SUMITA SINGHAL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-17(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

68,934/- pertaining to provision for onerous contracts which has already been disallowed by the appellant, for further verification with the assessing officer. 4. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming disallowance of INR 62,04,444 made by the assessing officer under section 2(24)(x) read with section

R V INTERIOR PVT. LTD. ,DELHI vs. PCIT, DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

68,934/- pertaining to provision for onerous contracts which has already been disallowed by the appellant, for further verification with the assessing officer. 4. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming disallowance of INR 62,04,444 made by the assessing officer under section 2(24)(x) read with section

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NOIDA vs. M/S ACE MEGA STRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalsl. Ita No(S) Asst. Appeal(S) By No Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 4067/Del/2025 2019-20 M/S. Ace Mega Dcit/Acit Structures Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle I-B, 7Th Floor, Ace Studio, Noida Sector-126, Noida, Sector- 37, S.O. Gautam Budh Nagar-201303 Pan-Aakca8694D M/S. Ace Mega 2. 4115/Del/2025 2019-20 Dcit, Structures Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-1, A.R.T.O Complex, Sector-33, I-B, 7Th Floor, Ace Studio, Noida-201301. Sector-126, Noida, Sector- 37, S.O. Gautam Budh Nagar-201303 Pan-Aakca8694D Appellant By Shri Rohit Kapoor, Adv. & Shri Virsain Aggarwal, Itp Respondent By Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 17.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.11.2025

68 towards the unsecured loans of Rs. 17.74 crores by holding the same as accommodation entries. Accordingly, all the grounds of appeal of the revenue are dismissed. 6. From the perusal of the assessment and appellate order, it is seen that on the issue of loan from M/s Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd., all the observations and allegations made

ACE MEGA STRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,UTTAR PRADESH vs. DCIT/ACIT CEN CIR, NOIDA, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalsl. Ita No(S) Asst. Appeal(S) By No Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 4067/Del/2025 2019-20 M/S. Ace Mega Dcit/Acit Structures Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle I-B, 7Th Floor, Ace Studio, Noida Sector-126, Noida, Sector- 37, S.O. Gautam Budh Nagar-201303 Pan-Aakca8694D M/S. Ace Mega 2. 4115/Del/2025 2019-20 Dcit, Structures Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-1, A.R.T.O Complex, Sector-33, I-B, 7Th Floor, Ace Studio, Noida-201301. Sector-126, Noida, Sector- 37, S.O. Gautam Budh Nagar-201303 Pan-Aakca8694D Appellant By Shri Rohit Kapoor, Adv. & Shri Virsain Aggarwal, Itp Respondent By Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 17.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.11.2025

68 towards the unsecured loans of Rs. 17.74 crores by holding the same as accommodation entries. Accordingly, all the grounds of appeal of the revenue are dismissed. 6. From the perusal of the assessment and appellate order, it is seen that on the issue of loan from M/s Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd., all the observations and allegations made

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

section 145(2) of the Act, the appellant was required to make provision for circuit accruals for the subject financial year. 2.4. On the facts, in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/Hon’ble DRP erred in not appreciating that the appellant produced evidences to the extent of 99% for utilisation/reversal of circuit accruals made

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

section 145(2) of the Act, the appellant was required to make provision for circuit accruals for the subject financial year. 2.4. On the facts, in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/Hon’ble DRP erred in not appreciating that the appellant produced evidences to the extent of 99% for utilisation/reversal of circuit accruals made

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

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

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

68. As the assessee has adopted the TNMM which is crude method of benchmarking royalty payments and Ld TPO has disregarded the transaction only on the benefit analysis and has also rejected the CUP benchmarking of the assessee , we are of the view that this issue needs to be set aside to the file of the ld TPO to determine

CADENCE DESIGN SYSTEMS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4(2), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Uscadence Design System (India) Vs. Dcit, Pvt. Ltd, Circle-4(2), Plot Nos. 57A, B & C, Noida Delhi Special Economic Zone, Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacc1138Q Assessee By : Shri Salil Kapoor, Adv Shri Vibhu Jain, Adv Revenue By: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/12/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12/03/2024

68,616/- under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act (being 30% of rent expense amounting to Rs. 18,52,28,719/-) and has grossly erred by not appreciating the fact that the Appellant has already deducted tax at the prescribed rate under section 1941 of the Act and deposited the same within prescribed timelines. 2.2 That

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. QUATRO MORTGAGE SOLUTION PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue and cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishiito, Vs. Quatro Mortgage Solution Ward-20(3), Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi 24-C Block Basement, Community Centre, Janakpuri, New Delhi-58 Pan: Aaacq1451E (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 194I it attracts TDS @ 10% and not @2%. Therefore, the ld AO disallowed sum u/s 40 (a) (ia) of the act. Out of total expenditure incurred of Rs. 17191605/ - proportionate disallowances was worked out at Rs. 1, 37, 53,284/-. During the year the assessee also paid interest on service tax for Assessment Year

DLF LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 41(1) the assessee should have obtained, whether in cash or in any other manner whatsoever, any amount in respect of the loss or expenditure earlier allowed as a deduction. This part of the reasoning, in the light of the amended clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 41 may not be relevant after substitution

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S DLF LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 41(1) the assessee should have obtained, whether in cash or in any other manner whatsoever, any amount in respect of the loss or expenditure earlier allowed as a deduction. This part of the reasoning, in the light of the amended clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 41 may not be relevant after substitution

KAPOOR WATCH COMPANY PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRLCE-75(1), NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri O. P. Kant & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A. No. 889/Del/2020 (A.Y 2011-12) (Through Video Conferencing) Kapoor Watch Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit G-7, South Extension, Part-1, Circle-75(1) New Delhi New Delhi Aaack3885A (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant By Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv & Sh. Lalit Mohan, Ca Respondent By Sh. Sohail Malik, Sr. Dr

68,499/- and treated the assessee in default within the meaning of Section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act for failing to appropriately deduct tax as required by the provisions of the Act. The Assessing Officer also imposed interest for short deduction of TDS at 1% for every month on the amount of such tax from the date

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)

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-tax (Appeals

AT & T GLOBAL NETWORK SERVICES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT SPECIAL RANGE-1, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

68,317/-. The Assessing Officer proposed draft assessment order against which the assessee filed objection before Dispute Resolution Panel (“DRP”) on the ground that there were no change in the facts of the case as in earlier years i.e Assessment Years 2009-10, 2013-14 & 2014-15. The DRP rejected the same. The Assessing Officer in the final assessment order

HERO MOTOCORP LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sh. I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishihero Motocorp Limited, Jcit, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Range-1, New Delhi Vs. Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0812J (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community Vs. New Delhi Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community

68 of 484 the absence of any change in facts, more so when the change does not affect the overall tax liability to be collected from the appellant. While holding as above, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the file of the assessing officer to be decided afresh, keeping in mind the fact that such LDs, being

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S DLF LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain & Shri K.N. Chary.

68. The ld.CIT DR relied upon the order of AO whereas the ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that this issue is identical to that involved in Ground no. 5 of the revenue’s appeal and argument made in that ground are relevant for this as well. The facts and basis of disallowance is same as considered in ground

DLF LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain & Shri K.N. Chary.

68. The ld.CIT DR relied upon the order of AO whereas the ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that this issue is identical to that involved in Ground no. 5 of the revenue’s appeal and argument made in that ground are relevant for this as well. The facts and basis of disallowance is same as considered in ground

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S GARDENIA SHELTERS (P) LTD., NOIDA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue and Cross

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

section 194 A as the Hon'ble ITAT has erred as under: (i) In 194A (3 )(ii)(b), the legislature has used the words "by or under" whereas in the Notification u/s 194A(iii)(t), the word used is only "by". When legislature has chosen to use or not to use a certain word, Hon'ble ITA T could