MAHARASHTRA FEEDS P. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

194C, section 194D, section 195 and section 196A so far as such tax relates to income subject to advance tax and so far as it is not due to variations in the rates of tax made by the Finance Act enacted for the year for which the regular assessment is made. (6) Where, in relation to an assessment year

NARESH KUMAR GARG,HARYANA vs. ACIT, BHIWANI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10

194C on payment of Rs. 75, 492/- to Ramkunwar for Boki Charges 5. non-deduction of tax at source under section 1904J for payment of Rs.1,30,000/- to Rajendra Agarwal on account of accounting and consultancy charges. 9. On perusal of the impugned reassessment

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. L.T. FOODS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, we reverse the order of the learned CIT – A income from the above disallowances and allow the appeal of the assessee to these extent

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

reassessment proceedings, the only issue left is the addition made by the learned assessing officer other than what was the subject matter of the provisions of section 148 of the income tax act, whether were made on the basis of any incriminating material found during the course of search or not. The honourable Delhi High Court in case

M/S HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,,NOIDA vs. ACIT (TDS), NOIDA

In the result appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishihcl Technologies Ltd, Acit(Tds), Plot No. 3A, Tower 6, 14Th Floor, Vs. Noida Sector-126, Noida Pan: Aaach1645P (Appellant) (Respondent)

194C, 194H, 194I and 194J of the Act holding that the assessee is an „ assessee in default‟ for non deduction of tax at source amounting to Rs. 23871484/- u/s 201(1) and consequential interest u/s 201(1A) of Rs. 19817482/- was determined, was confirmed. 2. The assessee raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. That the Commissioner of Income

M/S BG EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION INDIA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO (TDS), DEHRADUN

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

reassessment: or recomputation is made on the assessee or any person in consequence of or to give effect to any finding or direction contained in an order …. Or in an order of any court in a proceeding otherwise than by way of appeal or reference under this Act.” This can apply only to the assessee in whose case such

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION vs. GE PACKAGED POWER INC

194C casts an obligation to deduct TAS in respect of "any sum paid to any resident". Similarly, Sections 194EE and 194F inter alia provide for deduction of tax in respect of "any amount" referred to in the specified provisions. In none of the provisions we find the expression "sum chargeable under the provisions of the Act", which as stated above

M/S. HAMIR REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO (TDS), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Shri Amit Shukla

reassessment or recomputation is made on the assessee or any person in consequence of or to give effect to any finding or direction contained in an order . . . or in an order of any court in a proceeding otherwise than by way of appeal or reference under this Act". This can apply only to the assessee in whose case such

T V TODAY NETWORK LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

Accordingly grounds raised by assessee on legal as well as on merits stands allowed

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Smt. Beena A. Pillaischleicher India Ltd. Dcit C/O M/S Rra Taxindia Central Circle-09, Vs. D-28, South Extension, Part-I New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aaacm1960G (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 194C at the rate of 2.1% was also debited. 10. Ld. Counsel further submitted that entire reassessment proceedings has been

LT FOODS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

reassessment proceedings, claim was reduced by the Assessing Officer. 55. Similar fate was in Assessment Years 2005-06 and 2006-07. The said assessments were completed u/s 153A of the Act. Assessment orders for Assessment Years 2004-05 to 2006-07 were quashed by the Tribunal as the same were based de hors any incriminating material. 56. However, in Assessment

MUKUL ROHATGI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 61(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

reassess the ALV accordingly. 21. We have heard rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that the assessee has disclosed ALV of Goa Flat at ₹1.20 lakhs and this is assessed from assessment year 2011-12 and even in assessment year 2019-20, the ALV was accepted. This has been consistently declared

DCIT, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. EXPRO GULF LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

194C casts an obligation to deduct TAS in respect of "any sum paid to any resident". Similarly, Sections 194EE and 194F inter alia provide for deduction of tax in respect of "any amount" referred to in the specified provisions. In none of the provisions we find the expression "sum chargeable under the provisions of the Act", which as stated above

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)

194C casts an obligation to deduct TAS in respect of "any sum paid to any resident". Similarly, Sections 194EE and 194F inter alia provide for deduction of tax in respect of "any amount" referred to in the specified provisions. In none of the provisions we find the expression "sum chargeable under the provisions of the Act", which as stated above

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

reassessment proceedings even after multiple requests from the Assessee. 10. That the Ld. AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act on account of alleged underreporting of income by way of misreporting. 11. That the above grounds of appeal are independent and without prejudice to one another. P a g e | 8 Booking.com

ADIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PARPOOL LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, solitary ground of appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri H S Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

194C casts an obligation to deduct TAS in respect of "any sum paid to any resident". Similarly, Sections 194EE and 194F inter alia provide for deduction of ITA 3316 DEL 2012 ADIT V PARPOOL LIMITED AY 2001_02 Page 7 of 13 tax in respect of "any amount" referred to in the specified provisions. In none of the provisions

ROLLS ROYCE MILITARY AERO ENGINES LTD vs. DDIT INT. TAXATION CIRCLE 2 (1),

In the result all the five appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

194C casts an obligation to deduct TAS in respect of "any sum paid to any resident". Similarly, Sections 194EE and 194F inter alia provide for deduction of tax in respect of "any amount" referred to in the specified provisions. In none of the provisions we find the expression "sum chargeable under the provisions of the Act", which as stated above

ROLLS ROYCE MILITARY AERO ENGINES LTD vs. DDIT INTL. TAXATION CIRCLE-2 (1),

In the result all the five appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

194C casts an obligation to deduct TAS in respect of "any sum paid to any resident". Similarly, Sections 194EE and 194F inter alia provide for deduction of tax in respect of "any amount" referred to in the specified provisions. In none of the provisions we find the expression "sum chargeable under the provisions of the Act", which as stated above

DDIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SCORPION COURAGEOUS LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Cross Objection of the assessee is partly allowed

194C casts an obligation to deduct TAS in respect of "any sum paid to any resident". Similarly, Sections 194EE and 194F inter alia provide for deduction of tax in respect of "any amount" referred to in the specified provisions. In none of the provisions we find the expression "sum chargeable under the provisions of the Act", which as stated above

AGENCE FRANCES PRESS vs. ASST. DIRCTOR OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are allowed in terms of the directions

194C casts an obligation to deduct TAS in respect of "any sum paid to any resident.” 9. In the light of the above directions and after considering the submissions of the parties, the Karnataka High Court decided the matter finally in Samsung Electronics (supra). 10. This Court had taken note of the relevant part of the Supreme Court’s order

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SMCC CONSTRUCTION INDIA LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri A.T. Varkey

section 194C of the Act nowhere limits the deduction of any particular type of payment made to the sub-contractor and as such, the assessee was liable to deduct TDS on the balance payment of Rs.6,13,90,130/- which the assessee had failed to comply with. So, the AO made an addition of Rs.6,13,90,130/- on account