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 default under default under default under section 201 section 201 (1) section 201 (1) is of ₹ is determined (1) is of ₹ 13,590,000 at ₹ 30,920,289 5,391,934/– and interest and interest and interest under section under section under section 201 (1A) of ₹ 201 (1A) of ₹ 201 (1A) of ₹ 6,115

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 default under default under default under section 201 section 201 (1) section 201 (1) is of ₹ is determined (1) is of ₹ 13,590,000 at ₹ 30,920,289 5,391,934/– and interest and interest and interest under section under section under section 201 (1A) of ₹ 201 (1A) of ₹ 201 (1A) of ₹ 6,115

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 default under default under default under section 201 section 201 (1) section 201 (1) is of ₹ is determined (1) is of ₹ 13,590,000 at ₹ 30,920,289 5,391,934/– and interest and interest and interest under section under section under section 201 (1A) of ₹ 201 (1A) of ₹ 201 (1A) of ₹ 6,115

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 default under default under default under section 201 section 201 (1) section 201 (1) is of ₹ is determined (1) is of ₹ 13,590,000 at ₹ 30,920,289 5,391,934/– and interest and interest and interest under section under section under section 201 (1A) of ₹ 201 (1A) of ₹ 201 (1A) of ₹ 6,115

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 default under default under default under section 201 section 201 (1) section 201 (1) is of ₹ is determined (1) is of ₹ 13,590,000 at ₹ 30,920,289 5,391,934/– and interest and interest and interest under section under section under section 201 (1A) of ₹ 201 (1A) of ₹ 201 (1A) of ₹ 6,115

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 default under default under default under section 201 section 201 (1) section 201 (1) is of ₹ is determined (1) is of ₹ 13,590,000 at ₹ 30,920,289 5,391,934/– and interest and interest and interest under section under section under section 201 (1A) of ₹ 201 (1A) of ₹ 201 (1A) of ₹ 6,115

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 default under default under default under section 201 section 201 (1) section 201 (1) is of ₹ is determined (1) is of ₹ 13,590,000 at ₹ 30,920,289 5,391,934/– and interest and interest and interest under section under section under section 201 (1A) of ₹ 201 (1A) of ₹ 201 (1A) of ₹ 6,115

DZ BANK INDIA REPRESENTATIVE OFFICE,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee to the extent of In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee to the extent of the recalled grounds, are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dz Bank, India Representative Dcit (International Taxation) Office C/O Srbc & Associates Llp, Range-2(1)(2), 14Th Floor, The Ruby, 29, Senapati Vs. 16Th Floor, Room No. 1612, Air Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400028. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aabcd 6455 E Appellant Respondent

TDS liability, then borrower was supposed to bear this liability of ₹15 which means his 15 which means his expense cost would be cost would be ₹100+ 15 =₹115 and corresponding amount would be income in the hand of 115 and corresponding amount would be income in the hand of 115 and corresponding amount would be income in the hand

DZ BANK INDIA REPRESENTATIVE OFFICE,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee to the extent of In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee to the extent of the recalled grounds, are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dz Bank, India Representative Dcit (International Taxation) Office C/O Srbc & Associates Llp, Range-2(1)(2), 14Th Floor, The Ruby, 29, Senapati Vs. 16Th Floor, Room No. 1612, Air Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400028. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aabcd 6455 E Appellant Respondent

TDS liability, then borrower was supposed to bear this liability of ₹15 which means his 15 which means his expense cost would be cost would be ₹100+ 15 =₹115 and corresponding amount would be income in the hand of 115 and corresponding amount would be income in the hand of 115 and corresponding amount would be income in the hand

DZ BANK INDIA REPRESENTATIVE OFFICE,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee to the extent of In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee to the extent of the recalled grounds, are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dz Bank, India Representative Dcit (International Taxation) Office C/O Srbc & Associates Llp, Range-2(1)(2), 14Th Floor, The Ruby, 29, Senapati Vs. 16Th Floor, Room No. 1612, Air Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400028. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aabcd 6455 E Appellant Respondent

TDS liability, then borrower was supposed to bear this liability of ₹15 which means his 15 which means his expense cost would be cost would be ₹100+ 15 =₹115 and corresponding amount would be income in the hand of 115 and corresponding amount would be income in the hand of 115 and corresponding amount would be income in the hand

DZ BANK INDIA REPRESENTATIVE OFFICE,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee to the extent of In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee to the extent of the recalled grounds, are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dz Bank, India Representative Dcit (International Taxation) Office C/O Srbc & Associates Llp, Range-2(1)(2), 14Th Floor, The Ruby, 29, Senapati Vs. 16Th Floor, Room No. 1612, Air Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400028. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aabcd 6455 E Appellant Respondent

TDS liability, then borrower was supposed to bear this liability of ₹15 which means his 15 which means his expense cost would be cost would be ₹100+ 15 =₹115 and corresponding amount would be income in the hand of 115 and corresponding amount would be income in the hand of 115 and corresponding amount would be income in the hand

POLYCAB INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

115-0 of the Act is on the company's profits and not income in the hands of the shareholder, the contentions of the appellant fail L 5.10. One of the arguments of the case of Total Oil India P. Ltd dated 20.04.2023 [2023] 149 taxmann.com 332 (Mumbai -Trib.) (SB), reference was made to case of Total Oil India

POLYCAB INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

115-0 of the Act is on the company's profits and not income in the hands of the shareholder, the contentions of the appellant fail L 5.10. One of the arguments of the case of Total Oil India P. Ltd dated 20.04.2023 [2023] 149 taxmann.com 332 (Mumbai -Trib.) (SB), reference was made to case of Total Oil India

IDBI BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (LTU)-2, MUMBAI

In the result this ground of appeal is

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singh

115 JB specifically provides for increased in book profit by the amount of income tax paid, payable or provision made thereof. Further, section 40(a)(v) of the Act clearly provides that the tax paid by the employer on perquisites to the employee is not deductible from the income of the employer. The assessing officer also had that

PIEM HOTELS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in the above\nterms

115-0 lays down\nthat-\nNotwithstanding anything contained in any\nother provision of this Act and subject to the\nprovisions of this section, in addition to the\nincome tax chargeable in respect of the total\nincome of a domestic company for any\n assessment year, any amount declared,\ndistributed or paid by such company by way of\ndividends (whether interim

BLOOM PACKAGING P LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 39, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Amit Shukla

115-O of the Act and (iii) gift of UPL and UEL shares is colourable device are identical to that of the ones we have already adjudicated while dealing with the appeal ITA No.4663/M/2015 in the above paras of this order. Considering the commonality of the issues raised as well as the facts and evidences, we are of the opinion

JAWAHAR B. PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22XC, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

TDS under various provisions of section by invoking provisions of section 40a(ia) of the Act or 40(b) or 40A(3) of the Act. 28. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We find that the above disallowances are not based on any evidence i.e. the incriminating material found during

JAWAHAR B. PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22XC, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

TDS under various provisions of section by invoking provisions of section 40a(ia) of the Act or 40(b) or 40A(3) of the Act. 28. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We find that the above disallowances are not based on any evidence i.e. the incriminating material found during