SANTUR BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED,GREATER KAILASH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 77(1), TDS WARD, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

271C r.w.s. 272a(2)(g) of the Act was also challenged. 3. The relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant/assessee, a real estate developer, was developing a housing project at Sohana, Gurugram. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Panchkula surveyed the office premises of Haryana Urban Development Authority (hereinafter, the ‘HUDA’) and Sky-High Land

M.L. SINGHI & ASSOCIATES (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CC-15, NEW DELHI

In the result, these four appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

68 of the Act. The appellant Company has submitted the above Page 7 of 15 ITAs No.9747, 9818, 9819 & 9820/Del/2019 M.L. Singhi & Associates P. Ltd. vs. ACIT fact before the Ld. AO and referred case for AY 2009-10 is under consideration before the ITAT New Delhi. But Ld. AO instead of consider and evaluate the above facts

M.L. SINGHI & ASSOCIATES (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CC-15, NEW DELHI

In the result, these four appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

68 of the Act. The appellant Company has submitted the above Page 7 of 15 ITAs No.9747, 9818, 9819 & 9820/Del/2019 M.L. Singhi & Associates P. Ltd. vs. ACIT fact before the Ld. AO and referred case for AY 2009-10 is under consideration before the ITAT New Delhi. But Ld. AO instead of consider and evaluate the above facts

M.L. SINGHI & ASSOCIATES (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CC-15, NEW DELHI

In the result, these four appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

68 of the Act. The appellant Company has submitted the above Page 7 of 15 ITAs No.9747, 9818, 9819 & 9820/Del/2019 M.L. Singhi & Associates P. Ltd. vs. ACIT fact before the Ld. AO and referred case for AY 2009-10 is under consideration before the ITAT New Delhi. But Ld. AO instead of consider and evaluate the above facts

M.L. SINGHI & ASSOCIATES (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CC-15, NEW DELHI

In the result, these four appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

68 of the Act. The appellant Company has submitted the above Page 7 of 15 ITAs No.9747, 9818, 9819 & 9820/Del/2019 M.L. Singhi & Associates P. Ltd. vs. ACIT fact before the Ld. AO and referred case for AY 2009-10 is under consideration before the ITAT New Delhi. But Ld. AO instead of consider and evaluate the above facts

ADDI. CIT SPECIAL RANGE- 4, NEW DELHI vs. IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Anubhav Sharma

68,034/- made on account of non-deduction of TDS on payments made by M/s. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. to the TPA i.e. M/s Paramount Health services Pvt. Ltd. on account of professional services rendered.” 2 Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. 3. The assessee is in the business of General Insurance, medical insurance and appointed a Third

ACIT, CC- 31, NEW DELHI vs. PERNOD RICHARD INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

68,93,84,224/-, on account of non-deduction of tax at source under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 13. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in rejecting the additional evidence filed by the Appellant on the ground that sufficient opportunity was granted to the Appellant during the course of assessment proceedings to show-cause

PERNOD RICARD INDIA PVT. LTD,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 31, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

68,93,84,224/-, on account of non-deduction of tax at source under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 13. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in rejecting the additional evidence filed by the Appellant on the ground that sufficient opportunity was granted to the Appellant during the course of assessment proceedings to show-cause

PERNOD RICARD INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

68,93,84,224/-, on account of non-deduction of tax at source under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 13. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in rejecting the additional evidence filed by the Appellant on the ground that sufficient opportunity was granted to the Appellant during the course of assessment proceedings to show-cause

DCIT, CC-31, NEW DELHI vs. PERNOD RICARD INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

68,93,84,224/-, on account of non-deduction of tax at source under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 13. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in rejecting the additional evidence filed by the Appellant on the ground that sufficient opportunity was granted to the Appellant during the course of assessment proceedings to show-cause

M/S. VIPUL MEDCORP TPA 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

271C of the Income Tax Act as the case may be.” 13. Thus, this circular set the controversy at rest that the TPAs were required to deduct tax at source u/s 194J; and it has also been provided that the tax demand arising out of section 201(1) may not be enforced, if the deductor (TPAs) satisfies the officer

M/S. VIPUL MEDCORP TPA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. JCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

271C of the Income Tax Act as the case may be.” 13. Thus, this circular set the controversy at rest that the TPAs were required to deduct tax at source u/s 194J; and it has also been provided that the tax demand arising out of section 201(1) may not be enforced, if the deductor (TPAs) satisfies the officer

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

271C of the Income Tax Act as the case may be.” 13. Thus, this circular set the controversy at rest that the TPAs were required to deduct tax at source u/s 194J; and it has also been provided that the tax demand arising out of section 201(1) may not be enforced, if the deductor (TPAs) satisfies the officer

ORAVEL STAYS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS ORAVEL STAYS PRIVATE LIMITED),GURUGRAM vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 6, 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

ORAVEL STAYS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS ORAVEL STAYS PRIVATE LIMITED),GURUGRAM vs. DCIT CIRCLE 76(1), 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

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

SHARDA EDUCATIONAL TRUST ,GREATER NOIDA vs. ITO (TDS), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NOIDA

In the result, ITA.No.3377/Del

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Anubhav Sharma

271C separately against the assessee for failure to deduct tax at source for the A.Ys. 2010-11 to 2017-18. 4. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of the A.O. by observing as under : “4.13. I have considered the submission of the appellant, perused the assessment order, remand report and rejoinder of the appellant. The assessing officer