JAN SEVA MANDAL ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTION WARD -1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2023-24 Jan Seva Mandal, Central Processing Centre Income Vinayalaya, Mahakali Caves Tax Deparment, Bengaluru, Vs. Road, Andheri (East), Income Tax Officer Exemption Mumbai-400093. Ward 1(4), Mumbai. 6Th Floor, Mtnl Te Building, Pedder Road, Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaatj 4868 K Appellant Respondent

TDS refund of Rs. 1,05,613/- against the Appellant: against the Appellant: 1. A sum of Rs. 17,61,379/ A sum of Rs. 17,61,379/- under section 11(1 )(a) of the under section 11(1 )(a) of the Act Act Act being being being amount amount amount accumulated accumulated accumulated

ITO 3(3)2, MUMBAI vs. SHAMROCK PHARMACHEMI P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1774/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बिाम/ Ito 3(3)2, M/S. Shamrock R.No. 602, Pharmachemi Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 83E,Hansraj Pragi Bldg., V. M.K Road, Opp. Dr. E Moses Road, Mumbai 400020 Worli, Mumbai-400018 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacs6290H (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri. Ashim Kumar Modi (Cit- Dr), Shri V. Justin & Ms. Chaitna Ajaria Shri. Bharat L. Gandhi Assessee By: सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 01.03.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 1774/Mum/2013, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 29.10.2012, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called ―The Cit(A)‖) In Appeal Number Cit(A)-7/Ito-3(3)(2)/It-166/11-12, For Assessment Year 2009-10, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 29.12.2011 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called ―The Ao‖) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ―The Act‖) For Ay 2009-10. I.T.A. No.1774/Mum/2013

TDS certificate is essential. 6. Whether this contention is correct, is the issue to be decided. 7. In order to appreciate this contention, it is necessary to consider the relevant provisions of the Act:— (i) Section 40(a)(i) of the Act :— "Section 40 - Amounts not deductible: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in sections 30 to 38, the following amounts

CRESCENT CONSTRUCTION CO.,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 22(3), NAVI MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06

139(1) of the Act. Any other interpretation would lead to difficulties, incongruities and conflict between clause A of the main Section and clause A of the proviso. Both would be applicable to the same factual matrix/situation with contradictory stipulations or consequences. Under clause A of the main Section, the TDS

ITO 22(3)(1), NAVI MUMBAI vs. CRESCENT CONSTRUCTION, NAVI MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06

139(1) of the Act. Any other interpretation would lead to difficulties, incongruities and conflict between clause A of the main Section and clause A of the proviso. Both would be applicable to the same factual matrix/situation with contradictory stipulations or consequences. Under clause A of the main Section, the TDS

DCIT 8(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SHAMROCK PHARMACHEMI P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M.Balaganeshita Nos. 862 & 863/Mum/2018 (Assessment Years :2013-14 & 2014-15) Dcit-8(2)(1) Vs. M/S. Shamrock Pharmachemi Room No.624, Pvt.Ltd. Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Off Dr. E Moses Road Mumbai-400 020 Worli, Mumbai-400 025 Pan/Gir No.Aaacs6290H (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Bharat Gandhi, Ar Revenue By Shri V.Vinod Kumar, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing 28/10/2020 Date Of Pronouncement 11/11/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per M. Balaganesh (A.M): These Two Appeals Filed By Revenue In Ita Nos. 862 & 863/Mum/2018 For Assessment Years (Ay) 2013-14 & 2014-15 Arise Out Of The Order By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 14, Mumbai In Appeals No.Cit(A)-14/It-170/15-16 & Cit(A)-14/It- 119/16-17, Dated 27/11/2017 (Ld. Cit(A) In Short) Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As Act) Dated 31/08/2016 By The Ld. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-8(2)(1), Mumbai (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. Ao).

TDS certificate is essential. 6. Whether this contention is correct, is the issue to be decided. 7. In order to appreciate this contention, it is necessary to consider the relevant provisions of the Act:— (i) Section 40(a)(i) of the Act :— "Section 40 - Amounts not deductible: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in sections 30 to 38, the following amounts

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

139(1) of the Act. T Officer observed rved that that assessee assessee had had made made suo-motu made suo disallowance of the above expenses in the return of income filed in above expenses in the return of income filed in above expenses in the return of income filed in response to notice u/s 153A

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

139(1) of the Act. T Officer observed rved that that assessee assessee had had made made suo-motu made suo disallowance of the above expenses in the return of income filed in above expenses in the return of income filed in above expenses in the return of income filed in response to notice u/s 153A

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

139(1) of the Act. T Officer observed rved that that assessee assessee had had made made suo-motu made suo disallowance of the above expenses in the return of income filed in above expenses in the return of income filed in above expenses in the return of income filed in response to notice u/s 153A

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DICT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

139(1) of the Act. T Officer observed rved that that assessee assessee had had made made suo-motu made suo disallowance of the above expenses in the return of income filed in above expenses in the return of income filed in above expenses in the return of income filed in response to notice u/s 153A

SAFE AND SURE MARINE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO (TDS), WARD 8(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for partly allowed for 7

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee () Assessment Year: 2013-14

TDS is confirmed. Ground no 1 to 4 is dismissed. dismissed.” 6. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned DR as well as the written submissions of the assessee. The assessee DR as well as the written submissions

PEOPLE INERACTIVE (I) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 7, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

139, furnishes to the Assessing Officer a declaration in writing that the provisions of this ITA No. 3558 & 3717/Mum/2016 11 section may not be made applicable to him, the provisions of this section shall not apply to him for any of the relevant assessment years. (9) [Omitted by the Finance Act, 2003, w.e.f. 1-4-2004.] (9A) [Omitted

PEOPLE INERACTIVE (I) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 7, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

139, furnishes to the Assessing Officer a declaration in writing that the provisions of this ITA No. 3558 & 3717/Mum/2016 11 section may not be made applicable to him, the provisions of this section shall not apply to him for any of the relevant assessment years. (9) [Omitted by the Finance Act, 2003, w.e.f. 1-4-2004.] (9A) [Omitted

CITIZENCREDIT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED (HILL ROAD BRANCH),MUMBAI vs. ITO (TDS)-WARD 1(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

TDS liability on the assessee. We have already held that the specific\nprovisions applicable to the appellant would prevail over the general provisions\ncontained in section 194A(3)(v) of the Act. No amendment has been made in the\nspecific provisions contained in section 194A(3)(i)(b) and 194A(3)(viia)(b) of the\nAct dealing with “Co-operative

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

139 Taxman 115 , decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Shree Ambica Flour Mills Corpn. [2008] 6 DTR 169 and a decision of this Court in the case ITA Nos.7124 to 7129/Mum/2016 8 M/s Galaxy Premises Pvt. Ltd. of CIT v. Motta Constructions (P.) Ltd. [2011] 338 ITR 66 /[2012] 20 taxmann.com

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

139 Taxman 115 , decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Shree Ambica Flour Mills Corpn. [2008] 6 DTR 169 and a decision of this Court in the case ITA Nos.7124 to 7129/Mum/2016 8 M/s Galaxy Premises Pvt. Ltd. of CIT v. Motta Constructions (P.) Ltd. [2011] 338 ITR 66 /[2012] 20 taxmann.com

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

139 Taxman 115 , decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Shree Ambica Flour Mills Corpn. [2008] 6 DTR 169 and a decision of this Court in the case ITA Nos.7124 to 7129/Mum/2016 8 M/s Galaxy Premises Pvt. Ltd. of CIT v. Motta Constructions (P.) Ltd. [2011] 338 ITR 66 /[2012] 20 taxmann.com

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

139 Taxman 115 , decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Shree Ambica Flour Mills Corpn. [2008] 6 DTR 169 and a decision of this Court in the case ITA Nos.7124 to 7129/Mum/2016 8 M/s Galaxy Premises Pvt. Ltd. of CIT v. Motta Constructions (P.) Ltd. [2011] 338 ITR 66 /[2012] 20 taxmann.com

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

139 Taxman 115 , decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Shree Ambica Flour Mills Corpn. [2008] 6 DTR 169 and a decision of this Court in the case ITA Nos.7124 to 7129/Mum/2016 8 M/s Galaxy Premises Pvt. Ltd. of CIT v. Motta Constructions (P.) Ltd. [2011] 338 ITR 66 /[2012] 20 taxmann.com