DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. ROYAL JORDANIAN AIRLINES

The appeals are disposed of and the writ petitions are allowed in the

reassessment proceedings which should be refunded to the appellant, if already collected”. 10. Aggrieved by the above order of the CIT (A), both the Revenue and RJA filed appeals before the ITAT. In RJA’s five appeals, the issue raised was the refusal by the CIT (A) to grant refund in respect of the taxes that had already been paid

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. ROYAL JORDANIAN AIRLINES

The appeals are disposed of and the writ petitions are allowed in the

reassessment proceedings which should be refunded to the appellant, if already collected”. 10. Aggrieved by the above order of the CIT (A), both the Revenue and RJA filed appeals before the ITAT. In RJA’s five appeals, the issue raised was the refusal by the CIT (A) to grant refund in respect of the taxes that had already been paid

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. ROYAL JORDANIAN AIRLINES

The appeals are disposed of and the writ petitions are allowed in the

reassessment proceedings which should be refunded to the appellant, if already collected”. 10. Aggrieved by the above order of the CIT (A), both the Revenue and RJA filed appeals before the ITAT. In RJA’s five appeals, the issue raised was the refusal by the CIT (A) to grant refund in respect of the taxes that had already been paid

ROYAL JORDANIAN AIRLINES vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of and the writ petitions are allowed in the

reassessment proceedings which should be refunded to the appellant, if already collected”. 10. Aggrieved by the above order of the CIT (A), both the Revenue and RJA filed appeals before the ITAT. In RJA’s five appeals, the issue raised was the refusal by the CIT (A) to grant refund in respect of the taxes that had already been paid

ROYAL JORDANIAN AIRLINES vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of and the writ petitions are allowed in the

reassessment proceedings which should be refunded to the appellant, if already collected”. 10. Aggrieved by the above order of the CIT (A), both the Revenue and RJA filed appeals before the ITAT. In RJA’s five appeals, the issue raised was the refusal by the CIT (A) to grant refund in respect of the taxes that had already been paid

ROYAL JORDANIAN AIRLINES vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of and the writ petitions are allowed in the

reassessment proceedings which should be refunded to the appellant, if already collected”. 10. Aggrieved by the above order of the CIT (A), both the Revenue and RJA filed appeals before the ITAT. In RJA’s five appeals, the issue raised was the refusal by the CIT (A) to grant refund in respect of the taxes that had already been paid

ROYAL JORDANIAN AILINES vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of and the writ petitions are allowed in the

reassessment proceedings which should be refunded to the appellant, if already collected”. 10. Aggrieved by the above order of the CIT (A), both the Revenue and RJA filed appeals before the ITAT. In RJA’s five appeals, the issue raised was the refusal by the CIT (A) to grant refund in respect of the taxes that had already been paid

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. ROYAL JORDANIAN AIRLINES

The appeals are disposed of and the writ petitions are allowed in the

reassessment proceedings which should be refunded to the appellant, if already collected”. 10. Aggrieved by the above order of the CIT (A), both the Revenue and RJA filed appeals before the ITAT. In RJA’s five appeals, the issue raised was the refusal by the CIT (A) to grant refund in respect of the taxes that had already been paid

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

44B of the Act; (ii). Whether service tax receipts would form the part of gross receipts/turnover; and 6 ITA No.6589/Del./2014 & CO No. 221/Del./2015 (iii). Whether interest u/s. 234B is chargeable in the case of payments made to non-resident where TDS has been fully deducted on such payments. 3. The brief facts of the case are that

DELFIN FINANCE P.LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-7(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for AY 1997-98 is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

reassessment proceedings Relevant provisions of the guidance note on accounting for lease, revised in 1995, is as under. Accounting for leases in the Books of a lessor Finance Leases 9. Assets leased under finance leases should be disclosed as "Assets given on lease", as a separate section under the head "Fixed Assets" in the balance sheet of the lessor

DELFIN FINANCE P.LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-7(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for AY 1997-98 is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

reassessment proceedings Relevant provisions of the guidance note on accounting for lease, revised in 1995, is as under. Accounting for leases in the Books of a lessor Finance Leases 9. Assets leased under finance leases should be disclosed as "Assets given on lease", as a separate section under the head "Fixed Assets" in the balance sheet of the lessor

DCIT, GURGAON vs. SH. CHANCHAL SINGH DHEK, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. R. K. Pandaand. Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2005-06 Dcit Vs. Sh. Chanchal Singh Dhek Circle -1 (1) Prop. M/S. Great Roadways Gurgaon Anaj Mandi Chowk, Gurgaon Pan No. Aaopd6087G (Appellant) (Respondent)

44B. Subsequently the AO found that assessee has debited lorry hire charges to the extent of Rs.1,66,43,122/-on which no TDS was deducted by the assessee. He, therefore, issued a notice u/s. 154 of the IT Act. Since there was no compliance from the side of the assessee, the AO following the provisions of section