was Paid To M/S Giv Marketing Pvt. Limited For Conducting Market Research Survey To Increase Its Customer Base In India. The Assessing Officer Held That The Assessee Was Likely To Get Enduring Having From Such Expenditure. He Capitalized This Amount & Allowed Depreciation @ 25%, Which Led To Addition Of Rs. 22,52,250/-. In Addition, The Assessing Officer Found That The Assessee Did Not Deduct Tax At Source In Respect Of Three Payments Under Section 194C & 194J Of The Act. Invoking The Provisions Of Section 40(A)(Ia), He Made An Addition At Rs. 2,73,061/-. Thereafter, Penalty Was Imposed With A Reference To The Above Additions, Which Came To Be Affirmed In The First Appeal.

194J of the Act. Invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia), he made an addition at Rs. 2,73,061/-. Thereafter, penalty was imposed with a reference to the above additions, which came to be affirmed in the first appeal. 3. We have heard both the sides and perused the relevant material on record. It is observed that

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. CADBURY INDIA LTD.

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

u/s 271-C. On appeal it was held that there was a sufficient cause of such short deduction of tax. This view of the ld appellate Commissioner was affirmed by the Tribunal. In the present appeal also the penalty was levied due to difference of opinion. During arguments, plea was also raised on behalf of the revenue, that the quantum