DCIT (TDS), DEHRADUN vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 38/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs State Bank Of India, Tax(Tds), Tel Bhawan, Dehradun Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Mrtuo0659B Assessee By : Sh. Sanjiv Sapra, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S. S. Rana, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.04.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Department Against The Order Dated 17.10.2014 Of The Ld. Cit(A)-I, Dehradun.

194A(1) and that there was no liability or the part of the assessee to deduct any tax on site restoration fund of ONGC or on interest paid on site restoration deposit of ONGC, the assessee cannot be said to be an assessee in default within the meaning of section 201(1). In view of the fact it cannot

ACIT CIRCLE-28(1), NEW DELHI vs. MODESTY GARMENTS, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2014-15 Acit Vs. M/S Modesty Garments, Circle-28(1), B-304, New Friends Colony, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 065 Pan Aaafm1598F (Appellant) (Respondent)

194A(3)(iv) of the Act. The explanation was not acceptable to the Ld. AO who disallowed the said interest debited to P&L account observing inter alia that interest payment to partners is not authorised by the deed of partnership. He, therefore, made the disallowance under section 40(b)(ii) and added to the income of the assessee

DCIT (TDS), DEHRADUN vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Joginder Singh, Jm Ita No. 4458/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs State Bank Of India, Tax(Tds), Tel Bhawan, Dehradun Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Mrts02193C Assessee By : Sh. Sanjiv Sapra, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S. S. Rana, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.11.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.11.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Department Against The Order Dated 27.05.2016 By Ld. Cit(A), Dehradun.

194A(1) and that there was no liability or the part of the assessee to deduct any tax on site restoration fund of ONGC or on interest paid on site restoration deposit of ONGC, the assessee cannot be said to be an assessee in default within the meaning of section 201(1). In view of the fact it cannot

ACIT, MEERUT vs. M/S. PIONEER FABRICATORS PVT. LTD., MEERUT

In the result ground No. 6 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiacit, Vs. Pioneer Fabricators Pvt. Ltd, Circle-2, Meerut B-2, Saraswati Industrial Estate, Partapur, Meerut Pan:Aabcp3296R (Appellant) (Respondent) Pioneer Fabricators Pvt. Ltd, Acit, Vs. B-2, Saraswati Industrial Estate, Circle-2, Meerut Pioneer Partapur, Meerut Fabricators Pvt. Ltd, Pan:Aabcp3296R B-2, Saraswati Industrial Estate, Partapur, Meerut Pan:Aabcp3296R (Appellant) (Respondent)

68 of the act. Ld DR also produced the assessment records to support his contentions. Page 5 of 18 8. Now we first take up the ground No. 1 of the appeal of the revenue, wherein the revenue has challenged the deletion of the addition of Rs. 64985536/– made by the assessing officer on account of sundry creditors in spite

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PARAGON XT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2010-11

194A, section 194B, section 194BB, section 194C, section 194D, section 194E, section 194EE, section 194F, section 194G,section 194H, section 1941, section 194J, section 194K, section 195, section 196A, section 196B, section 196C and section 196D to be treated as an income received

SH. SUNIL SETHI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2007-08

68,968/- being interest reimbursement disallowed under Section 40a(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Id. CIT (Appeals). The observations of the Assessing Officer while so doing have been extracted in detail by the Ld. CIT (Appeals) in his order at para 6 on page

ACIT, CIRCLE-28(1), NEW DELHI vs. RADIUS INDUSTRIES, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kanta.Y. : 2015-16

194A of the Act were inapplicable and as such, disallowance so made is not in accordance with law. 3.2 That in any case since the payee had paid the taxes on the interest paid by the assessee, no disallowance was warranted in view of second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 4 That the learned Commissioner

RADIUS INDUSTRIES,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-28(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kanta.Y. : 2015-16

194A of the Act were inapplicable and as such, disallowance so made is not in accordance with law. 3.2 That in any case since the payee had paid the taxes on the interest paid by the assessee, no disallowance was warranted in view of second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 4 That the learned Commissioner

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-19(1), DELHI

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

68,752/- u/s 194A. 4.5.2 From the above submission, it can be said that TDS deducted against section 194A

DCIT, CIRCLE - 19(1), DELHI vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, MAHARASHTRA

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

68,752/- u/s 194A. 4.5.2 From the above submission, it can be said that TDS deducted against section 194A

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SUBASH DABAS, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[Assessment Year: 2009-10]

section 2(22)(e) are not applicable and needs to be deleted. CO No.222/Del/2016 28. The Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied upon the orders of the Assessing Officer. He submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) should not have admitted the additional evidences since the assessee did not file all the requisite details before the Assessing Officer

R.N. KHEMKA ENTERPRISES (P) LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO WARD- 20(3), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[Assessment Year: 2011-12]

section 153C of the Act as per ground of appeal no.2, for which the learned DR has no objection. Therefore, the ground of appeal no. 2 is dismissed as not pressed. 11. Ground of appeal no.8 being general in nature and is dismissed. 12. Ground of appeal nos.1, 3, 3.1 and 4 relate to the validity of reassessment proceedings

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. ARJUN ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.5 & 6 raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanacit , Vs. Arjun Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi 711, Filix Commercial Complex, Opp Asian Paints L.Bs Marg Bhandup W Mumbai 400078 Maharashtra (Pan: Aahca 1448 A)

68 of the Act. Further he observed that assessee has incurred financial cost in the form of interest of Rs.3,65,16,322/- for meeting the cash flow of the company. In this regard assessee was asked to substantiate the above expenses. In response assessee only submitted the ledger on account of bank charges amounting to Rs.11,16,188/- , bank

M/S. OK PLAY INDIA LTD.,HARYANA vs. JCIT, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal is allowed partly for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2011-12

194A(3)(iii)(b) and therefore no disallowance was warranted. 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts is not specifically deleting the disallowance of Rs. 5,82,825/- and Rs. 4,80,480/- made by invoking section 194C read with section

SNG AGRO IMPEX P.LTD,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-24(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year : 2013-14 Sng Agro Impex P. Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ward-24(1) 4091, Naya Bazar, New Delhi. North Delhi, Delhi – 110 006 Pan Aaocs1732J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Department By : Shri Umesh Takyar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 31.05.2022 O R D E R Per Astha Chandra, Jm

68 of the Act being the unsecured loan/advances received 2 from directors and relatives failing to appreciate that unsecured loan was received through banking channels and interest was also paid, and in respect of the unsecured loan, complete documentary was also famished before the learned CIT(A). 8. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both

ANAND PRAKASH,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

194A of the Act and consequently disallowance were carried out under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. In the matter, the ld. counsel pointed out that the payees are reputed companies and the corresponding income have been included in the respective returns of the payees. Thus, no additions/disallowances under Section 40(a)(ia) are permitted in view

ANAND PRAKASH,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

194A of the Act and consequently disallowance were carried out under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. In the matter, the ld. counsel pointed out that the payees are reputed companies and the corresponding income have been included in the respective returns of the payees. Thus, no additions/disallowances under Section 40(a)(ia) are permitted in view

ANAND PRAKASH,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(5), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

194A of the Act and consequently disallowance were carried out under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. In the matter, the ld. counsel pointed out that the payees are reputed companies and the corresponding income have been included in the respective returns of the payees. Thus, no additions/disallowances under Section 40(a)(ia) are permitted in view