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

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

STAARK ACCESSORIES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 13(2)(2)

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S. Staark Accessories Pvt. Ltd., A-20, Virwani Industrial Estate Goregaon East, Mumbai- 400063, Pan: Aatcs1816J ...... Appellant Vs. Acit-13(2) (2), Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai- 400020 ..... Respondent

127 of the Act. Facts of this case are not matching with the facts of present appeal. iv) D. Craft Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO (ITA No. 1461/Kol/2017) v) Deepak Kedia (ITA No. 881/Kol/2023) vi) Jigna Chetan Mehta (ITA No. 616/ Kol/2022) vii) Shivam Finance (ITA No. 422/Kol/2023) viii) Tata Sons (ITA No. 4497/Mum/2015) ix) Abhishek Jain (2018) 94 taxmann.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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