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

section 194J and also remitted same, no TDS was to be deducted on such payments by assessee during relevant year. He also relied up on Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2016] 67 taxmann.com 259/238 Taxman 287/383 ITR 59 (Kar.) and [2020] 119

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

section 194J and also remitted same, no TDS was to be deducted on such payments by assessee during relevant year. He also relied up on Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2016] 67 taxmann.com 259/238 Taxman 287/383 ITR 59 (Kar.) and [2020] 119

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

section 194J and also remitted same, no TDS was to be deducted on such payments by assessee during relevant year. He also relied up on Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2016] 67 taxmann.com 259/238 Taxman 287/383 ITR 59 (Kar.) and [2020] 119

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

section 194J and also remitted same, no TDS was to be deducted on such payments by assessee during relevant year. He also relied up on Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2016] 67 taxmann.com 259/238 Taxman 287/383 ITR 59 (Kar.) and [2020] 119

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

section 194J and also remitted same, no TDS was to be deducted on such payments by assessee during relevant year. He also relied up on Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2016] 67 taxmann.com 259/238 Taxman 287/383 ITR 59 (Kar.) and [2020] 119

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

section 194J and also remitted same, no TDS was to be deducted on such payments by assessee during relevant year. He also relied up on Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2016] 67 taxmann.com 259/238 Taxman 287/383 ITR 59 (Kar.) and [2020] 119

GETINGE MEDICAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

TDS of Rs. 1,24,82,097/- as against Rs. 1,25,90,372/- claimed by the Appellant in its return of income. 6. Ground 6: Interest charged under section 234A, 2348 and 234C of the Act The Id. AO erred in levying interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. 7. Ground 7: Initiation of penalty under

DCIT (TDS) 3(2), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

TDS is required to be made on the service tax component u/s 194J of the Act. 3. The matter has been examined afresh. In exercise of the powers conferred under section 119

DCIT (TDS) 3(2), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

TDS is required to be made on the service tax component u/s 194J of the Act. 3. The matter has been examined afresh. In exercise of the powers conferred under section 119

DCIT (TDS) 3(2), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE LIFE NSURANACE CO. LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

TDS is required to be made on the service tax component u/s 194J of the Act. 3. The matter has been examined afresh. In exercise of the powers conferred under section 119

GROWMORE EXPORTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 31, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee ‘s appeal for the assessment year 2008-09

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Ram Lal Negi

TDS and hence on the said amount of tax no interest can be computed u/s. 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. 5. The appellant craves leave of Your Honour to add to, alter, amend and l or delete all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal.” 4. Ground No.1: 4.1 At the outset, the Ld. Representative

CHEMOX EXPORTS IMPORTS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, ASSESSMENT UNIT, DELHI

119 of the Act. Any such guideline\nissued by the CBDT is not binding on petitioner. Further the said guideline is also\nnot binding on respondent no. 1 as they are contrary to the provisions of the Act and\nthe Scheme framed under section 151A of the Act. The effect of a guideline came up\nfor discussion in Sofitel Realty

DY CIT-1(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, M/s The Maharashtra State Co-op. Bank Ltd. M/s The Maharashtra State Co ITA Nos. 3878 & 3916/Mum/2019 (including opening (including opening credit balance of the provision of the bad credit balance of the provision of the bad debts created us 36(1)(viia) of the act, although, the opening debts created

M/S THE MAHARASHTRA STATE CO. OP BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO-1(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, M/s The Maharashtra State Co-op. Bank Ltd. M/s The Maharashtra State Co ITA Nos. 3878 & 3916/Mum/2019 (including opening (including opening credit balance of the provision of the bad credit balance of the provision of the bad debts created us 36(1)(viia) of the act, although, the opening debts created

BHAVESH GHANSHYAM ADVANI,MUMBAI vs. CIT(INTL TAX)-1,, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyal

TDS Certificate, but obtaining of such certificates and possession of the same by the applicant was neither required as per procedure nor as per law to file the return of income within time. It is further seen from the facts of the case that a letter bearing No. NMS2/ASHPA4344A/6311816 dated 18.12.2014 was issued to the applicant by the Compliance Management

CHATTANATHAN DEVARAJAN ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 34(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Chattanathan Devarajan Income Tax Officer - 34(1)(1) 1101, Raheja Tipco Heights Mumbai Rani Sati Marg, Vs. Malad East Mumbai – 400067 (Pan: Abjpc6332P) (Assessee) (Respondent)

119/- may please be deleted.” 3. Facts of the case are that assessee did not file his return of income for the year under consideration. Ld. Assessing Officer took note of the information about financial transactions and activities undertaken by the assessee from the ITBA system of the department. Details of the information appearing in ITS is summarized as under

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 3(2), MUMBAI

The appeals of the AO are dismissed

119. The power is given for the purpose of just, proper and efficient management of the work of assessment and in public interest. It is a beneficial power given to the Board for proper administration of fiscal law so that undue hardship may not be caused to the assessee and the fiscal laws may be correctly applied. Hard cases which

DCIT CENT. CIR. -7(3), MUMBAI vs. PALAVA DWELLERS PVT. LTD. , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Bledy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. M/S. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 7(3) 412, 71-G, Vardhman Chamber Room No. 655, 6Th Floor C.P. Road, Horniman Circle Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabcl1117D (Appellant) (Respondent) Lodha Developers Limited Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. {Since Merged M/S. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd.,} Central Circle – 7(3) 412, 4Th Floor, 17G, Vardhman Chamber Room No. 655, 6Th Floor Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai - 400 001 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabcl1117D (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS 0.1284 Crores Interest on Income Tax 0.0069 Crores Total 4.0572 Crores 19. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that the Assessing Officer ignored following deductions claimed by assessee in the revised return filed: Reduction in 14A disallowances 0.295 Crores Additional deduction claimed under 7.87 Crores section 80G of the Act Total 8.165 Crores 20. Ld. Counsel