What is CIT v. S. K. Tekriwal authority for?

Where there is a case of 'less TDS' rather than 'no TDS', disallowance by the Assessing Officer is bad in law.

How many judgments cite CIT v. S. K. Tekriwal?

32 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. S. K. Tekriwal (48 SOT 515), spanning 2015 to 2026.

CIT v. S. K. Tekriwal (48 SOT 515)

ASST CIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3882/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) & SHRI JAGADISH (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. No. 3680/Mum/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11 State Bank of India Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Financial Reporting & Taxation Income-tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Dept. Mumbai 3rd Floor, Corporate Centre Madam Cama Road Nariman Point Mumbai - 400021 [PAN: AAACS8577K] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No. 3882/Mum/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. State Bank of India of Income-tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Financial Reporting & Taxation Mumbai Dept. 3rd Floor, Corpor…

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3680/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) & SHRI JAGADISH (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. No. 3680/Mum/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11 State Bank of India Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Financial Reporting & Taxation Income-tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Dept. Mumbai 3rd Floor, Corporate Centre Madam Cama Road Nariman Point Mumbai - 400021 [PAN: AAACS8577K] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No. 3882/Mum/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. State Bank of India of Income-tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Financial Reporting & Taxation Mumbai Dept. 3rd Floor, Corpor…

M.V.A.SEETHARAMA RAJU,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 2, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 795/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.795/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Mr. M.V.A. Seetharama Raju, Tax, Flat No.32, Rishikesh Apartments, Non-Corporate Circle-2, 38, G.N.Chetty Road, T.Nagar, Chennai. Chennai-600 017. Pan: Agopr 1931M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. I.P.Roopa, JCIT

Section 139Section 192Section 201Section 40

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी. दुगा" राव, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी जी. मंजुनाथ, लेखा सद"य के सम% BEFORE SHRI V.DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.795/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Mr. M.V.A. Seetharama Raju, Tax, Flat No.32, Rishikesh Apartments, Non-Corporate Circle-2, 38, G.N.Chetty Road, T.Nagar, Chennai. Chennai-600 017. PAN: AGOPR 1931M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Mr. R. Devaraj, Advocate अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant by : Dr…

ACIT, CIRCLE- 16(1), NEW DELHI vs. TIMEX GROUP INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee and the Revenue are allowed in part and for statistical purpose

ITA 2014/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Sh. Tushar Jarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anshu Shukla Pundir, CIT/DR &

Section 201Section 92

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘I-2’ NEW DLEHI BEFORE SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2008-09 Timex Group India Ltd., vs. ACIT, Circle 16(1), 106-107, Ambadeep, New Delhi. 14 Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi. Assessment Year: 2008-09 ACIT, Circle 16(1), vs. Timex Group India Ltd., New Delhi. 14, Kasturba Gandhi Marg,New Delhi. PAN : AAACT0773C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sh. Tushar Jarwal, Advocate Revenue by : Ms. Anshu Shukla Pundir, CIT/DR & Sh. M. Baranwal, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 04.10.2021 Date of order :…

TIMEX GROUP INDIA LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 16(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee and the Revenue are allowed in part and for statistical purpose

ITA 1502/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Sh. Tushar Jarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anshu Shukla Pundir, CIT/DR &

Section 201Section 92

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘I-2’ NEW DLEHI BEFORE SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2008-09 Timex Group India Ltd., vs. ACIT, Circle 16(1), 106-107, Ambadeep, New Delhi. 14 Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi. Assessment Year: 2008-09 ACIT, Circle 16(1), vs. Timex Group India Ltd., New Delhi. 14, Kasturba Gandhi Marg,New Delhi. PAN : AAACT0773C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sh. Tushar Jarwal, Advocate Revenue by : Ms. Anshu Shukla Pundir, CIT/DR & Sh. M. Baranwal, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 04.10.2021 Date of order :…

IVORYBRICK HOMES LLP,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 1846/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Feb 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17

For Respondent: Shri C Sandeep, C.A

Section 194CSection 194JSection 40

…hort deduction of TDS, due to difference of opinion, as to the taxability of any income in the nature of payments falling under TDS provisions. He placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble ITAT Kolkata bench in case of DCIT vs S.K.Tekriwal reported in (2011) 15 Taxmann.com 289. It was submitted that Hon’ble ITAT Kolkata held that no disallowance can be made by invoking section 40(a)(ia) of the Act if there is any short fall in deduction of tax due to difference of opinion as to the taxability of any expenditure or nature of payment falling under various TDS provisions. It was submitted that the decision of Hon’b…

ACIT 16(1), MUMBAI vs. UTV ENTERTAINMENT TELEVISION LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6784/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleacit – 16(1) V. M/S. Utv Entertainment Television Ltd., 1St Floor, Building No. 14 Room No. 439, Aayakar Bhavan Solitaire Corporate Park M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Guru Hargovind Marg, Chakala Andheri(E), Mumbai – 400 053 Pan: Aaccv4782D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajit Kumar Jain Department By : M. Samatha

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar JainFor Respondent: M. Samatha

Section 194CSection 194HSection 194JSection 40Section 44ASection 9(1)(vi)

…her the Ld. CIT(A) has held that it is not the case of ‘no TDS’ but the case of ‘less TDS’ therefore, the disallowance made by the AO is bad in law. The Ld. CIT(A) has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court rendered in CIT vs S. K. Tekriwal 48 SOT 515 and the decisions of coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the cases of CIT vs M/s Star Den Media Services pvt .Ltd( ITA No 1413/MUM/2014) and Chandabhoy & Jassobhoy vs DCIT 49 SOT 448 (Mumbai ITAT). As pointed out by the Ld. counsel for the assessee this issue is covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court delivered in CIT vs. M/s UTV…

SAPIENS TECHNOLOGIES (1982) INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT- 6(3)(1),, MUMBAI

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 171/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ajit JainFor Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar

Section 194CSection 194JSection 40

…her the Ld. CIT(A) has held that it is not the case of ‘no TDS’ but the case of ‘less TDS’ therefore, the disallowance made by the AO is bad in law. The Ld. CIT(A) has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court rendered in CIT vs S. K. Tekriwal 48 SOT 515 and the decisions of coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the cases of CIT vs M/s Star Den Media Services pvt .Ltd( ITA No 1413/MUM/2014) and Chandabhoy & Jassobhoy vs DCIT 49 SOT 448 (Mumbai ITAT). As pointed out by the Ld. counsel for the assessee this issue is covered (A.Ys. 2012-13 & 2013-14) M/s. Sapiens Technologies (1982) India Pvt. Ltd., by…

SAPIENS TECHNOLOGIES(1982) INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 6(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 170/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ajit JainFor Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar

Section 194CSection 194JSection 40

…her the Ld. CIT(A) has held that it is not the case of ‘no TDS’ but the case of ‘less TDS’ therefore, the disallowance made by the AO is bad in law. The Ld. CIT(A) has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court rendered in CIT vs S. K. Tekriwal 48 SOT 515 and the decisions of coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the cases of CIT vs M/s Star Den Media Services pvt .Ltd( ITA No 1413/MUM/2014) and Chandabhoy & Jassobhoy vs DCIT 49 SOT 448 (Mumbai ITAT). As pointed out by the Ld. counsel for the assessee this issue is covered (A.Ys. 2012-13 & 2013-14) M/s. Sapiens Technologies (1982) India Pvt. Ltd., by…

ACIT-16(1), MUMBAI vs. TV 18 HOME SHOPPING NETWORK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4726/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Amit Pratap Singh

Section 194CSection 194JSection 40

…her the Ld. CIT(A) has held that it is not the case of ‘no TDS’ but the case of ‘less TDS’ therefore, the disallowance made by the AO is bad in law. The Ld. CIT(A) has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court rendered in CIT vs S. K. Tekriwal 48 SOT 515 and the decisions of coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the cases of CIT vs M/s Star Den Media Services pvt .Ltd( ITA No 1413/MUM/2014) and Chandabhoy & Jassobhoy vs DCIT 49 SOT 448 (Mumbai ITAT). As pointed out by the Ld. counsel for the assessee this issue is covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court delivered in CIT vs. M/s UTV…

ACIT-16(1), MUMBAI vs. TV18 HOME SHOPPING NETWORK LTD.,, MUMBAI

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4725/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Amit Pratap Singh

Section 194CSection 194JSection 40

…her the Ld. CIT(A) has held that it is not the case of ‘no TDS’ but the case of ‘less TDS’ therefore, the disallowance made by the AO is bad in law. The Ld. CIT(A) has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court rendered in CIT vs S. K. Tekriwal 48 SOT 515 and the decisions of coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the cases of CIT vs M/s Star Den Media Services pvt .Ltd( ITA No 1413/MUM/2014) and Chandabhoy & Jassobhoy vs DCIT 49 SOT 448 (Mumbai ITAT). As pointed out by the Ld. counsel for the assessee this issue is covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court delivered in CIT vs. M/s UTV…

ACIT 16(1), MUMBAI vs. TV. VISION LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal stands dismissed

ITA 6166/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6166/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2014-15) Acit-16(1) M/S. T.V. Vision Ltd. बनाम/ 4Th Floor, Adhiraj Chambers Room No.439 Aaykar Bhavan Oberoi Complex, New Link Road, Vs. M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400 020. Andheri West, Mumbai-400 053. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacct-7276-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Nikunj Gada – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy-Ld. CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 194JSection 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…her the Ld. CIT(A) has held that it is not the case of „no TDS‟ but the case of „less TDS‟ therefore, the disallowance made by the AO is bad in law. The Ld. CIT(A) has relied on the decision of the Hon‟ble Calcutta High Court rendered in CIT vs S. K. Tekriwal 48 SOT 515 and the decisions of coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the cases of CIT vs M/s Star Den Media Services pvt .Ltd( ITA No 1413/MUM/2014) and Chandabhoy & Jassobhoy vs DCIT 49 SOT 448 (Mumbai ITAT). As pointed out by the Ld. counsel for the assessee this issue is covered by the judgment of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court delivered in CIT vs. M/s UTV…

INFRASTRUCTURE LEASING & FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 10(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee as well as revenue are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3786/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Bhalla &For Respondent: Shri Awangshi Gimson

Section 10Section 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 234DSection 37(1)

…ere is a short deduction of tax. 63. Ld. DR vehemently supported the orders of the Assessing Officer. 64. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the orders of the authorities below. The Calcutta Bench of the Tribunal in the case of S.K. Tekriwal’s [48 SOT 515] held as under: - “5. From the order of CIT(A), we find that CIT(A) has gone into the controversy of assessee falling under the head ‘sub contractor’ or falling under the head ‘rent’, the expenses made under the head ‘machinery hire charges’. It is also a fact that the assessee has deducted TDS u/s. 194C(2) of the Act and covered itself under the…

INFRASTRUCTURE LEASING & FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 10(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee as well as revenue are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3785/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Bhalla &For Respondent: Shri Awangshi Gimson

Section 10Section 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 234DSection 37(1)

…ere is a short deduction of tax. 63. Ld. DR vehemently supported the orders of the Assessing Officer. 64. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the orders of the authorities below. The Calcutta Bench of the Tribunal in the case of S.K. Tekriwal’s [48 SOT 515] held as under: - “5. From the order of CIT(A), we find that CIT(A) has gone into the controversy of assessee falling under the head ‘sub contractor’ or falling under the head ‘rent’, the expenses made under the head ‘machinery hire charges’. It is also a fact that the assessee has deducted TDS u/s. 194C(2) of the Act and covered itself under the…

DCIT 10(1), MUMBAI vs. INFRASTRUCTURE LEASING & FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee as well as revenue are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3700/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Bhalla &For Respondent: Shri Awangshi Gimson

Section 10Section 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 234DSection 37(1)

…ere is a short deduction of tax. 63. Ld. DR vehemently supported the orders of the Assessing Officer. 64. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the orders of the authorities below. The Calcutta Bench of the Tribunal in the case of S.K. Tekriwal’s [48 SOT 515] held as under: - “5. From the order of CIT(A), we find that CIT(A) has gone into the controversy of assessee falling under the head ‘sub contractor’ or falling under the head ‘rent’, the expenses made under the head ‘machinery hire charges’. It is also a fact that the assessee has deducted TDS u/s. 194C(2) of the Act and covered itself under the…

DCIT 10(1), MUMBAI vs. INFRASTRUCTURE LEASING & FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee as well as revenue are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3699/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Bhalla &For Respondent: Shri Awangshi Gimson

Section 10Section 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 234DSection 37(1)

…ere is a short deduction of tax. 63. Ld. DR vehemently supported the orders of the Assessing Officer. 64. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the orders of the authorities below. The Calcutta Bench of the Tribunal in the case of S.K. Tekriwal’s [48 SOT 515] held as under: - “5. From the order of CIT(A), we find that CIT(A) has gone into the controversy of assessee falling under the head ‘sub contractor’ or falling under the head ‘rent’, the expenses made under the head ‘machinery hire charges’. It is also a fact that the assessee has deducted TDS u/s. 194C(2) of the Act and covered itself under the…

MD.GOLAM MORTUJA,NADIA vs. PR.C.I.T.-14, KOLKATA

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 699/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2014-15

Section 119Section 139Section 139(1)Section 194CSection 263Section 40

…s 194C. The AO claimed that the amount was in the nature of “rent” and DTDs at 10% ought to have been deducted u/s 194-I. A proportionate disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) was made on the ground that there was a “failure” to deduct TDS on the payment. The Tribunal (48 SOT 515) upheld the assessee’s plea that s. 40(a)(ia) disallowance could not be made when there was a shortfall in TDDs deduction. On appeal by the department, the Hon'ble High Court, held dismissing the appeal, that section 40(a)(ia) can be invoked only when the two conditions, namely, that tax is deductible at source and such tax has not been deducted i…

ACIT 16(1), MUMBAI vs. T.V. VISION LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 5862/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Soodassistant Commissinoer Of M/S Tv Vision Ltd. Income Tax-16(1), 4Th Floor, Adhirai Chambers, R. No. 439, Aayakar Bhavan, Oberoi Complex, Vs. M.K. Marg, New Link Road, Andheri West, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 053

For Appellant: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.RFor Respondent: Ms. Indra G. Anand, A.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 194JSection 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…licable. Further, it is pertinent to mention that this case is not of “no TDS” but it is a case of “less TDS” u/s 194C, hence no such disallowance can be made/s 40(a)(ia) as has been held by Hon‟ble Calcutta High Court in the case of the CIT vs S. K. Tekriwal 48 SOT 515. Recently in the case of the DCIT vs Zee Entertainment Ltd. ITA No. 3931 to 3935/MUM/2013, it has been held that such payment to cable operators should be subject to TDS @2% u/s 194C. Further appellant gets support from the jurisdictional ITAT, decision in the case of a CIT vs M/s Star Den Media Services pvt .Ltd( ITA No 1413/MUM/2014) and Chandab…

ACIT-16(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S.UBJ BROADCASTING PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1205/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1205/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) िनधा"रणवष" Acit-16(1) M/S. Ubj Broadcasting Private Ltd. बनाम नाम/ Room No.439, 4Th Floor नाम नाम 6Th Floor, Adhikari Chambers Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Marg Oberoi Complex, New Link Road Vs. Churchgate,Mumbai-400 020 Andheri (W), Mumbai-400 053. ःथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcu-1341-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (ू"यथ" / Respondent) :

For Respondent: Shri Nikunj Gada, Ld. AR

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 194JSection 40Section 9(1)

…essee, as in alternative plea, submitted that short deduction of tax at source do not attract the rigors of Section 40(a)(ia) in view of certain judicial pronouncements rendered by the Tribunal as well as by Hon’ble Kolkata High Court in DCIT Vs. S.K.Tekriwal 48 SOT 515. The Ld. first appellate authority, convinced with alternative plea, concurred with the stand of assessee and concluded the matter in assessee’s favor in the following manner: - 6.4 It is further seen that Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT in the case of Chandabhoy & Jassobhoy vs DCIT 49 SOT 448 has held that it is not the case that assessee has not deducted an…

DCIT, ROHTAK vs. M/S. MAHANADI COAL TRANSPORT, ROHTAK

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4708/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shrik. Narasimha Chary & Shri O. P. Meena

Section 143Section 194CSection 40

…DCIT Rohtak Circle v. M/s. Mahanadi Coal Transport /I.T.A. No. 4708/Del/2015/A.Y.11-12 Page 1 of 4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “D”NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRIK. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O. P. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 4708/Del/2015: Assessment Year: 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner of Income- Vs. M/s. Mahanadi Transport Tax, Circle – Rohtak House No. 199, Sector No.14, Rohtak PAN:AAQFM 9726 M Appellant Respondent Assessee by Shri A.K. Jain, Advocate Revenue by Smt. Nain Soin Kapil, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing 07.02.2019 Date of pronouncement 07.02.2019 ORDER PER O. P. MEENA, AM…

CIT v. S. K. Tekriwal

What is CIT v. S. K. Tekriwal authority for?

Also referred to as

Judgments citing CIT v. S. K. Tekriwal

ASST CIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

M.V.A.SEETHARAMA RAJU,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 2, CHENNAI

ACIT, CIRCLE- 16(1), NEW DELHI vs. TIMEX GROUP INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

TIMEX GROUP INDIA LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 16(1), NEW DELHI

IVORYBRICK HOMES LLP,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(2)(1), BANGALORE

ACIT 16(1), MUMBAI vs. UTV ENTERTAINMENT TELEVISION LTD, MUMBAI

SAPIENS TECHNOLOGIES (1982) INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT- 6(3)(1),, MUMBAI

SAPIENS TECHNOLOGIES(1982) INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 6(3)(1), MUMBAI

ACIT-16(1), MUMBAI vs. TV 18 HOME SHOPPING NETWORK LIMITED, MUMBAI

ACIT-16(1), MUMBAI vs. TV18 HOME SHOPPING NETWORK LTD.,, MUMBAI

ACIT 16(1), MUMBAI vs. TV. VISION LTD, MUMBAI

INFRASTRUCTURE LEASING & FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 10(1), MUMBAI

INFRASTRUCTURE LEASING & FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 10(1), MUMBAI

DCIT 10(1), MUMBAI vs. INFRASTRUCTURE LEASING & FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD, MUMBAI

DCIT 10(1), MUMBAI vs. INFRASTRUCTURE LEASING & FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD, MUMBAI

MD.GOLAM MORTUJA,NADIA vs. PR.C.I.T.-14, KOLKATA

ACIT 16(1), MUMBAI vs. T.V. VISION LTD, MUMBAI

ACIT-16(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S.UBJ BROADCASTING PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

DCIT, ROHTAK vs. M/S. MAHANADI COAL TRANSPORT, ROHTAK