ATOS INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the additional grounds

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1795/Mum/2017 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit-14(1)1), Atos India Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan Godrej & Boyce Complex, बनाम/ Mumbai Plant 5, Pirojshanagar, Vs. Lbs Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400079 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaaco2461J (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Dhanesh Bafna /Chandni Sha /Riddhi Maru /Kinjal Patel, Ld. Ars प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Yogesh Kamat, Ld. Dr सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ 01.06.2022 & : 25.01.2023 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 23.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: 1. The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) In 2

TDS of foreign Parties Delayed payment of ES1C 1,74,35,513 & PF 228,64,99,895 Less Deduction Deduction u/s 10A A 12,65,12,187 Total Income 215,99,87,708 9 I.T.A. No. 1795/Mum/2017 Atos India Pvt. Ltd. Rounded off u/s 288A 215,99,87,710 11. Before us ld. Counsel for the assessee, Mr. Dhanesh Bafana

TELEPERFORMANCE GLOBAL SERVICES P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE ADDL/JT/DY/CIT/ASSTT/ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT DENTRE,, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the additional grounds

Bench: Us, First We Would Like To Address Ground No.2 Wherein The Assessee Has Submitted That The Order Of The Ld. Tpo U/S.92Ca(3) Of The Act Dated 01/11/2019 Is Barred By Limitation & Hence, Invalid In Law.

TDS credit. The assessee is IT enabled and BPO service provider and has shown income of Rs.86,36,70,289/- from the said business during the year. Further, the assessee has shown interest income of Rs.15,11,64,039/- as „income from other sources‟. The case was selected for scrutiny by issuance of notice u/s.143

CADMATIC OY,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INT TAX), CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

TDS out of abundant caution on such payment and the appellant has claimed refund of the same. Therefore, the Ld. A.O./ DRP is not justified in making addition of Rs.3,64,86,608/- in the hands of the appellant and the same may be deleted. 5. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, delete or rescind

BARCLAYS BANK PLC,MUMBAI vs. CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-RANGE-1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

B C & Associates UP, Chartered Accountants, attended and submitted the details called for, which are placed on record, (he case was heard and discussed with him 4. Barclays Bank PLC is a financial services group, based in the United Kingdom, engaged primarily in banking, investment banking and investment management, It is a leading provider of coordinated global services to multi

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

EDENRED SA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

TDS of INR 30,00,000: 6. Interest under section 234A of the Act erred in levying interest under section 234A of the Act amounting to INR 32,431 which is not as per law. 7. Interest under section 2348 of the Act Edenred SA A.Y. 2012–13, 2013–14, 2014–15 & 2015–16 erred in levying interest under section

EDENRED SA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

TDS of INR 30,00,000: 6. Interest under section 234A of the Act erred in levying interest under section 234A of the Act amounting to INR 32,431 which is not as per law. 7. Interest under section 2348 of the Act Edenred SA A.Y. 2012–13, 2013–14, 2014–15 & 2015–16 erred in levying interest under section

EDENRED SA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (IT) 2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

TDS of INR 30,00,000: 6. Interest under section 234A of the Act erred in levying interest under section 234A of the Act amounting to INR 32,431 which is not as per law. 7. Interest under section 2348 of the Act Edenred SA A.Y. 2012–13, 2013–14, 2014–15 & 2015–16 erred in levying interest under section

EDENRED SA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

TDS of INR 30,00,000: 6. Interest under section 234A of the Act erred in levying interest under section 234A of the Act amounting to INR 32,431 which is not as per law. 7. Interest under section 2348 of the Act Edenred SA A.Y. 2012–13, 2013–14, 2014–15 & 2015–16 erred in levying interest under section

GOLDMAN SACHS & COMPANY,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

B associates. A BIR is accessible by any subscriber on payment of requisite price with regular internet access for which no particular software or hardware is required. The applicant states that access to data base of the applicant is available to public at large at a price as in case of buying a book

GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. ,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

B associates. A BIR is accessible by any subscriber on payment of requisite price with regular internet access for which no particular software or hardware is required. The applicant states that access to data base of the applicant is available to public at large at a price as in case of buying a book

GOLDMAN SACHS & CO,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT)-2(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

B associates. A BIR is accessible by any subscriber on payment of requisite price with regular internet access for which no particular software or hardware is required. The applicant states that access to data base of the applicant is available to public at large at a price as in case of buying a book

GOLDMAN SACHS & CO.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- 2(3)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

B associates. A BIR is accessible by any subscriber on payment of requisite price with regular internet access for which no particular software or hardware is required. The applicant states that access to data base of the applicant is available to public at large at a price as in case of buying a book

DCIT IT 332 MUMBAI, INCOME TAX vs. PRAMARICA ASPF II CYPRUS HOLDING LTD, CYPRUS

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

b) to section 147 of the Act. 1.4. Erred in holding that there was no change of opinion by Ld AO in the second reopening of assessment. Pramarica ASPF II Cyprus Holding Ltd. 1.5. Erred in not appreciating that the Ld. AO had erred in short grating TDS credit amounting to Rs. 13,80,8222/-” 7. The ld. AR vehemently

DCIT IT 3 3 2 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PRAMARICA ASPF II CYPRUS HOLDING LTD, CTPRUS

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

b) to section 147 of the Act. 1.4. Erred in holding that there was no change of opinion by Ld AO in the second reopening of assessment. Pramarica ASPF II Cyprus Holding Ltd. 1.5. Erred in not appreciating that the Ld. AO had erred in short grating TDS credit amounting to Rs. 13,80,8222/-” 7. The ld. AR vehemently

ACIT 16(1), MUMBAI vs. UTV ENTERTAINMENT TELEVISION LTD(NOW KNOWN AS M/S.DISNEY BROADCASTING (INDIA) LIMITED), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5958/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिाम/ Acit 16(1) Utv Entertainment R.No. 439, Aayakar Television Ltd. (Now Bhavan, M.K Marg, Known As M/S. Disney V. Mumbai 400020 Broadcasting (India) Ltd.) 11, Solitaire Corporate Park, Guru Hargovind Marg, Chakala , Mumbai-400093 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaccv4782D (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri. Charanjeet Singh Gulati (Cit-Dr) Shri. Abhishek Tilak Assessee By: सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 11.03.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.06.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 5958/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 16.06.2017, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2012-13, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 15.03.2016 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2012-13. I.T.A. No.5958/Mum/2017

TDS was not deducted under proper applicable provisions i.e., Section 194J is disallowed u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and added back to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are being initiated separately for filing inaccurate particulars of income.” 4. Aggrieved by an assessment

ACIT(IT)-1(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. BARCLAYS EXECUTION SERVICES LIMITED, LONDON

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

TDS, and that no return of income had been filed. Hence, the AO recorded reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment and initiated proceedings under section 148A. 5. A notice under section 148A(b) was issued on 1 June 2022, enclosing the relied-upon material. The assessee responded on 14 June 2022 with detailed explanations; nonetheless

GETINGE MEDICAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

TDS of Rs. 1,24,82,097/- as against Rs. 1,25,90,372/- claimed by the Appellant in its return of income. 6. Ground 6: Interest charged under section 234A, 2348 and 234C of the Act The Id. AO erred in levying interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. 7. Ground 7: Initiation of penalty under