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

TDS default under section 201 (1) income tax default under section 201 is determined act by the section 201 (1) of ₹ of ₹ 34,145

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

TDS default under section 201 (1) income tax default under section 201 is determined act by the section 201 (1) of ₹ of ₹ 34,145

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

TDS default under section 201 (1) income tax default under section 201 is determined act by the section 201 (1) of ₹ of ₹ 34,145

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

TDS default under section 201 (1) income tax default under section 201 is determined act by the section 201 (1) of ₹ of ₹ 34,145

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

TDS default under section 201 (1) income tax default under section 201 is determined act by the section 201 (1) of ₹ of ₹ 34,145

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

TDS default under section 201 (1) income tax default under section 201 is determined act by the section 201 (1) of ₹ of ₹ 34,145

ITO 19(2)(4),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PALLON SHAPOORJI MISTRY, MUMBAI

In the result, grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21

TDS done thereon. However, in the year under consideration, i.e., Assessment Year 2020-21, assessee 8 Pallon Shapoorji Mistry., AY 2020-21 claims to change the method of accounting from accrual basis to cash basis which he did not accept. He observed referring to provisions of section 145

MILAN THEATRES P LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 12(3)(2), , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

TDS credit.\n22. Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions advanced before the lower authorities. He submitted that the entire edifice of the impugned assessment order was vitiated by the Assessing Officer's failure to invoke section 145

S N THAKKAR INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. CIRCLE 14(1)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2018-19

section 145(3) of the Act. He thereafter estimated the profit at 8% of the gross receipts of ₹9,91,87,059/-, determining the at 8% of the gross receipts of , determining the income at ₹79,34,965/ 9,34,965/-. After adjusting the net profit declared by . After adjusting the net profit declared by the assessee, an addition

ADDL CIT -- 10(1), MUMBAI vs. AGC NETWORK LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS AVAYA GLOBAL CONNECT LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

145(2) of the Act. In this context, learned Authorised Representative has specifically referred to Para–16 and 17 of AS-1. For ease of reference, we reproduce the aforesaid paragraph herein below:– “Considerations in the Selection of Accounting Policies 16. The primary consideration in the selection of accounting policies by an enterprise is that the financial statements prepared

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

TDS Section 194A – Interest on loans 4,12,416 Nil 10,686 Section 194C Contractor 78,06,579 Nil 78,06,579 Section 194J – Supervision Charges 2,55,100 Nil 2,55,100 Section 194H – Brokerage Expenses/ 2,50,000 Nil 2,50,000 commission Section 194J – professional charges 50,000 Nil 50,000 4. Adhoc Disallowance for direct 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

TDS Section 194A – Interest on loans 4,12,416 Nil 10,686 Section 194C Contractor 78,06,579 Nil 78,06,579 Section 194J – Supervision Charges 2,55,100 Nil 2,55,100 Section 194H – Brokerage Expenses/ 2,50,000 Nil 2,50,000 commission Section 194J – professional charges 50,000 Nil 50,000 4. Adhoc Disallowance for direct 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

TDS Section 194A – Interest on loans 4,12,416 Nil 10,686 Section 194C Contractor 78,06,579 Nil 78,06,579 Section 194J – Supervision Charges 2,55,100 Nil 2,55,100 Section 194H – Brokerage Expenses/ 2,50,000 Nil 2,50,000 commission Section 194J – professional charges 50,000 Nil 50,000 4. Adhoc Disallowance for direct 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

TDS Section 194A – Interest on loans 4,12,416 Nil 10,686 Section 194C Contractor 78,06,579 Nil 78,06,579 Section 194J – Supervision Charges 2,55,100 Nil 2,55,100 Section 194H – Brokerage Expenses/ 2,50,000 Nil 2,50,000 commission Section 194J – professional charges 50,000 Nil 50,000 4. Adhoc Disallowance for direct 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

TDS Section 194A – Interest on loans 4,12,416 Nil 10,686 Section 194C Contractor 78,06,579 Nil 78,06,579 Section 194J – Supervision Charges 2,55,100 Nil 2,55,100 Section 194H – Brokerage Expenses/ 2,50,000 Nil 2,50,000 commission Section 194J – professional charges 50,000 Nil 50,000 4. Adhoc Disallowance for direct 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

TDS Section 194A – Interest on loans 4,12,416 Nil 10,686 Section 194C Contractor 78,06,579 Nil 78,06,579 Section 194J – Supervision Charges 2,55,100 Nil 2,55,100 Section 194H – Brokerage Expenses/ 2,50,000 Nil 2,50,000 commission Section 194J – professional charges 50,000 Nil 50,000 4. Adhoc Disallowance for direct 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

TDS Section 194A – Interest on loans 4,12,416 Nil 10,686 Section 194C Contractor 78,06,579 Nil 78,06,579 Section 194J – Supervision Charges 2,55,100 Nil 2,55,100 Section 194H – Brokerage Expenses/ 2,50,000 Nil 2,50,000 commission Section 194J – professional charges 50,000 Nil 50,000 4. Adhoc Disallowance for direct 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

TDS Section 194A – Interest on loans 4,12,416 Nil 10,686 Section 194C Contractor 78,06,579 Nil 78,06,579 Section 194J – Supervision Charges 2,55,100 Nil 2,55,100 Section 194H – Brokerage Expenses/ 2,50,000 Nil 2,50,000 commission Section 194J – professional charges 50,000 Nil 50,000 4. Adhoc Disallowance for direct Expenses