CIT v. Qatar Airways

DCIT(TDS)-2(3), MUMBAI vs. NOVARTIS HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Dcit(Tds)-2(3) Novartis Healthcare Private 320, 3Rd Floor, Cumbala Hill, Limited Mtnl Te Bldg. Peddar Road Vs. 7Th Floor, Inspire Bkc, G Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg Block, Bkc Main Road Mumbai-400 026. Bandra, Mumbai-400 051. Appellant Respondent C.O. No. 121/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year : 2020-21)

…r feedback loops. f. Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. (293 ITR 226 SC): The AO held this ruling inapplicable since NHPL failed to produce Form 26A as mandated under Rule 31ACB to show that tax has been paid by the recipients. g. CIT v. Qatar Airways (332 ITR 253): Distinction lies in the fact that NHPL collects and monitors data from stockists, unlike Qatar Airways which had no access to downstream agent information. h. Ahmedabad Stamp Vendors Association (257 ITR 202): Inapplicable as that decision was rooted in a statutory scheme where stamp vendors were appointed by the government— not under a private…

DCIT (LTU) 2, MUMBAI vs. ASIAN PAINTS LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

…GT vs. Reliance Communication Infrastructure Ltd. (ITA No. 702 of 12017- Bombay High Court 3. DOT vs. BCH Electric Ltd. (ITA 1336/Kol/2012) 4. ACIT vs. Raymond Ltd. ITA 5889/M/10 5. CIT vs. Piramal Healthcare Ltd. 230 Taxman 505 (Bom) 6. CIT vs. Qatar Airways 332 ITR 253 (Bom) 7. Radhasaomi Satsang vs. CIT (193 ITR 321 (SC) 47. Without prejudice, the learned Counsel submitted, since no amount has been paid or credited to the distributors, question of deduction of tax at source does not arise. Further, he submitted, whatever amount the assessee has paid to SOTC has been subjected to TDS provisions. Therefore, ther…

ASIAN PAINTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY. CIT LTU, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

…GT vs. Reliance Communication Infrastructure Ltd. (ITA No. 702 of 12017- Bombay High Court 3. DOT vs. BCH Electric Ltd. (ITA 1336/Kol/2012) 4. ACIT vs. Raymond Ltd. ITA 5889/M/10 5. CIT vs. Piramal Healthcare Ltd. 230 Taxman 505 (Bom) 6. CIT vs. Qatar Airways 332 ITR 253 (Bom) 7. Radhasaomi Satsang vs. CIT (193 ITR 321 (SC) 47. Without prejudice, the learned Counsel submitted, since no amount has been paid or credited to the distributors, question of deduction of tax at source does not arise. Further, he submitted, whatever amount the assessee has paid to SOTC has been subjected to TDS provisions. Therefore, ther…

IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO SPICE COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. DY. CIT, CIRCLE- 3(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Is Interconnected With Ground No.Ii. Hence, They Are Taken Up Together For Disposal.

…obligation on assessee-company to deduct tax at source under section 194H on discount so allowed - Held, yes [In favour of assessee] 3.7. Similarly in yet another decision of Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Qatar Airways reported in 332 ITR 253 (Bom), the same decision was rendered. The facts of that case and decision rendered thereon are reproduced herein for the sake of convenience :- 1. The question of law as raised in this appeal is as under: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the difference in amount between commercial price and published price i…

IDEA CELLULAR LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 3(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

…bligation on assessee-company to deduct tax at source under section 194H on discount so allowed - Held, yes [In favour of assessee] 2.6.1. Similarly in yet another decision of Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Qatar Airways reported in 332 ITR 253 (Bom), M/s. Vodafone Idea Ltd., (Formerly known as Idea Cellular Ltd.,) the same decision was rendered. The facts of that case and decision rendered thereon are reproduced herein for the sake of convenience :- 1. The question of law as raised in this appeal is as under: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the…

DCIT 3(2), MUMBAI vs. IDEA CELLULAR LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

…bligation on assessee-company to deduct tax at source under section 194H on discount so allowed - Held, yes [In favour of assessee] 2.6.1. Similarly in yet another decision of Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Qatar Airways reported in 332 ITR 253 (Bom), M/s. Vodafone Idea Ltd., (Formerly known as Idea Cellular Ltd.,) the same decision was rendered. The facts of that case and decision rendered thereon are reproduced herein for the sake of convenience :- 1. The question of law as raised in this appeal is as under: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the…

ASIAN PAINTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT LTU, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Asian Paints Ltd., V. Addl. Cit – Ltu – 2 6A, Shantinagar 29Th Floor, World Trade Centre Santacruz (East) Cuffe Parade, Mumbai - 400005 Mumbai – 400055 Pan: Aaaca3622K (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Cit – Ltu – 2 V. M/S. Asian Paints Ltd., Centre-1, 29Th Floor 6A, Shantinagar World Trade Centre Santacruz (East) Cuffe Parade, Mumbai - 400005 Mumbai – 400055 Pan: Aaaca3622K (Appellant) (Respondent)

…GT vs. Reliance Communication Infrastructure Ltd. (ITA No. 702 of 12017-Bombay High Court 3. DOT vs. BCH Electric Ltd. (ITA 1336/Kol/2012) 4. ACIT vs. Raymond Ltd. ITA 5889/M/10 5. CIT vs. Piramal Healthcare Ltd. 230 Taxman 505 (Bom) 6. CIT vs. Qatar Airways 332 ITR 253 (Bom) 7. Radhasaomi Satsang vs. CIT (193 ITR 321 (SC) 47. Without prejudice, the learned Counsel submitted, since no amount has been paid or credited to the distributors, question of deduction of tax at source does not arise. Further, he submitted, whatever amount the assessee has paid to 28 ITA NO. 655 & 749/MUM/2017 (A.Y: 2011-12) M/s. Asian Pa…

ASST CIT (LTU) 2, MUMBAI vs. ASIAN PAINTS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as directed above

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Asst. Commissioner Income Asian Paints Ltd. Tax, (Large Taxpayer Unit)-2, 6A Shanti Nagar, Cuffe Parade,, 29 Th Floor, Santacruz (East), World Trade Centre, Cuffee Mumbai-400 055 Vs. Parade, Mumbai-400 005 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaaca3622K Asian Paints Ltd. Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of 6A Shanti Nagar, Income Tax-Ltu Cuffe Parade,, 29 Th Floor, Santacruz (East), Mumbai-400 055 World Trade Centre, Cuffee Parade, Mumbai-400 005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Milind Chavan, Sr Dr Respondent By : Shri Madhur Agrawal, Advocate Date Of Hearing: 09.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02 .2022 O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, Am: 01. These Are Cross Appeals Filed By Asian Paints Ltd [Appellant/Assessee] & The Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax – Large Taxpayers Unit

…vs. Reliance Communication Infrastructure Ltd. (ITA No. 702 of 12017-Bombay High Court 3. DOT vs. BCH Electric Ltd. (ITA 1336/Kol/2012) 4. ACIT vs. Raymond Ltd. ITA 5889/M/10 5. CIT vs. Piramal Healthcare Ltd. 230 Taxman 505 (Bom) 6. CIT vs. Qatar Airways 332 ITR 253 (Bom) 7. Radhasaomi Satsang vs. CIT (193 ITR 321 (SC) 47. Without prejudice, the learned Counsel submitted, since no amount has been paid or credited to the distributors, question of deduction of tax at source does not arise. Further, he submitted, whatever amount the assessee has paid to SOTC has been subjected to TDS provisions. Therefore, th…

ACIT CIRCLE- 16 (1), MUMBAI vs. M/S TATA SKY LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, revenue’s appeals are dismissed and assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

…dered the same. Some of them can be gainfully referred hereunder 1) in the case of CIT vs. Piramal Healthcare Ltd. [2015] 55 taxmann.com 534 (Bom) has referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court itself in the case of CIT vs. Qutar Airways [2011] 332 ITR 253 (Bom) and has held as under 8. The submission on behalf of the Revenue that this a mere device to evade the obligation to deduct tax at source is a mere conjecture as it is not supported by any evidence and/or facts on record. Once it is accepted / admitted position that there is sale of drugs by the respondent to M/s.Zivon and no amount is paid…

TATA SKY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RANGE 16 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, revenue’s appeals are dismissed and assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

…dered the same. Some of them can be gainfully referred hereunder 1) in the case of CIT vs. Piramal Healthcare Ltd. [2015] 55 taxmann.com 534 (Bom) has referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court itself in the case of CIT vs. Qutar Airways [2011] 332 ITR 253 (Bom) and has held as under 8. The submission on behalf of the Revenue that this a mere device to evade the obligation to deduct tax at source is a mere conjecture as it is not supported by any evidence and/or facts on record. Once it is accepted / admitted position that there is sale of drugs by the respondent to M/s.Zivon and no amount is paid…

ASIAN PAINTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT LTU, MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar () & Shri Saktijit Dey ()

…Xommunication Infrastructure Ltd (ITA no.702 od 12017 – Bombay High Court 19 Asian Paints Ltd 3. DCIT vs BCH Electric Ltd (ITA 1336/Kol/2012) 4. ACIT vs Raymond Ltd ITA 5889/M/10 5. CIT vs Piramal Healthcare Ltd 230 Taxman 505 (Bom) 6. CIT vas Qatar Airways 332 ITR 253 (Bom) 7. Radhasaomi Satsang vs CIT (193 ITR 321 (SC) 47. Without prejudice, the learned Counsel submitted, since no amount has been paid or credited to the distributors, question of deduction of tax at source does not arise. Further, he submitted, whatever amount the assessee has paid to SOTC has been subjected to TDS provisions. Therefore, there…

DCIT (TDS)-2(3), MUMBAI vs. WOCKHARDT LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, the grounds (c) raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6803/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit (Tds)-2(3), M/S Wockhardt Ltd. 6Th Floor, Wockhardt Smt. K. G. Mittal बिधम/ Ayurvedic Hospital Bldg. Tower, G Block, Bandra Vs. Room No. 718, 7Th Floor, Kurla Complex, Bandra, Charni Road (W), Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 002 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaacw2472M (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & C.O. No. 51/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S Wockhardt Ltd. Dcit (Tds)-2(3), 6Th Floor, Wockhardt Smt. K. G. Mittal बिधम/ Tower, G Block, Bandra Ayurvedic Hospital Bldg. Vs. Room No. 718, 7Th Floor, Kurla Complex, Bandra, Charni Road (W), Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 002 (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Anand Mohan, Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri Kirit Kamdar, Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 02.11.2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 11.12.2020 Date Of Pronouncement

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6803/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) DCIT (TDS)-2(3), M/s Wockhardt Ltd. 6th floor, Wockhardt Smt. K. G. Mittal बिधम/ Ayurvedic Hospital Bldg. Tower, G Block, Bandra Vs. Room No. 718, 7th floor, Kurla Complex, Bandra, Charni Road (W), Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 002 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ PAN No. AAACW2472M (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & C.O. No. 51/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/s Wockhardt Ltd. DCIT (TDS)-2(3), 6th floor…

DCIT 7(3), MUMBAI vs. TATA SKY LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the Asst

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri G Manjunatha, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3214/Mum/2014 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2009-10) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3215/Mum/2014 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2010-11) Tata Sky Limited The Asst. Commissioner Of Unit 301, To 305, 3 Rd Floor, Income Tax, Circle 7(3), Windsor, Off C.S.T. Road, [Now Assistant Vs. Kalina, Santacruz (East), Commissioner Of Income – Mumbai-400 098 Tax, Range 16(1)] Mumbai .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aagcs9294M Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3971/Mum/2014 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2009-10) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3972/Mum/2014 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2010-11) The Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Tata Sky Ltd. Income Tax 7(3) 34D Floor, C-1, Wadia 6Th Room No. 615, Floor, International Centre, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, (Bombay Dyeing), Mumbai-400 020 Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli, Mumbi-400 025 (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri J D Mistry, Senior Advocate प्रत्यथी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri R Manjunatha Swamy, Cit-Dr ुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 29-07-2020 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 10-09-2020

…Sky Limited; AYs 09-10 & 10-11 Act. In this regard, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee SH JD Mistry stated that the Tribunal has relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Piramal Healthcare Ltd (230 Taxman 505), Qatar Airways Ltd (332 ITR 253) and Intervet India (P.) Ltd (49 taxmann.com 14/3M ITR 238). Ld. Counsel filed a chart before us in regard to the issues decided by the Tribunal, which reads as under: - Summary chart for AY 2009-10 Ground Grounds of appeal Reference in the order of the Mumbai Tribunal No. in the Appellant’s own case under section 201 of the Act. Disallowance of…

DCIT 7(3), MUMBAI vs. TATA SKY LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the Asst

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri G Manjunatha, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3214/Mum/2014 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2009-10) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3215/Mum/2014 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2010-11) Tata Sky Limited The Asst. Commissioner Of Unit 301, To 305, 3 Rd Floor, Income Tax, Circle 7(3), Windsor, Off C.S.T. Road, [Now Assistant Vs. Kalina, Santacruz (East), Commissioner Of Income – Mumbai-400 098 Tax, Range 16(1)] Mumbai .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aagcs9294M Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3971/Mum/2014 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2009-10) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3972/Mum/2014 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2010-11) The Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Tata Sky Ltd. Income Tax 7(3) 34D Floor, C-1, Wadia 6Th Room No. 615, Floor, International Centre, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, (Bombay Dyeing), Mumbai-400 020 Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli, Mumbi-400 025 (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri J D Mistry, Senior Advocate प्रत्यथी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri R Manjunatha Swamy, Cit-Dr ुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 29-07-2020 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 10-09-2020

…Sky Limited; AYs 09-10 & 10-11 Act. In this regard, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee SH JD Mistry stated that the Tribunal has relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Piramal Healthcare Ltd (230 Taxman 505), Qatar Airways Ltd (332 ITR 253) and Intervet India (P.) Ltd (49 taxmann.com 14/3M ITR 238). Ld. Counsel filed a chart before us in regard to the issues decided by the Tribunal, which reads as under: - Summary chart for AY 2009-10 Ground Grounds of appeal Reference in the order of the Mumbai Tribunal No. in the Appellant’s own case under section 201 of the Act. Disallowance of…

TATA SKY LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 7(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the Asst

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri G Manjunatha, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3214/Mum/2014 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2009-10) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3215/Mum/2014 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2010-11) Tata Sky Limited The Asst. Commissioner Of Unit 301, To 305, 3 Rd Floor, Income Tax, Circle 7(3), Windsor, Off C.S.T. Road, [Now Assistant Vs. Kalina, Santacruz (East), Commissioner Of Income – Mumbai-400 098 Tax, Range 16(1)] Mumbai .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aagcs9294M Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3971/Mum/2014 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2009-10) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3972/Mum/2014 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2010-11) The Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Tata Sky Ltd. Income Tax 7(3) 34D Floor, C-1, Wadia 6Th Room No. 615, Floor, International Centre, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, (Bombay Dyeing), Mumbai-400 020 Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli, Mumbi-400 025 (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri J D Mistry, Senior Advocate प्रत्यथी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri R Manjunatha Swamy, Cit-Dr ुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 29-07-2020 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 10-09-2020

…Sky Limited; AYs 09-10 & 10-11 Act. In this regard, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee SH JD Mistry stated that the Tribunal has relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Piramal Healthcare Ltd (230 Taxman 505), Qatar Airways Ltd (332 ITR 253) and Intervet India (P.) Ltd (49 taxmann.com 14/3M ITR 238). Ld. Counsel filed a chart before us in regard to the issues decided by the Tribunal, which reads as under: - Summary chart for AY 2009-10 Ground Grounds of appeal Reference in the order of the Mumbai Tribunal No. in the Appellant’s own case under section 201 of the Act. Disallowance of…

TATA SKY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 7(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the Asst

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri G Manjunatha, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3214/Mum/2014 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2009-10) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3215/Mum/2014 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2010-11) Tata Sky Limited The Asst. Commissioner Of Unit 301, To 305, 3 Rd Floor, Income Tax, Circle 7(3), Windsor, Off C.S.T. Road, [Now Assistant Vs. Kalina, Santacruz (East), Commissioner Of Income – Mumbai-400 098 Tax, Range 16(1)] Mumbai .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aagcs9294M Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3971/Mum/2014 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2009-10) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3972/Mum/2014 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2010-11) The Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Tata Sky Ltd. Income Tax 7(3) 34D Floor, C-1, Wadia 6Th Room No. 615, Floor, International Centre, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, (Bombay Dyeing), Mumbai-400 020 Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli, Mumbi-400 025 (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri J D Mistry, Senior Advocate प्रत्यथी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri R Manjunatha Swamy, Cit-Dr ुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 29-07-2020 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 10-09-2020

…Sky Limited; AYs 09-10 & 10-11 Act. In this regard, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee SH JD Mistry stated that the Tribunal has relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Piramal Healthcare Ltd (230 Taxman 505), Qatar Airways Ltd (332 ITR 253) and Intervet India (P.) Ltd (49 taxmann.com 14/3M ITR 238). Ld. Counsel filed a chart before us in regard to the issues decided by the Tribunal, which reads as under: - Summary chart for AY 2009-10 Ground Grounds of appeal Reference in the order of the Mumbai Tribunal No. in the Appellant’s own case under section 201 of the Act. Disallowance of…

IDEA CELLULAR LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO (TDS) 1(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarita No. 3785/Mum/2016 For (Assessment Year 2012-13) M/S. Vodafone Idea Ltd. Ito (Tds)-1(2)(4), (Formerly Known As Idea 803, K.G. Mittal Ayurvedic Cellular Ltd.), Skyline Icon, Vs. Hospital Building, 1St Floor, 86/92 Andheri Kurla Charni Road (W), Road, Marol Naka, Andheri Mumbai-400002. (E), Mumbai-400059. Pan: Aaacb2100P Appellant Respondent

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 3785/Mum/2016 for (Assessment Year 2012-13) M/s. Vodafone Idea Ltd. ITO (TDS)-1(2)(4), (Formerly known as Idea 803, K.G. Mittal Ayurvedic Cellular Ltd.), Skyline Icon, Vs. Hospital Building, 1st Floor, 86/92 Andheri Kurla Charni Road (W), Road, Marol Naka, Andheri Mumbai-400002. (E), Mumbai-400059. PAN: AAACB2100P Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Shri Ronak Doshi with Shri C.D. Joshi (AR) Respondent by : Shri S. Padmaja CIT-DR with Shri V.K. Agarwal ( Sr DR) Date…