ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

12,51,789 u/s 32 (1) of the IT Act in respect of assets was put to use for less than 180 days in FY 2009- 10. 3) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred in denying the claim of R&D expenses under section

ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

12,51,789 u/s 32 (1) of the IT Act in respect of assets was put to use for less than 180 days in FY 2009- 10. 3) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred in denying the claim of R&D expenses under section

ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

12,51,789 u/s 32 (1) of the IT Act in respect of assets was put to use for less than 180 days in FY 2009- 10. 3) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred in denying the claim of R&D expenses under section

DCIT - CC - 1(4), MUMBAI vs. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

12,51,789 u/s 32 (1) of the IT Act in respect of assets was put to use for less than 180 days in FY 2009- 10. 3) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred in denying the claim of R&D expenses under section

DCIT- CC- 1(4), MUMBAI vs. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

12,51,789 u/s 32 (1) of the IT Act in respect of assets was put to use for less than 180 days in FY 2009- 10. 3) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred in denying the claim of R&D expenses under section

DCIT -CC-1(4), MUMBAI vs. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD. , MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

12,51,789 u/s 32 (1) of the IT Act in respect of assets was put to use for less than 180 days in FY 2009- 10. 3) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred in denying the claim of R&D expenses under section

JT. CIT (OSD)- CC - 1(4), MUMBAI vs. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

12,51,789 u/s 32 (1) of the IT Act in respect of assets was put to use for less than 180 days in FY 2009-10. 3) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred in denying the claim of R&D expenses under section

ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

12,51,789 u/s 32 (1) of the IT Act in respect of assets was put to use for less than 180 days in FY 2009-10. 3) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred in denying the claim of R&D expenses under section

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ULTRATECH CEMENT LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Section 801A(12A) of\nthe Income Tax Act, 1961 and that the revenue has preferred an appeal\nbefore the Hon'ble Bombay High Court on the same issue for 2010-11, 2012-\n13, 2013-14 & 2014-15?\"\n5. “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.\nCIT(A) is right

CORNERVIEW CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 9TDS) - CPC, GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

TDS amount to the Government account, but it has to file a statement under section 200(3) of the Act 12

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 amount collected under Section 192 Section 192 of the Act is required to be paid to the credit of the Act is required to be paid to the credit of the Central Government within the prescribed time. tral Government within the prescribed time. DZ Bank, India Representative Bank, India Representative ITA Nos. 1812 to 1815/M/2018 17. Section 201 Section

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 amount collected under Section 192 Section 192 of the Act is required to be paid to the credit of the Act is required to be paid to the credit of the Central Government within the prescribed time. tral Government within the prescribed time. DZ Bank, India Representative Bank, India Representative ITA Nos. 1812 to 1815/M/2018 17. Section 201 Section

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 amount collected under Section 192 Section 192 of the Act is required to be paid to the credit of the Act is required to be paid to the credit of the Central Government within the prescribed time. tral Government within the prescribed time. DZ Bank, India Representative Bank, India Representative ITA Nos. 1812 to 1815/M/2018 17. Section 201 Section

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 amount collected under Section 192 Section 192 of the Act is required to be paid to the credit of the Act is required to be paid to the credit of the Central Government within the prescribed time. tral Government within the prescribed time. DZ Bank, India Representative Bank, India Representative ITA Nos. 1812 to 1815/M/2018 17. Section 201 Section

SPRING TIME CLUBS & HOSPITALITY SERVICES P.LTD,KALYAN vs. A.O. TDS WD KALYAN, KALYAN

In the result, all the appeals filed by different assessees for different quarters relating to different years are allowed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sanjay Gargm/S. Sprigtime Clubs & Hospitality Assessing Officer, Tds Ward Services Pvt. Ltd. Rani Mansion, Murbad Road Vs. 2Nd Floor, Sprig Avenue, Club Road Kalyan (W), 421301 Kalyan (W) 421301 Pan – Aaocs9107M Appellant Respondent

TDS returns / statements was regularized by payment of fees as set out in section 234E of the Act. Therefore, the findings of Hon’ble High Court were thus, that the fees sought to be levied under section 234E of the Act was not in the guise of tax sought to be levied on the deductor. The provisions of section 234E

DADIBA KALI PUNDOLE ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMEM TAX -17(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

section 194Q despite acknowledging the fact that the Appellant was an auctioneer, and the TDS was duly deducted and paid into Government Treasury. 9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellant submits that the Assessing Officer/CPC be directed to grant the said TDS credit of Rs. 12

MANISH TOWER CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CPC TDS THROUGH ITO TDS 1(3)(4), UTTAR PRADESH

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri C.N. Prasadआयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No.4358/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Manish Tower Co- The Dcit (Tds), बनाम/ Operative Hsg Soc.Ltd., Centralized Processing Unit Vs. Jay Prakash Road, Cell Tds Andheri (W), Ghaziabad U.P. -201 010 Mumbai-400 053 Through Ito Tds 1(3)(4) "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaaam 6288P .. (""यथ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By: None Shri N. Sathya Moorthy ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By:

TDS statement under section 200A of the Act. However, after 01.06.15 the Assessing Authority is well within his limit to levy fee under section 234E of the Act even while processing the statement under section 200A and making adjustment. The relevant part of the decision of the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal for the sake of completeness is reproduced

SANJAY SATISHCHANDRA DUTT,KALYAN vs. A.O. TDS WD KALYAN, KALYAN

Appeals of the assessees are allowed as above

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi

TDS statement under section 200A of the Act. However, after 01.06.15 the Assessing Authority is well within his limit to levy fee under section 234E of the Act even while processing the statement under section 200A and making adjustment. The relevant part of the decision of the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal for the sake of completeness is reproduced