VODAFONE INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(3)(2), MUMBAI

Appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

194H of the Act from the upfront discount offered to Pre-paid Distributors, and consequently, no disallowance could be made under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for failure to deduct tax at source. 5.7. The above decision of the Tribunal was followed by the Tribunal while deciding identical issue in favour of the Appellant in appeal preferred

VODAFONE INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 8(3)(2), MUMBAI

271(1)(c) of the Act 2.2. In ITA No. 1919/Mum/2016, the Revenue has raised grounds of appeal in relation to the following issues: (a) Ground No. (i) & (ii): pertaining to disallowance of INR 30,95,03,786/- in respect of roaming charges under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act (b) Ground No. (iii): pertaining to disallowance

POONAM SANTOSH GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 41(4)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt. Renu Jauhri

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961 9. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT erred in confirming the of charging of penalty proceeding under section u/s 271F of the Income Tax Act 1961 10. The Appellant craves leave to add amend and or delete any of the above

AGRAWAL DISTILLERIES PVT LTD,INDORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act against\nthe Appellant.\nAll the above grounds are without prejudice to each other. The Appellant craves\nfor leave to add, amend, vary, withdraw, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid\ngrounds at any time before or at the time of hearing of the matter with the\nIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal

VODAFONE DIGILINK LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee Ground Nos 9 & 10 is allowed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjeeand\Nshri Prabhash Shankar\Nita No.1169/Mum/2014\N(Assessment Year: 2009-10)\Nm/S Vodafone Digilink Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income\Nlimited,\Ntax, Cir.17(1), New Delhi\Nc-48, Okhla Industrial Area,\Nphase-Ii, New Delhi-110 020\Npan: Aaaca3202D\Nappellant\Nrespondent\Nassessee By\N:\Nshri Percy J. Pardiwalla/Wshri\Nketan Ved\Nrespondent By\N:\Nms. Vatsala Jha (Pcit)\Ndate Of Hearing\N:\N23/12/2024\Ndate Of Pronouncement\N:\N12/02/2025\Norder\Nper Anikesh Banerjee:\Ninstant Appeal Of The Assessee Was Filed Against The Order Of The Learned\Ndispute Resolution Panel-Ii, New Delhi-02 [For Brevity, ‘Ld.Drp') Passed Under\Nsection 144C(5) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Brevity, ‘The Act'),\Ndated21/11/2013 For A.Y. 2009-10. The Impugned Order Was Emanated From The\Ndraft Assessment Order U/S 144C(1) R.W.S.143(3) Of The Actdated 28/03/2013 Of\Nthe Ld.Dcit, Circle-17(1), New Delhi (For Brevity The Ld. Ao).\N2\Nita No.1169/Mum/2014\Nvodafone Digilink Limited\N2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: -\N“The Appellant Respectfully Submits That:\Non The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Dispute\Nresolution Panel -11. New Delhi (Drp\") Has Erred In Passing The Order Under\Nsection 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act\"), Partly Confirming The\Nadjustments Proposed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 17(1)\Nnew Delhi ("Ao') In The Draft Assessment Order & The Learned Ao Has\Naccordingly Erred In Passing The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Read With\Nsection 144C Of The Act.\Neach Of The Ground Is Referred To Separately, Which May Kindly Be Considered\Nindependent Of Each Other.\N1. On Amortization Of Revenue Based License Fee U/S 35Abb Of The Act\N1.

194H of\nthe Act on the discount extended by the Appellant to distributors of prepaid SIM\ncards/talktime.\n5. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned\nAO/DRP has erred in not holding that no disallowance can be made u/s 40(a)(ia)\nof the Act since the Appellant is of a bonafide

SANDEEP RAMESH KENI,MAHARASHTRA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2013-14 Sandeep Ramesh Keni The Commissioner Of B-Wing, Room No. 24, Income Tax Panvel Plaza, Government Of India Behind S. K. Bajaj Vs. Ministry Of Finance, Showroom, Income Tax Department, Panvel, National Faceless Appeal Raigad-410206. Centre, Pan: Avapk7931R Delhi- 110011 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For : Assessee By : Shri Mayank Bagla, Adv. A/W Shri. Hiten Lala, Adv. : Smt. Kakoli Uttam Ghosh, D.R. Revenue By : 24 . 06 . 2024 Date Of Hearing : 25 . 07 . 2024 Date Of Pronouncement

penalty proceedings under section 271 of the income tax act, 1961, The Appellant found out the same on the portal, and realized that he had assessment proceeding for the financial year 2012-13 i.e. assessment year 2013-14. All the notices regarding assessment proceedings issued by the assessing officers were sent only by mail to my old consultants mail

DCIT 8(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS VODAFONE INDIA LIMITED WHICH NOW STANDS MERGED WITH IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED (ICL) AND CONSEQUENTLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED), MUMBAI

penalty proceedings\nunder Section 271(1)(c) of the Act\n2.2. In ITA No. 1919/Mum/2016, the Revenue has raised grounds of\nappeal in relation to the following issues:\n(a) Ground No. (i) & (ii): pertaining to disallowance of\nINR 30,95,03,786/- in respect of roaming charges\nunder Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act\n(b)\nGround

VODAFONE INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-8(3)(2), MUMBAI

penalty proceedings\nunder Section 271(1)(c) of the Act\n2.2. In ITA No. 1919/Mum/2016, the Revenue has raised grounds of\nappeal in relation to the following issues:\n(a) Ground No. (i) & (ii): pertaining to disallowance of\nINR 30,95,03,786/- in respect of roaming charges\nunder Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act\n(b) Ground

DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. HDFC BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income." 30. The CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee stating that the services provided by the assessee is a banking service which is part of the lending activity . The CIT(A) placed reliance on the decision of the Delhi High Court

HDFC BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income." 30. The CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee stating that the services provided by the assessee is a banking service which is part of the lending activity . The CIT(A) placed reliance on the decision of the Delhi High Court

HDFC BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income." 30. The CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee stating that the services provided by the assessee is a banking service which is part of the lending activity . The CIT(A) placed reliance on the decision of the Delhi High Court

DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. HDFC BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income." 30. The CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee stating that the services provided by the assessee is a banking service which is part of the lending activity . The CIT(A) placed reliance on the decision of the Delhi High Court

HDFC BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income." 30. The CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee stating that the services provided by the assessee is a banking service which is part of the lending activity . The CIT(A) placed reliance on the decision of the Delhi High Court

DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. HDFC BANK LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income." 30. The CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee stating that the services provided by the assessee is a banking service which is part of the lending activity . The CIT(A) placed reliance on the decision of the Delhi High Court

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4(3)(1),, MUMBAI vs. PARSHWANATH JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed with no order as to cost

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankardcit – 4(3)(1) Vs. Parshwanath Jewellers 649, Aayakar Bhavan, Pvt Ltd Mk Road – 400020. B-04/3,4,5 Devkaran Mansion Bldg, No. 2,63 Princes Street, Kalbadevi Ho – 400002 Pan/Gir No. Aadcp3202B (Applicant) (Respondent)

271- to the Naaptol in the assessment year 2016-17 and deducted the TDS of Rs.30,69,732/- on the same. The said commission was paid as against the sales of Rs. 11,91,23,366/- executed through Naaptol. It was worthwhile to mention here that, during the course of assessment proceedings for the A.Y. 2016-17, the AO vide

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR DIGILINK LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

section 37(1). The above submissions of the assessee and the documents filed in this regard have been duly considered. As per the Schedule - 20 related to the "Statement of Significant Accounting Policies", the basis and the method of accounting regarding Asset Restoration Cost is given, which is reproduced as below: "4 Fixed Assets, Depreciation and Amortization. (a) Asset restoration

VODAFONE DIGILINK LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, NEW DELHI

u/s 43(1) of the Act.\n\n3. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law and\nwithout prejudice to Grounds 3.1 and 3.2, the learned DRP/AO\nhave erred in not allowing deduction for ARC as a revenue\nexpense u/s 37(1) of the Act.\n\n3. 4. On the facts