Collector. In Baldeep Singh v. UOI

DCIT (TDS)(OSD)-2(3), MUMBAI vs. UBER INDIA SYSTEMS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

…very well founded and directly supports the view that a person being a mere remitter of money cannot be held to be a person responsible for making payment:- a) Decision of Hon‟ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Baldeep Singh vs. UOI reported in 199 ITR 628 (P&H). b) Decision of Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Cargo Linkers reported in 179 Taxman 151 (Del.). c) Decision of Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Hardarshan Singh reported in 216 Taxman 283 (Del.). d) Decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. Movies Stunt Artist reported in 6 SOT 20…

UBER INDIA SYSTEMS PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT (TDS)-2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhuber India Systems Vs. The Dcit(Tds)-2(3) Private Limited Smt. K.G. Mittal Unit 41/46, Floor 3 Ayurvedic Hospital Paragon, Phoenix Market Building, City, Lbs Marg, Charni Road (West) Kurla (W), Mumbai - 400002 Mumbai – 400070 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcu6223H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : J.D. Mistry & Hiten Chande Respondent By : Achal Sharma

…4(iii), it is instead only a "remitter" of money collected on behalf of Uber B.V. 4 The Judgment in the case of a) The Judgment in the case of Baldeep Singh has clearly Baldeep Singh vs UOI held that the person who is liable to pay interest is the reported in 199 ITR 628 (P&H) person responsible for deducting tax at source and not the has held that the tax is to be person remitting the money. Therefore, applying the same deducted at the earliest point rationale, since UISPL is merely the "'remitter," and not the of time since in this case, person responsible for making payment, it cannot be held UISPL receives th…

UBER INDIA SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. JT.CIT (TDS)(OSD)-2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

…rovisions of section 204(iii), it is instead only a "remitter" of money collected on behalf of Uber B.V. The Judgment in the case of a) The Judgment in the case of Baldeep 4 Baldeep Singh vs UOI Singh has clearly held that the person who is liable reported in 199 ITR 628 to pay interest is the person responsible for (P&H) has held that the tax is deducting tax at source and not the person remitting to be deducted at the earliest the money. Therefore, applying the same rationale, point of time since in this since UISPL is merely the "'remitter," and not the case, UISPL receives the person responsible for making pa…