RAHULKUMAR BAJAJ CHARITABLE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

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

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

TDS of Rs. 8,66,827/- and the advance tax paid amounting to Rs. 28,40,000/-. 5. Aggrieved by the intimation order u/s. 143(1) of the Act, dated 16.12.2022 passed by the ADIT/CPC, Bengaluru, the assessee was in appeal before the first appellate authority challenging the intimation order on various grounds. The ld. CIT(A) vide order dated

DCIT (OSD)(TDS)-2(3) , MUMBAI vs. TOTAL ENERGIES MARKETING INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

TDS section 201 is determined default under (1) of ₹ of ₹ 19,852,417 section 201 53,350,000 and interest (1) is of ₹ and interest under section 4,112

DCIT (OSD)(TDS)-2(3), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL ENERGIES MARKETING INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

TDS section 201 is determined default under (1) of ₹ of ₹ 19,852,417 section 201 53,350,000 and interest (1) is of ₹ and interest under section 4,112

DCIT (OSD)(TDS)-2(3) , MUMBAI vs. TOTAL ENERGIES MARKETING INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

TDS section 201 is determined default under (1) of ₹ of ₹ 19,852,417 section 201 53,350,000 and interest (1) is of ₹ and interest under section 4,112

DCIT (OSD)(TDS)-2(3), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL ENERGIES MARKETING INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

TDS section 201 is determined default under (1) of ₹ of ₹ 19,852,417 section 201 53,350,000 and interest (1) is of ₹ and interest under section 4,112

DCIT (OSD)(TDS)-2(3), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL ENERGIES MARKETING INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

TDS section 201 is determined default under (1) of ₹ of ₹ 19,852,417 section 201 53,350,000 and interest (1) is of ₹ and interest under section 4,112

DCIT (OSD)(TDS)-2(3), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL ENERGIES MARKETING INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

TDS section 201 is determined default under (1) of ₹ of ₹ 19,852,417 section 201 53,350,000 and interest (1) is of ₹ and interest under section 4,112

DCIT (OSD)(TDS)-2(3), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL ENERGIES MARKETINGS INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

TDS section 201 is determined default under (1) of ₹ of ₹ 19,852,417 section 201 53,350,000 and interest (1) is of ₹ and interest under section 4,112

SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

TDS arises under the IT Act only if the amount due and payable assumes the nature of payment specified under Chapter XVII-B thereof. 13. Even assuming specific cases of payment under Chapter XVII-B of the IT Act are considered, Sections 193 and 194A of the IT Act deals with provisions relating to deduction of tax at source

INCOME TAX OFFICER, KAUTILYA BHAWAN BKC KURLA vs. GODREJ AGROVET LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Girish Agrawalthe Income Tax Officer, Godrej Agrovet Limited, Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Godrej One, Bkc Kurla, 3Rd Floor Pirojshanagar, Mumbai-400051 E.E, Highway, Vikhroli So Mumbai, Mumbai-400079. [Pan: Aaacg0617Q] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Ar Date Of Hearing 18.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16.12.2025 O R D E R Per Suchitra Kamble:

TDS at the rate of 23.072% for each transaction under Section 195 of the Act. The assessee also failed to furnish evidence of deposit of the said tax. Thus, the Ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) was erred in law for holding that the first proviso below Section 112

ACIT 421 MUMBAI, MUMBAI CITY vs. SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI, MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the\nappeal of the revenue is dismissed

TDS arises under the\nIT Act only if the amount due and payable assumes the nature of payment\nspecified under Chapter XVII-B thereof.\n13. Even assuming specific cases of payment under Chapter XVII-B of the\nIT Act are considered, Sections 193 and 194A of the IT Act deals with\nprovisions relating to deduction of tax at source

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CIRCLE 4(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. FIRST ADVANTAGE PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, granted relief to the assessee and deleted the aforesaid disallwoanced. Being aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before us on the following grounds:- “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is right in deleting the disallowance of Rs.2

M/S PODDAR FININ CONSULTANCY P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-7(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1860/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Poddar Finin Consultancy बिधम/ Ito Ward Pvt. Ltd. Maharashtra-410206. Vs. 4A/B, Ground Floor, Tk Industries Estate, Sitaram Palturam Murai Marg, Mumbai- 400015. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagcp3938D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri R. A. Dhyani (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 06.08.2020 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Thane [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1) The Assessment Order Passed By The Id. Assessing Officer (Ao) Is Invalid & Bad In Law. 2) (A) The Id. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)] Erred In Law & Facts In Confirming The Action Of The Ld. Assessing Officer

TDS is to be made on the 'rent'. The expression 'rent' is given much wider meaning under this provision than what is normally known in common parlance. In the first instance, it means any payment which is made under any lease, sub- lease, tenancy. Once the payment is made under lease, sub-lease or tenancy, the nomenclature which is given

DAGA GLOBAL CHEMICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-12(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and the Revenue are

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S. Daga Global Chemicals D C I T - 12(2)(1) P. Ltd. Room No. 223/262 101, Mahek Plaza 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Off L.T. Road, Maharashtra M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 Nagar Lane, Borivali (W) Mumbai 400092 Pan – Aaacd2233M Appellant Respondent D C I T - 12(2)(1) M/S. Daga Global Chemicals Room No. 223/262 P. Ltd. 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan 101, Mahek Plaza Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 Off L.T. Road, Maharashtra Nagar Lane, Borivali (W) Mumbai 400092 Appellant Respondent

TDS, entire amount of commission paid is disallowed under section 40(a)(i). 3. “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee to carry forward of long term capital loss of Rs.84,46,103/- on account of loss arose merely investment

SELINA N. SHETH ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -17(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Selina N. Sheth Ito, Ward – 17(3)(1), M/S. Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp, Vs Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Road, Esplanade House, 2Nd Floor, Mumbai – 400020. 29 Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai – 400001. [Pan: Aabps9851L] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

TDS of Rs. 60,145/- deducted by HDFC Life Insurance Company, the same is appearing in Form 26AS. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that no additional fact is required to be brought on record for adjudication of such additional ground of appeal. Therefore, same may be admitted for consideration by the bench. For other/remaining grounds of appeal, that

NOVANET INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD WARD 15(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

112, a capital gain section instead of any TDS section under chapter XVII. 3. a) On the facts and under

THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Ms. Padmavathy S

TDS on salaries was deleted: a) Vinsons vs. Third ITO (89 ITD 267) (Mumbai) b) Hero Honda Motors Ltd. vs. ITO (112 Taxman 154) (Delhi Trib.) c) ITO vs. Asian Hotels Ltd. (41 TTJ 28) (Delhi Trib.) d) Executive Engineer, T.L.C. Division, A.P. State Electricity Board v. ITO (20 ITD 318) (Hyd.) e) ITO v. Cadila Laboratories

THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD ,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Ms. Padmavathy S

TDS on salaries was deleted: a) Vinsons vs. Third ITO (89 ITD 267) (Mumbai) b) Hero Honda Motors Ltd. vs. ITO (112 Taxman 154) (Delhi Trib.) c) ITO vs. Asian Hotels Ltd. (41 TTJ 28) (Delhi Trib.) d) Executive Engineer, T.L.C. Division, A.P. State Electricity Board v. ITO (20 ITD 318) (Hyd.) e) ITO v. Cadila Laboratories