M/S.VIBGYOR TEXOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-8(3)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3), M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 616, 6Th Floor, Aayakar 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400015. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner Of 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Income Tax-8(3)(2), Mumbai-400015. Vs. Mumbai. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent

TDS) also the Assessing Officer disallowed expenditure amounting to Rs.3,97,90,291/-in terms of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Additions for unexplained cash credit in terms of section 68 of the Act amounting to Rs.1,46,24,270/- and difference in valuation of fixed asset of Rs.2,50,19,760/- being written off were also made

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 deducted at act by the default under section 201 source default order of the section 201 (1) is of ₹ under section ITA Nos. 127

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 deducted at act by the default under section 201 source default order of the section 201 (1) is of ₹ under section ITA Nos. 127

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 deducted at act by the default under section 201 source default order of the section 201 (1) is of ₹ under section ITA Nos. 127

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 deducted at act by the default under section 201 source default order of the section 201 (1) is of ₹ under section ITA Nos. 127

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 deducted at act by the default under section 201 source default order of the section 201 (1) is of ₹ under section ITA Nos. 127

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 deducted at act by the default under section 201 source default order of the section 201 (1) is of ₹ under section ITA Nos. 127

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 deducted at act by the default under section 201 source default order of the section 201 (1) is of ₹ under section ITA Nos. 127

ITO (IT) TDS-2, MUMBAI vs. TATA STEEL LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed, while the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

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

TDS-2 Room No. 113, Scindia House, 1st Floor, Ballard Estate, ……………. Appellant N.M. Road, Mumbai-400038 v/s M/s. Tata Steel Ltd 24, Bombay House, Homi ……………. Respondent Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai-400001 PAN – AAACT2803M ITA no.8707/Mum./2011 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/s. Tata Steel Ltd 24, Bombay House, Homi ……………. Appellant Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai-400001 PAN – AAACT2803M v/s Additional Commissioner

TATA STEEL LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed, while the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

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

TDS-2 Room No. 113, Scindia House, 1st Floor, Ballard Estate, ……………. Appellant N.M. Road, Mumbai-400038 v/s M/s. Tata Steel Ltd 24, Bombay House, Homi ……………. Respondent Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai-400001 PAN – AAACT2803M ITA no.8707/Mum./2011 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/s. Tata Steel Ltd 24, Bombay House, Homi ……………. Appellant Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai-400001 PAN – AAACT2803M v/s Additional Commissioner

ADDL CIT R G 7(1), MUMBAI vs. NOVARTIS INDIA LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN CIBA GIEGY LTD. ), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Novartis India Limited V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income –Tax - 7(2)(2) {Earlier Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} 6Th& 7Th Floor 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Inspire Bkc M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 “G” Block, Bkc Main Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1) V. M/S. Novartis India Limited Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.190/Mum/2011 [Arising Out Of Ita No.6772/Mum/2010 (A.Y. 2002-03)] M/S. Novartis India Limited V. Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS, the Dy. CIT had passed an order under section 154 of the Act (see pages 3-5 of Factual paper book-1). 4 25.08.2003 The Dy. CIT issued a notice under section 143(2) of the Act, selecting the Assessee’s ROI for scrutiny (see page 6 of Factual paper book-1). 5 17.10.2003 The Addl. CIT (Transfer Pricing

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI CITY vs. ITO (TDS)-2(2)(1), MUMBAI CITY

In the result, in the present batch of appeals for the

TDS under section 194A\nof the Act is not sustainable. Accordingly, grounds no.1, 2, and 4 raised in\nRevenue's appeal are dismissed.\n18. Before analysing whether the assessee was under an obligation to\ndeduct tax at source under section 194H or section 194) of the Act, it is\nnecessary to reiterate that both the assessee and the Revenue

M.R. CONSTRUCTION,.,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

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

127 under section 40(b) 2. Disallowances under section 40A(3) 4,97,915 to the extent of 20% in case of Expenditure of Rs. 2,489,573/- 3 Disallowances under section 40(a)(ia) Section 194C-Transport 1,79,965 Section 194C Labour Charges 1,72,270 Section 194C Contractor 59,067 Section 194H- Brokerage 3,60,000 Expenses

M.R. CONSTRUCTION,.,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

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

127 under section 40(b) 2. Disallowances under section 40A(3) 4,97,915 to the extent of 20% in case of Expenditure of Rs. 2,489,573/- 3 Disallowances under section 40(a)(ia) Section 194C-Transport 1,79,965 Section 194C Labour Charges 1,72,270 Section 194C Contractor 59,067 Section 194H- Brokerage 3,60,000 Expenses

ACIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI vs. M.R. CONSTRUCTION, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

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

127 under section 40(b) 2. Disallowances under section 40A(3) 4,97,915 to the extent of 20% in case of Expenditure of Rs. 2,489,573/- 3 Disallowances under section 40(a)(ia) Section 194C-Transport 1,79,965 Section 194C Labour Charges 1,72,270 Section 194C Contractor 59,067 Section 194H- Brokerage 3,60,000 Expenses

ASST CIT CC-22, MUMBAI vs. JAWAHAR PUROHIT, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

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

127 under section 40(b) 2. Disallowances under section 40A(3) 4,97,915 to the extent of 20% in case of Expenditure of Rs. 2,489,573/- 3 Disallowances under section 40(a)(ia) Section 194C-Transport 1,79,965 Section 194C Labour Charges 1,72,270 Section 194C Contractor 59,067 Section 194H- Brokerage 3,60,000 Expenses

DCIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI vs. M.R. CONSTRUCTION, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

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

127 under section 40(b) 2. Disallowances under section 40A(3) 4,97,915 to the extent of 20% in case of Expenditure of Rs. 2,489,573/- 3 Disallowances under section 40(a)(ia) Section 194C-Transport 1,79,965 Section 194C Labour Charges 1,72,270 Section 194C Contractor 59,067 Section 194H- Brokerage 3,60,000 Expenses

ASST CIT CC-22, MUMBAI vs. JAWAHAR PUROHIT, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

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

127 under section 40(b) 2. Disallowances under section 40A(3) 4,97,915 to the extent of 20% in case of Expenditure of Rs. 2,489,573/- 3 Disallowances under section 40(a)(ia) Section 194C-Transport 1,79,965 Section 194C Labour Charges 1,72,270 Section 194C Contractor 59,067 Section 194H- Brokerage 3,60,000 Expenses

DCIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI vs. M.R. CONSTRUCTION, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

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

127 under section 40(b) 2. Disallowances under section 40A(3) 4,97,915 to the extent of 20% in case of Expenditure of Rs. 2,489,573/- 3 Disallowances under section 40(a)(ia) Section 194C-Transport 1,79,965 Section 194C Labour Charges 1,72,270 Section 194C Contractor 59,067 Section 194H- Brokerage 3,60,000 Expenses