“tax deducted at source”

Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-48, Mumbai

In the result, all these five appeals are resorted to learned

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

learned Assessing Officer for ITA Nos. 841 to 845/Mum/2023; Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd; AYs. 2015-16 to 2019-20 claiming the refund of tax deducted at source. On 7th May, 2019, without passing any order, learned Assessing Officer noted in the order sheet that assessee may explore option under Section

Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-48, Mumbai

In the result, all these five appeals are resorted to learned

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

learned Assessing Officer for ITA Nos. 841 to 845/Mum/2023; Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd; AYs. 2015-16 to 2019-20 claiming the refund of tax deducted at source. On 7th May, 2019, without passing any order, learned Assessing Officer noted in the order sheet that assessee may explore option under Section

Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-48, Mumbai

In the result, all these five appeals are resorted to learned

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

learned Assessing Officer for ITA Nos. 841 to 845/Mum/2023; Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd; AYs. 2015-16 to 2019-20 claiming the refund of tax deducted at source. On 7th May, 2019, without passing any order, learned Assessing Officer noted in the order sheet that assessee may explore option under Section

Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-48, Mumbai

In the result, all these five appeals are resorted to learned

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

learned Assessing Officer for ITA Nos. 841 to 845/Mum/2023; Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd; AYs. 2015-16 to 2019-20 claiming the refund of tax deducted at source. On 7th May, 2019, without passing any order, learned Assessing Officer noted in the order sheet that assessee may explore option under Section

Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-48, Mumbai

In the result, all these five appeals are resorted to learned

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

learned Assessing Officer for ITA Nos. 841 to 845/Mum/2023; Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd; AYs. 2015-16 to 2019-20 claiming the refund of tax deducted at source. On 7th May, 2019, without passing any order, learned Assessing Officer noted in the order sheet that assessee may explore option under Section

Sagarkumar Ishwarbhai Bhavani, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-32(3)(3), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.75/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Sagarkumar Ishwarbhai बिधम/ Ito, Ward-32(3)(3) Bhavani Room No. 105, C-Wing, Vs. 1St Floor, Kautilya D-103 D-103, Amozan Park Ii Devki Nagar Link Road, Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra Borivali-West-400103. (E), Mumbai-400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Agupb5616P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rakesh Joshi (Amicus Curiae) Revenue By: Shri Anil Gupta सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 02/03/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/05/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 16.12.2022 For Ay. 2016-17. 2. Grounds Raised By Assessee Are As Under: - “1. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Ao Erred In Wrongly Holding That Service Tax Is Liable To Be Included In The Turnover For The Purpose Of Tax Audit Which Is Against The Definition Of Turnover As Per Institute Of Chartered Accountants Of India Guidelines. Without Prejudice To The Above 2. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Ao Erred In Adding An Amount Of Rs.8,31,631/- By Adopting Arbitrary Rate Of Net Profit @ 15% While Computing Income As Per Normal Provisions Of The Act & Wrongly Holding That The Appellant Is Outside The Purview Of Section 44Ad & The Cit(A) Erred In Partly Confirming The Same.

landlord only acts as a collecting agency of Service Tax on behalf of Government. Therefore, it has been clarified by CBDT that tax deducted at source u/s 194I of the Act would be required to be made on the amount of rent paid/payable without including the Service Tax. Further

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 14(2)(1), Mumbai vs. India Debt Management Private Limited, Mumbai

under Section 14A of the Act and disallowance of INR 12,00,000/- in respect of amount of credit for tax deducted at source written off by invoking provisions of Section 40(a)(ii) of the Act. 7 Being aggrieved, the Assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A) against the Assessment ... deduction u/s. 36(1)(vii) of Income Tax Act." 17 However, the Assessing Officer was not convinced. According to the Assessing Officer, the tax deducted at source formed part of income tax payable and therefore, the same could not have been allowed as deduction as per Section

Schindler China Elevator Company Limited, Mumbai vs. CIT (Appeals)-58, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee are allowed with above direction

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm Cit(A)-58 Schindler China Elevator Room No. 515, 5Th Floor, Company Ltd. Earnest House, Ncpa Road, C/O Bansi S. Mehta & Co. Vs. Metro House, 3Rd Floor, Dhobi Nariman Point, Mumbai Talao, M.G. Road, Mumbai 400021 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aascs8166L Assessee By : Ms. Ayush Modani, Ar Revenue By : Smt. Sonia Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.05.2023

also filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A). 04. Assessee submitted before the Ld. CIT(A) that assessee is eligible for tax deduction at source credit of Rs 03,93,375/-. Ld CIT(A) held that tax credit is allowed in the assessment year in which the corresponding income ... which is appearing in form number 26 AS. It is not the claim of the revenue that income embedded in the tax deduction at source credit is income of the assessee. Therefore, the credit should have been granted. 08. The learned departmental representative vehemently supported the order of the learned

DCIT Central Circle-2(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Asian Star Company Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm M/S Asian Star Company Ltd. Dcit, Central Circle-2(3) Room No.803, 8Th Floor, 114-C, Mitta Court, Pratishtha Bhavan, Vs. M.K. Road, Churchgate, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaca4856B Assessee By : Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ms. Vaishali More, Ars Revenue By : Smt. Shailja Rai, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.05.2023

furnish the reply and no information was received from the other three parties, but the assessee has submitted the debit notes, details of tax deducted at source, bank statements and financial statements along with the income tax return of those parties. With respect to the statement of the directors

Dy Comm of Income Tax-14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Reliance Infrastructure Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

name of AEML as a result the TDS credit appeared in the 26AS statement of AEML. Assessing Officer denied credit for tax deducted at source of Rs 40,42,92,666 deducted by TPC to the Appellant as it was appearing in Form 26AS of AEML. Here, the subsequent treatment ... instead of the assessee and the TDS credit appeared in 26AS statement of AEML and it is for this reason the credit for tax deducted at source has been denied to the assessee. Another important fact is that, AEML in the return of income for A.Y.2020-21 have transferred

Dy Comm of Income Tax-14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Reliance Infrastructure Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

name of AEML as a result the TDS credit appeared in the 26AS statement of AEML. Assessing Officer denied credit for tax deducted at source of Rs 40,42,92,666 deducted by TPC to the Appellant as it was appearing in Form 26AS of AEML. Here, the subsequent treatment ... instead of the assessee and the TDS credit appeared in 26AS statement of AEML and it is for this reason the credit for tax deducted at source has been denied to the assessee. Another important fact is that, AEML in the return of income for A.Y.2020-21 have transferred

Shilpa Prabhakar Kulkarni, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly for stati...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Shilpa Prabhakar Kulkarni, Dcit Centralized Processing 3 Neel Sagar, 1280 Prabhadevi Centre, Seaface Prabhadevi, Vs. Bengaluru-560 500. Mumbai-400025. Pan No. Brhpk 8129 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Chandni Shah & Kinjal Patel Revenue By : Mr. A.N. Bhalekar, Dr Date Of Hearing : 03/05/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 11/05/2023 Order

appellant. For the sake of clarity, relevant abstract of form 26AS is reproduced below: form 26AS is reproduced below: Part-A Details of tax Deducted at Source A Details of tax Deducted at Source Sr. No. Name of Deductor TAN of Total Amount Total Total Tax Tax Total TDS Deductor

Vodafone India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 7(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed, in the terms aforesaid

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 6718/Mum/2012 (िन.व. 2008-09) Vodafone India Ltd. (Formerly Known As ‘Vodafone Essar Limited’) Peninsula Corporate Park, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013. ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan:Aaach-5332-B बनाम Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax 7(3), ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Mumbai. अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By :Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate With S/Shri Vibhu Jain & A.K.Jawadwala ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By :Shri Anand Mohan, Cit-Dr

Transfer Pricing Adjustment- on reimbursement of salary and related costs of seconded employees; Ground No.14: Non-grant of full credit in respect of Tax Deducted at Source; Ground No.15: Levy of interest under section 234B and 234C of the Act. 3. Shri Salil Kapoor appearing on behalf of the assessee

Ingram Micro India Pvt.Ltd.(Earlier Known As Ingram Micro India Ltd.), Mumbai vs. DCIT(Osdii), Cr-7 (Now DCIT, CC-4(4), Mumbai

advertisement and sales promotion expenses incurred during the year by the Appellant. 9) The Assessing Officer erred in not granting credit for tax deducted at source aggregating to Rs 4,00,84,439/-, without assigning any reasons for the non-grant of such credit. 10) The Appellant objects ... complete details including names, addresses & PAN of the parties to whom commission payments were made, along with the details of commission payments and tax deducted at source. The commission was paid to dealers for services rendered, the nature of such services was also explained during the assessment proceedings. The Appellant

Ingram Micro India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT OSD II Cen RG 7, Mumbai

advertisement and sales promotion expenses incurred during the year by the Appellant. 9) The Assessing Officer erred in not granting credit for tax deducted at source aggregating to Rs 4,00,84,439/-, without assigning any reasons for the non-grant of such credit. 10) The Appellant objects ... complete details including names, addresses & PAN of the parties to whom commission payments were made, along with the details of commission payments and tax deducted at source. The commission was paid to dealers for services rendered, the nature of such services was also explained during the assessment proceedings. The Appellant