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

135,9000/- on 30,92,02,890/– 1,79,73,114 which TDS on which TDS on which TDS default under default under default under section

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

135,9000/- on 30,92,02,890/– 1,79,73,114 which TDS on which TDS on which TDS default under default under default under section

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

135,9000/- on 30,92,02,890/– 1,79,73,114 which TDS on which TDS on which TDS default under default under default under section

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

135,9000/- on 30,92,02,890/– 1,79,73,114 which TDS on which TDS on which TDS default under default under default under section

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

135,9000/- on 30,92,02,890/– 1,79,73,114 which TDS on which TDS on which TDS default under default under default under section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1, THANE, ASHAR IT PART, WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE WEST vs. MAHYCO MONSANTO BIOTECH (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, SANDOZBAUGH SO THANE

In the result, the Cross appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

135 of the Companies Act,\n2013 shall not be deemed to have been incurred for the purpose of business and, hence, shall\nnot be allowed as deduction under section 37. However, the CSR expenditure which is of the\nnature described in section 30 to section 36 of the Act shall be allowed deduction under those\nsections subject to fulfilment

JCIT(OSD) CIRCLE 2(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. HDFC BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the above stated appeals of the\nassessee in ITA No

135 of the Companies Act, 2013. It\nis pertinent to point out that the intention of the legislature was clear when the same was\nclarified by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 that CSR expenses will not fall under the business\nexpenditure and also there has been an express bar specified in sub clause (iiihk) and (iiihl)\nof section

ACIT CC 4 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MAERSK LINE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical\npurposes

TDS certificates.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "40(a)(i)", "40(a)(ia)", "206AA", "80G", "37(1)", "135" ], "issues": "Whether the CIT(A) erred

DEUTSCHE INDIA PVT. LTD.(EARLIER KNOWN AS 'DBOI GLOBAL SERVICES PVT. LTD.),MUMBAI vs. ACIT-1(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for 16

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

TDS credit of Rs.8,73,443. 4. The AO erred in charging interest of Rs.1,26,28,36,544 under section 234B of the Act. The appellants pray that the AO be directed to recompute interest under section 234B and delete the excess interest charged. 5 The AO erred in charging interest of Rs.63,19,467 under section 234C

LIVLONG INSURANCE BROKERS LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PCIT -4 , MUMBAI

135 of the Companies Act, 2013. It is\npertinent to point out that the intention of the legislature was clear when the same was\nclarified by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 that CSR expenses will not fall under the\nbusiness expenditure and also there has been an express bar specified in sub clause\n(iiihk) and (iiihl) of section

JCIT(OSD) CIRCLE 2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. HDFC BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the above stated appeals of the\nassessee in ITA No

135 (5) of the Companies Act are also\neligible for deduction/s 80G of Ericsson India Global Services Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT the\nAct subject to satisfying the requisite conditions prescribed for deduction u/s 80G of\nthe Act. For this purpose, the issue is remanded to the file ofAO to examine the same\nwhether the payments satisfy the claim of donation

HDFC BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 2 (3) (1) , MUMBAI

In the result, both the above stated appeals of the\nassessee in ITA No

135 (5) of the Companies Act are also\neligible for deduction/s 80G of Ericsson India Global Services Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT the\nAct subject to satisfying the requisite conditions prescribed for deduction u/s 80G of\nthe Act. For this purpose, the issue is remanded to the file ofAO to examine the same\nwhether the payments satisfy the claim of donation

JCIT OSD CIRCLE 2(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. HDFC BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the above stated appeals of the\nassessee in ITA No

135 (5) of the Companies Act are also\neligible for deduction/s 80G of Ericsson India Global Services Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT the\nAct subject to satisfying the requisite conditions prescribed for deduction u/s 80G of\nthe Act. For this purpose, the issue is remanded to the file ofAO to examine the same\nwhether the payments satisfy the claim of donation

ACIT-6(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ADITYA BIRLA SUN LIFE AMC LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailaditya Birla Sun Life Amc Ltd., Tower 1, Jupiter Mill Compound, 17Th Floor, One World Center, 841, Senapati Bapat Marg, ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400013 Pan : Aaacb6134D V/S

TDS within the due date. On the other hand, the assessee is claiming the amount in this year. Accordingly, the AO held that the amount of ₹ 65,03,040/- is not allowable as a deduction in the year under consideration. 8. The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, dismissed the ground raised by the assessee on this issue and held

ADITYA BIRLA SUN LIFE AMC LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed

TDS within the due date. On the other hand, the assessee is claiming\nthe amount in this year. Accordingly, the AO held that the amount of ₹\n65,03,040/- is not allowable as a deduction in the year under consideration.\n8. The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, dismissed the ground raised\nby the assessee on this issue and held

FIRMENICH AROMATICS PRODUCTION (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

TDS, after due verification of records and as available to the\nassessee. To this extent, ground nos.5 and 6 are remitted back to the\nfile of ld. AO. Accordingly, the same are allowed for statistical purposes.\n16. Ground nos.4 and 7 are consequential in nature and therefore do\nnot need separate adjudication except in respect of interest charged\nu/s.234C which

FIRMENICH AROMATICS PRODUCTION (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

TDS, after due verification of records and as available to the\nassessee. To this extent, ground nos.5 and 6 are remitted back to the\nfile of ld. AO. Accordingly, the same are allowed for statistical purposes.\n\n16.\nGround nos.4 and 7 are consequential in nature and therefore do\nnot need separate adjudication except in respect of interest charged\nu/s.234C

PASHUPATI CAPITAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI - 4, MUMBAI

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

TDS which was also required to be verified whether\nthe taxable income has been disclosed correctly.\n3. Statutory notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 29.06.2021 and assessee\nsubmitted his reply alongwith Computation of Income, Balance Sheet and P\n& L Account, Tax Audit Report and Statutory Audit Report. Subsequently, a\nnotice u/s 142(1) along with questionnaire was issued