“tax deducted at source”

Orient Overseas Container Line Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Int) Tax Circle 3(2)(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailorient Overseas Container Line Limited, C/O Oocl (India) Private Limited, Icc Chambers, 5Th Floor, Saki Vihar Road, Opp. Santogen Silk Mills, Powai, ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400072 Pan : Aaaco5679E V/S Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle – 3(2)(2), ……………… Respondent 6Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai - 400051

that section 115JB is not applicable to the Appellant in view of Explanation 4A to section 115JB(1). Short grant of credit of Tax deducted at source (TDS") 7. The Ld. AO has erred in restricting the credit of TDS to Rs. 1,56,36,458, as against

Citizencredit Co-Operative Bank Limited (Manori Branch), Mumbai vs. ITO (TDS) 1(1)(4), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

ITA Nos.6035 to 6042 & 6385 to 6442/M/2025 Citizen Credit Co-operative Bank Ltd. IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI

Citizencredit Co Operative Bank Limited (Amboli Branch), Mumbai vs. ITO (TDS)1(1)(4), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI 'C' BENCH BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT

ITO(TDS)-2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Sashwat Energy Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the CO is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarincome Tax Officer (Tds) – V/S. Sashwat Energy Private 2(2)(1) बनाम Limited, 3Rd Floor, Mtnl Building, 10Th Floor, Universal Cumballa Hill, Mumbai – Majestic Lokhande Marg, 400 026, Maharashtra Chembur West, Mumbai – 400 043, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Mums95080G Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी प्रत्याक्षेपसं./C.O. No.273/Mum/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 4279/Mum/2025) (A.Y. 2021-22) Sashwat Energy Private V/S. Income Tax Officer (Tds) – Limited, बनाम 2(2)(1), 3Rd Floor, Mtnl 10Th Floor, Universal Majestic Building, Cumballa Hill, Lokhande Marg, Chembur Mumbai – 400 026, West, Mumbai – 400 043, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Mums95080G Appellant/अपीलाथी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

Professional fees of Rs. 90,000/- u/s 194J of the Act. However, the assessee had failed to deposit the tax deducted at source after deduction in Government exchequer.On verification of details, it was observed that the deductee M/s Shapoorji Pallonji and Co Pvt Ltd.(‘SPPL’) had submitted lower deduction certificate ... which resulted in tax deducted at source @4.6% u/s 194A instead of @10%. Accordingly, the assessee had deducted TDS of Rs. 1,48,96,640/- u/s 194A of the Act and had made payment/credited of interest amount to SPPL. Further, on perusal of ITR for A.Y.2021-22 vis-à-vis computation

DCIT TDS 2-1 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Pfizer Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Pfizer Limited 9. The next ground is regarding levy of interest u/s. 201(1A) of the Act for the delay in deposit of tax deducted at source on the year end provisions. The ld. AR relied on the decision of the Tribunal in its own case

Anil Kumar Gang, Jodhpur vs. ITO 3(1) Jodhpur, Jodhpur

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

facts and law, in the circumstances of the case, the learned lower authorities erred in deny the benefit of credit of Tax Deducted of Sources of Assessment Year 2018-2019 Rs.2,12,350/- by employer during the relevant Financial Year.‖ 3. We have the Learned Departmental Representative and have ... perused the material on record. 4. The short issue involved in the present appeal pertains to denial of credit of tax deducted at source. 5. The Assessee received back employees’ contribution to the superannuation fund from employer [i.e., Mehsana District Cooperative Milk Producer Union Ltd.] after deduction of tax

Nayana Digant Kapadia, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, 20(2)(1), Mumbai, Piramal Chambers

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Nayana Digant Kapadia Income Tax Officer, 152, Ramanuj, 20(2)(1), Mumbai Road No.9, Wadala, Vs. Mumbai – 400 031 (Pan : Aabpk8446R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Satish Mody, Ca Revenue : Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.01.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Addl /Jcit (A)-3 Delhi Vide Itba/Apl/S/250/2024-25/1074687488(1), Dated 19.03.2025 Passed Against The Intimation Issued By Centralized Processing Center (Cpc), Bengaluru, U/S. 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 30.11.2019 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-32 Erred In Confirming The Order Made U/S 143(1) Dt 30/11/2019 Wherein The Interest Income Of Rs 26,49,581/- From Dlk Commercial Pvt Ltd Was Added As Income Of The Appellant On Accrual Basis Inspite Of The Fact That The Appellant U/S 145 Of The Income Tax

interest income. For this carry forward of TDS credit and corresponding interest income, it was reported in “Schedule-TDS 2: Details of tax deducted at source of income [as per Form 16A issued by deductor(s)]”. Copy of the said return is placed in the paper book. 3.1. While processing