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).

9 (1) (vii) of the Act and therefore 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

M/S. SATELITE TELEVISION ASIAN REGION LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (INT. I.T) 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee and the Revenue are partly

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

139) (Sr no 15 of legal paperbook) 2. Taxability of Channel 4-6, 8, 10- 4-7, 10- These grounds will become academic in nature in Companies in lndia 11 11 view of decision on Ground 1 to 3 3 No further attribution/ 9, 12, 14 9, 12, 14 Academic once Grounds 1-3 are decided in addition

VIACOM 18 MEDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 4(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh() & Shri G Manjunatha ()

TDS), so that the department can keep track of the remittances being made to non residents outside India, rather it gets attracted to the case where payment made in a composite manner which has an element of income chargeable to tax in India and the payer seeks determination of the "appropriate proportion of such sum so chargeable". From the above

STAR INDIA PVT. LTD. (SUCESSOR OF STAR SPORTS INDIA PVT. LTD.- (SSIPL),MUMBAI vs. ACIT 16 (1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed to the extent indicated above and Ground

Bench: Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishim/S Star India Pvt. Ltd. A C I T (Successor Of Star Sports India -16(1) Pvt. Ltd.) Room No. 439, Star House, Urmi Estate Vs. Aayakar Bhavan 95, Ganpantrao Kadam Marg M.K. Road, Lower Parel (W) Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400013 Pan – Aaacn1335Q Appellant Respondent Co No. 114/Mum/2021 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) A C I T -16(1) M/S Star India Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 439, Aayakar Bhavan (Successor Of Star Sports India M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 Pvt. Ltd.) Vs. Star House, Urmi Estate 95, Ganpantrao Kadam Marg Lower Parel (W) Mumbai 400013 Cross Objector Appellant In Appeal Assessee By: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr Advocate Revenue By: Shri Biswanath Das –Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.06.2023 O R D E R Per: Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 01. Assessee Has Filed Appeal For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15 Against The Assessment Order Passed By The Acit-16(1), Mumbai

139 (9) provides that Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-section, a return of income shall be regarded as defective unless all the following conditions are fulfilled, namely:— 2(a) the annexures, statements and columns in the return of income relating to computation of income chargeable under each head of income, computation of gross total income and total income

SWANSTON MULTIPLEX CINEMAS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 11(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2005-06 Swanston Multiplex Cinemas Acit, Private Limited, Circle-11(1), बनाम/ 9Th Floor, Viraj Towers, W.E. R. No.467, Vs. Highway Next To Andheri Aayakar Bhavan, Flyover Andheri (East), M. K. Road, Mumai-400093 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan No.:-Aafcs6295K

139 or in response to a notice issued under sub-section (1) of section 142 or section 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, for that assessment year: Provided further that nothing contained in the first proviso shall apply in a case where any income in relation to any asset (including financial interest

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

TDS before the due date of filing of return u/s 139(1) of the Act, therefore, we find no justification to reopen the assessment beyond four years. 2.11. However, in the present appeal undisputedly, the assessment was framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 148 of the Act, meaning thereby, a opinion was formed by the Assessing Officer. In such situation

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

TDS before the due date of filing of return u/s 139(1) of the Act, therefore, we find no justification to reopen the assessment beyond four years. 2.11. However, in the present appeal undisputedly, the assessment was framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 148 of the Act, meaning thereby, a opinion was formed by the Assessing Officer. In such situation

ITO IT 1.2.2, MUMBAI vs. BENNETT COLEMAN & CO LTD, MUMBAI

TDS matter, and the remand report was called for after forwarding the submissions of the assessee. Before the learned CIT(A), during the appellate proceedings which culminated in the impugned orders before us, the assessee submitted that the transponder service fees paid to Intelsat UK are not chargeable to tax in India under the Act as well as the India

VIACOM 18 MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT)-4(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

TDS on transponder payments to a 113 ITR 589] is foreign company has been decided in distinguishable on facts as Appellant's favour by the Hon'ble Delhi Court to sections of the Act (in case of New Skies Satellite) and Hon'ble involved Calcutta High Court (in case of ATN International). Therefore, the Appellant humbly submits that these favourable

ITO IT 1.2.2, MUMBAI vs. BENNETT COLEMAN & CO LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

TDS matter, and the remand report was called for after forwarding the submissions of the assessee. Before the learned CIT(A), during the appellate proceedings which culminated in the impugned orders before us, the assessee submitted that the transponder service fees paid to Intelsat UK are not chargeable to tax in India under the Act as well as the India

ITO (IT) 1.2.2, MUMBAI vs. BENNET COLEMAN & CO LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

TDS matter, and the remand report was called for after forwarding the submissions of the assessee. Before the learned CIT(A), during the appellate proceedings which culminated in the impugned orders before us, the assessee submitted that the transponder service fees paid to Intelsat UK are not chargeable to tax in India under the Act as well as the India

MANISH MANOHARDAS ASRANI ,MUMBAI vs. INT TAX WARD 1(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2019-2000

139(9) of the Act, the Assessee declared the same income of Rs.26,35,970/- by filing his return of income on 29.11.2011. Thereafter, the case of the Assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and consequently notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued to the Assessee, in response to which the Assessee furnished the 2 Shri Manish Manohardas

VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED (FORMERLY IDEA CELLULAR LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 14(2)(1), MUMBAI

139(1) of the Act,\nthe same is allowable as and when the assessee has paid the tax on payment basis. As\nthe assessee claims that it had paid TDS u/s.194H during the impugned year, we deem\nit fit to hold that this factual aspect has to be verified by the ld. AO and to allow the\ncorresponding deduction

DCIT - 14(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. IDEA CELLULAR LTD., MUMBAI

139(1) of the Act,\nthe same is allowable as and when the assessee has paid the tax on payment basis. As\nthe assessee claims that it had paid TDS u/s.194H during the impugned year, we deem\nit fit to hold that this factual aspect has to be verified by the ld. AO and to allow the\ncorresponding deduction

ITO IT 1.2.2, MUMBAI vs. BENNETT COLEMAN & CO LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

139 ITR 806 (Guj.)] at Pages 820-822.\n(b) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vishakhapatnam Port Trust [(1983) 144 ITR 146 (AP)]\nat pages 156-157.\n(c) N.V. Philips Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [172 ITR 521) at pages 527 & 538-539.\"\n59. On a final note, India's change in position to the OECD Commentary cannot

ITO (IT) 1.2.2, MUMBAI vs. BENNET COLEMAN & CO LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

139 ITR 806 (Guj.)] at Pages 820-822.\n(b) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vishakhapatnam Port Trust [(1983) 144 ITR 146 (AP)]\nat pages 156-157.\n(c) N.V. Philips Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [172 ITR 521) at pages 527 & 538-539.\"\n59. On a final note, India's change in position to the OECD Commentary cannot

ITO IT 1.2.2, MUMBAI vs. BENNETT COLEMAN & CO LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

TDS matter, and the remand report was called for after forwarding the Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. (A.Ys. 2018-19 and 2019-20) 5 submissions of the assessee. Before the learned CIT(A), during the appellate proceedings which culminated in the impugned orders before us, the assessee submitted that the transponder service fees paid to Intelsat UK are not chargeable

ITO IT 1.2.2, MUMBAI vs. BENNETT COLEMAN & CO LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

TDS matter, and the remand report was called for after forwarding the Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. (A.Ys. 2018-19 and 2019-20) 5 submissions of the assessee. Before the learned CIT(A), during the appellate proceedings which culminated in the impugned orders before us, the assessee submitted that the transponder service fees paid to Intelsat UK are not chargeable

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD)-I/C DCIT CIRCLE 8(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD, MUMBAI

section 139(5). Discovery of the omission or wrong statement made by the assessee itself is not sufficient to file the revised return within ambit of section 139(5)\"\n38.3. Going by the principles decided in the aforementioned decisions, for a revised return to be valid, the essential condition is that the assessee should not be aware of the mistake