Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIT

30 SOT 374Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2009#462 most cited

What is Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIT authority for?

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) cannot expand the scope of an assessment or improve the Assessing Officer's case in a manner that usurps the revisional power of the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act.

201

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIT · CIT(A) powers · Section 263 · revisional power · scope of appeal · usurpation of power · Assessing Officer's case · ITAT Special Bench · Section 250 · Commissioner (Appeals)

Also reported as

313 ITR 263122 ITD 216122 TTJ 577117 Taxmann.com 578

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vii)Section 144C(3)Section 139(1)Section 1961Section 250Section 143(2)Section 44AB

Issues it is cited on

section 2(7)section 120(4)(b)section 120(1)section 2(7a)section 163section 115jafees for included servicessection 120section 192tax treatysection 9(1)(vii)section 156

Judgments citing Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIT

State Bank of India-Corporate Centre, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals). NFAC, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 2609/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi a/w Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Shri Paresh Deshpande
Section 10(5)Section 192Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250

…ed u/s. 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act is barred by limitation, as it was not passed within the reasonable time from the initiation of the proceedings by relying on the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Mahindra &Mahindra Ltd. vs. CIT (30 SOT 374), which was subsequently affirmed by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of DIT(IT) vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.[2014] 365 ITR 560 (Bom). 4. The brief facts of the case are that the A.O. observed that the assessee bank was allowing tax exemption on leave fare concession (‘LFC’ for short)/ leave travel concession (‘LTC’ for shor…

ITO, Ward-3(3)(4), Surat vs. M/S. Satyam Enterprise, Surat

In the result, this part of issue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 169/SRT/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) I.T.O., M/S Satyam Enterprise, Ward- 3(3)(4), 182-Thakordwar Society, Nr. Vs. Surat. Spinning Mill, Varachha Road, Surat. Pan No. Abvfs 5076 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 201Section 254(1)Section 40

…Proviso to Section 201 of the Act. The assessee also relied upon decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Private Limited Vs. 4 ITO Vs M/s Satyam Enterprise CIT (2007) 293 ITR 226 (SC) and Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Vs DCIT (2009) 30 SOT 374 (Mum) which was subsequently followed by the various High Courts. The assessee submitted that they paid contract amount to 11 parties aggregating of Rs. 3.28 crores and TDS @ 1% under Section 194C ought to have deducted by assessee, however, the same was not deducted. After going through the list of 11 parties, the assessee furnished the details o…

Taj Tv Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (International Taxation)-4(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 821/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Taj Tv Limited Dcit (International C/O. Suresh Surana & Taxation)-4(1)(2) Associates Llp Air India Building, 8Th Floor, Bakhtawar, Vs. Nariman Point, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 Mumbai-400 021 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabct6542J Reference Of Orders / Directions In Appeal Sr Orders & Directions Passed By Date No 1 Draft Assessment Order U/S The Deputy 27/12/2019 144C Of The Act Commissioner Of Income Tax , International Taxation, Circle 4 (1) (2), Mumbai 2 Direction U/S 144C (5) Of The Cit (Drp-2) , 22/03/2021 Act Mumbai - 2 3 Assessment Order U/S 143 93) The Deputy 12/04/2021 R.W.S 144C (13) Of The Act Commissioner Of Income Tax , International Taxation, Circle 4 (1) (2), Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala Sr AdvFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Adv
Section 143Section 144C

…aced reliance on the decision of Bangalore tribunal in case of Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax Versus Flipkart India Private Limited, Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Versus Balaji Trust, Mahindra And Mahindra Ltd Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax 30 SOT 374 (Special Bench) and Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Versus Parkash L shah 115 ITD 167. xii. The learned authorized representative further submitted that the revenue submitted that Taj India constitutes a permanent establishment of the assessee in India and that it had entered into contract on behalf of the appellant as is evident from schedul…

Ambattur Developer (P) Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT International Taxation 1(1), Chennai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 2348/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Jan 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) –Ld. DR
Section 201Section 201(1)Section 201(3)

…does not prescribe the time limit for passing an order u/s 201(1) / 201(1A) of the I.T.Act, then reasonable time limit ought to be read into the provisions. The Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIT reported in [(2010) 122 ITD 216 (Mum.)] had held that order passed u/s 201(1) is akin to an order of assessment and the reasonable time limit for passing an order u/s 201(1) / 201(1A) would be same as the time limit prescribed for initiating and completion of reassessment u/s 147 of the I.T.Act. The Special Bench of the Tribunal was confirmed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in…

Srinivas Rudrappa, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, TDS, Ward-3(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 703/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv C Nulvi, C.A : Smt. Priyadarshini
Section 133ASection 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

…does not prescribe the time limit for passing an order u/s 201(1) / 201(1A) of the I.T.Act, then reasonable time limit ought to be read into the provisions. The Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIT reported in [(2010) 122 ITD 216 (Mum.)] had held that order passed u/s 201(1) is akin to an order of assessment and the reasonable time limit for passing an order u/s 201(1) / 201(1A) would be same as the time limit prescribed for initiating and completion of reassessment u/s 147 of the I.T.Act. The Special Bench of the Tribunal was confirmed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in…

Srinivas Rudrappa, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, TDS, Ward-3(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 702/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv C Nulvi, C.A : Smt. Priyadarshini
Section 133ASection 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

…does not prescribe the time limit for passing an order u/s 201(1) / 201(1A) of the I.T.Act, then reasonable time limit ought to be read into the provisions. The Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIT reported in [(2010) 122 ITD 216 (Mum.)] had held that order passed u/s 201(1) is akin to an order of assessment and the reasonable time limit for passing an order u/s 201(1) / 201(1A) would be same as the time limit prescribed for initiating and completion of reassessment u/s 147 of the I.T.Act. The Special Bench of the Tribunal was confirmed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in…

Tyco Fire and Security India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 270/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.270/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Acit, M/S. Tyco Fire & Security India Private Limited, Vs. D-601, Rmz Centennial, Circle - 7(1)(1), Kundalahalli Main Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 0087 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Rajan Vora, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 27/11.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Rajan Vora, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)

…in it was held that management fee is not subject to tax as per the provisions of India – Singapore DTAA. Further reliance was placed on the following judicial rulings: The Special Bench of the Hon’ble Mumbai Tribunal in the case of  Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd (313 ITR 263) observed that “make available” means to provide something to one, which is capable of use by the other. Such use may be for once only or on a continuous basis. To make available means that such technical information or advice is transmitted to the recipient, which remains at his / its disposal for taking the benefit therefrom by use. Even the us…

M/S Google India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Dy. D.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1512/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K V Aravind, Standing Counsel

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(IT)A Nos.1511 & 1512/Bang/2013 Assessment years : 2007-08 & 2008-09 Google India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy No.3, RMZ Infinity Tower-E, Commissioner of Income 4th Floor, Old Madras Rod, Tax [International Bangalore – 560 016. Taxation], PAN: AACCG 0527D Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate, Shri Anmol Anand & Ms. Priya Tandon, Advocates & Shri Vinay Mangla, CA Respondent by : Shri K V Aravind, Standing Counsel. Date of h…

M/S Google India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Dy. D.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1511/BANG/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K V Aravind, Standing Counsel

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(IT)A Nos.1511 & 1512/Bang/2013 Assessment years : 2007-08 & 2008-09 Google India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy No.3, RMZ Infinity Tower-E, Commissioner of Income 4th Floor, Old Madras Rod, Tax [International Bangalore – 560 016. Taxation], PAN: AACCG 0527D Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate, Shri Anmol Anand & Ms. Priya Tandon, Advocates & Shri Vinay Mangla, CA Respondent by : Shri K V Aravind, Standing Counsel. Date of h…

DCIT Cen Cir 5(1), Mumbai vs. Martand Properties Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the department are dismissed and all the Cross objections filed by the assessee are also dismissed

ITA 465/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar &
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

…not be raised before the Hon’ble Tribunal which is contrary to the position taken by the Assessing Officer. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the decisions in the cases of ACIT Prakash L. Shah [115 ITD 167 (Mum) (SB)], Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIT [313 ITR 263 (Mum) (SB)] and ACIT v. DHL Operations BV [108 TTJ 152 (Mum) (SB)]. C.O. Nos. 182, 183, 184, 188 & 189/Mum/2018 M/s. Reva Properties Ltd., & M/s. Martand Properties Ltd., 2. The so-called revised grounds of appeal are in effect additional ground of appeal and the same cannot be admitted as no prayer has been made or no reasoning has been cited as…

DCIT Cen Cir 5(1), Mumbai vs. Martand Properties Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the department are dismissed and all the Cross objections filed by the assessee are also dismissed

ITA 464/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar &
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

…not be raised before the Hon’ble Tribunal which is contrary to the position taken by the Assessing Officer. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the decisions in the cases of ACIT Prakash L. Shah [115 ITD 167 (Mum) (SB)], Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIT [313 ITR 263 (Mum) (SB)] and ACIT v. DHL Operations BV [108 TTJ 152 (Mum) (SB)]. C.O. Nos. 182, 183, 184, 188 & 189/Mum/2018 M/s. Reva Properties Ltd., & M/s. Martand Properties Ltd., 2. The so-called revised grounds of appeal are in effect additional ground of appeal and the same cannot be admitted as no prayer has been made or no reasoning has been cited as…

DCIT CC-5(1), Mumbai vs. Reva Properties Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the department are dismissed and all the Cross objections filed by the assessee are also dismissed

ITA 460/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar &
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

…not be raised before the Hon’ble Tribunal which is contrary to the position taken by the Assessing Officer. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the decisions in the cases of ACIT Prakash L. Shah [115 ITD 167 (Mum) (SB)], Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIT [313 ITR 263 (Mum) (SB)] and ACIT v. DHL Operations BV [108 TTJ 152 (Mum) (SB)]. C.O. Nos. 182, 183, 184, 188 & 189/Mum/2018 M/s. Reva Properties Ltd., & M/s. Martand Properties Ltd., 2. The so-called revised grounds of appeal are in effect additional ground of appeal and the same cannot be admitted as no prayer has been made or no reasoning has been cited as…

DCIT CC-5(1), Mumbai vs. Reva Properties Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the department are dismissed and all the Cross objections filed by the assessee are also dismissed

ITA 459/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar &
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

…not be raised before the Hon’ble Tribunal which is contrary to the position taken by the Assessing Officer. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the decisions in the cases of ACIT Prakash L. Shah [115 ITD 167 (Mum) (SB)], Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIT [313 ITR 263 (Mum) (SB)] and ACIT v. DHL Operations BV [108 TTJ 152 (Mum) (SB)]. C.O. Nos. 182, 183, 184, 188 & 189/Mum/2018 M/s. Reva Properties Ltd., & M/s. Martand Properties Ltd., 2. The so-called revised grounds of appeal are in effect additional ground of appeal and the same cannot be admitted as no prayer has been made or no reasoning has been cited as…

DCIT CC-5(1), Mumbai vs. Reva Properties Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the department are dismissed and all the Cross objections filed by the assessee are also dismissed

ITA 458/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar &
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

…not be raised before the Hon’ble Tribunal which is contrary to the position taken by the Assessing Officer. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the decisions in the cases of ACIT Prakash L. Shah [115 ITD 167 (Mum) (SB)], Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIT [313 ITR 263 (Mum) (SB)] and ACIT v. DHL Operations BV [108 TTJ 152 (Mum) (SB)]. C.O. Nos. 182, 183, 184, 188 & 189/Mum/2018 M/s. Reva Properties Ltd., & M/s. Martand Properties Ltd., 2. The so-called revised grounds of appeal are in effect additional ground of appeal and the same cannot be admitted as no prayer has been made or no reasoning has been cited as…

Vishay Intertechnology Asia P Ltd, Singapore vs. ACIT(It), Cir-2, Pune

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 27/PUN/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.27/Pun/2021 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Vishay Intertechnology Asia Pte Ltd., 37A Tampines Street 92, #7-01, Singapore – 528886 .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Aaecv5885F बनधम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri Farookh IraniFor Respondent: Shri Shivraj B Moray &
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 92Section 92C

…9(1)(vii) of the Act in light of (2017) 78 taxmann.com 287(SC) DIT V/s. A.P.Moller Maersk A S, followed in CIT V/s. BNP Paribas Tax Appeal 1193 of 2015 dated 28.03.2018 (Bom) as well as this tribunal’s Special Bench in Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2009) 30 SOT 374 (Mum)(SB) holding that such a reimbursement of expenses neither amounts to nor it partakes the character of income which could be held to have accrued or arisen in India since lacking income element itself. We are of the opinion in this legal and factual backdrop the learned lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in assessing the impugne…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(1), Hyderabad vs. Gkc Projects Limited, Hyderabad

ITA 1032/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P.V.S.S.Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 80Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B” : HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Appellant Respondent ITA No. A.Y. 1029/Hyd/18 2009-10 Dy.Commissioner of M/s.GKC Projects Ltd., Income Tax, Hyderabad 1030/Hyd/18 2010-11 Central Circle-3(1), [PAN: AACCG1395F] Hyderabad 1031/Hyd/18 2011-12 1032/Hyd/18 2012-13 For Assessee : Shri P.V.S.S.Prasad, AR For Revenue : Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 13-01-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 22-02-2022 O R D E R PER S.S.GODARA, J.M. : These four Revenue’s appeals…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(1), Hyderabad vs. Gkc Projects Limited, Hyderabad

ITA 1031/HYD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P.V.S.S.Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 80Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B” : HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Appellant Respondent ITA No. A.Y. 1029/Hyd/18 2009-10 Dy.Commissioner of M/s.GKC Projects Ltd., Income Tax, Hyderabad 1030/Hyd/18 2010-11 Central Circle-3(1), [PAN: AACCG1395F] Hyderabad 1031/Hyd/18 2011-12 1032/Hyd/18 2012-13 For Assessee : Shri P.V.S.S.Prasad, AR For Revenue : Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 13-01-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 22-02-2022 O R D E R PER S.S.GODARA, J.M. : These four Revenue’s appeals…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(1), Hyderabad vs. Gkc Projects Limited, Hyderabad

ITA 1030/HYD/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P.V.S.S.Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 80Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B” : HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Appellant Respondent ITA No. A.Y. 1029/Hyd/18 2009-10 Dy.Commissioner of M/s.GKC Projects Ltd., Income Tax, Hyderabad 1030/Hyd/18 2010-11 Central Circle-3(1), [PAN: AACCG1395F] Hyderabad 1031/Hyd/18 2011-12 1032/Hyd/18 2012-13 For Assessee : Shri P.V.S.S.Prasad, AR For Revenue : Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 13-01-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 22-02-2022 O R D E R PER S.S.GODARA, J.M. : These four Revenue’s appeals…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(1), Hyderabad vs. Gkc Projects Limited, Hyderabad

ITA 1029/HYD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P.V.S.S.Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 80Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B” : HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Appellant Respondent ITA No. A.Y. 1029/Hyd/18 2009-10 Dy.Commissioner of M/s.GKC Projects Ltd., Income Tax, Hyderabad 1030/Hyd/18 2010-11 Central Circle-3(1), [PAN: AACCG1395F] Hyderabad 1031/Hyd/18 2011-12 1032/Hyd/18 2012-13 For Assessee : Shri P.V.S.S.Prasad, AR For Revenue : Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 13-01-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 22-02-2022 O R D E R PER S.S.GODARA, J.M. : These four Revenue’s appeals…

Infinity Retail Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT(TDS)-1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 92/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleinfinity Retail Limited, Cit (Tds) – 1 Unit No. 701 & 702, 7Th Room No. 900, 9Th Floor, बनाम/ Floor, Kaledonia, Sahar K.G. Mittal Building, Road, Andheri (East), Vs. Netaji Subhash Road, Mumbai – 400069. Charni Road, Mumbai-400002. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccv1726H .. (""थ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi. ARFor Respondent: Shri Jasjeet Singh, CIT-DR
Section 194CSection 194ISection 201(1)Section 262Section 263

…so the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Anr. VS. British India Corporation Ltd. &Ors. (2004) reported in 288 ITR 481. Further, the Id. Special Bench of Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai in Mahindra & Mahindra vs. DC/T reported in 30 SOT 374, has taken a similar view. 2.4 The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer, DCIT(TDS)-1(2), Mumbai, vide this office letter dated 24.06.2019 for verification of the dates of filing of the TDS statements for the financial year under consideration as claimed by the appellant and also for comments thereon. The Remand report was received from I…