OCEANEERING INTERNATIONAL GMBH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(INT. TAXATION)RANGE-3(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, ground no. 4 of the appeal is allowed for statistical\npurposes

145A(ii) of the ACT was\nrelevant. Whereas the appellant Is Oil and Gas company to whom special\nprovisions of section 44BB is applicable.\n\n4. Short Grant of Tax Deducted at source of Rs.40,03,123/-\nThe Id. AO erred has erred in granting credit of TDS

OCEANEERING INTERNATIONAL GMBH,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) RANGE 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

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

TDS provisions and CBDT has clarified through various circulars that\nif GST services are indicated separately in the invoice then no tax would be\ndeducted at GST components. By way of illustration following circulars have\nbeen referred to before us under various sections:-\n\nSr. No\nCircular No.\nRelevant Section\n1\nCircular No. 5 of 2023\nSection 194BA\n2\nCircular

SEADRILL INTERNATIONAL LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-4(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

TDS provisions and CBDT has clarified through various\ncirculars that if GST services are indicated separately in the invoice then no\ntax would be deducted at GST components. By way of illustration following\ncirculars have been referred to before us under various Sections:-\nSr.No.\nCircular No.\nRelevant Section\nCircular No. 5 of 2023\nSection 194BA\nCircular

ORIENT OVERSEAS CONTAINER LINE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INT) TAX CIRCLE 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailorient Overseas Container Line Limited, C/O Oocl (India) Private Limited, Icc Chambers, 5Th Floor, Saki Vihar Road, Opp. Santogen Silk Mills, Powai, ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400072 Pan : Aaaco5679E V/S Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle – 3(2)(2), ……………… Respondent 6Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai - 400051

TDS credit of Rs. 4,31,057 is in relation to the tax deducted on the interest under section 244A by the Jurisdictional assessing officer at the time of issuing refund for AY 2020-21. Short grant of credit of advance tax of Rs. 12,52,377 8. The Ld. AO erred in restricting the credit of advance

ORIENT OVERSEAS CONTAINER LINE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

TDS credit of Rs.\n23,08,839 is in relation to the tax deducted on the interest\nunder Section 244A by the jurisdictional assessing officer at\nthe time of issuing refund for the AY 2015-16.\n6. Ground 6: Short grant of credit of advance tax of Rs.3,47,553\n6.1.\nOn the facts and circumstances of the case

DCIT 2(2), MUMBAI vs. KNIGHT FRANK (I) P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu (Vp) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-2010 M/S Knight Frank (I) Pvt. Ltd., The Addl. Commissioner Of C/O Kalyaniwalla & Mistry, Income Tax – 2(2), Army & Navy Building, Room No. 548, 5Th Floor, 3Rd Floor, 148 M.G. Road, Fort, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai - 400001 Mumbai Pan: Aaack1544J (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2009-2010 The Dcit – 2(2), M/S Knight Frank (India) Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 545, Paville House, Near Twin Towers, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Off. Veer Savarkar Marg, Mumbai - 400020 Vs. Prabhadevi, Mumbai - 400025 Pan: Aaack1544J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.M. Golwala & Amey Wagle (Ar) Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav & S.K. Mishra (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 21/12/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 18/03/2019

TDS Rs. 6,50,46,786/-, as claimed in the Return of Income.” Assessment Year: 2009-2010 4. Ground No. 1 to 4 pertain to the issue relating to service tax. Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that since the AO had wrongly applied the provisions of section 145A

SAGARKUMAR ISHWARBHAI BHAVANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-32(3)(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.75/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Sagarkumar Ishwarbhai बिधम/ Ito, Ward-32(3)(3) Bhavani Room No. 105, C-Wing, Vs. 1St Floor, Kautilya D-103 D-103, Amozan Park Ii Devki Nagar Link Road, Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra Borivali-West-400103. (E), Mumbai-400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Agupb5616P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rakesh Joshi (Amicus Curiae) Revenue By: Shri Anil Gupta सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 02/03/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/05/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 16.12.2022 For Ay. 2016-17. 2. Grounds Raised By Assessee Are As Under: - “1. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Ao Erred In Wrongly Holding That Service Tax Is Liable To Be Included In The Turnover For The Purpose Of Tax Audit Which Is Against The Definition Of Turnover As Per Institute Of Chartered Accountants Of India Guidelines. Without Prejudice To The Above 2. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Ao Erred In Adding An Amount Of Rs.8,31,631/- By Adopting Arbitrary Rate Of Net Profit @ 15% While Computing Income As Per Normal Provisions Of The Act & Wrongly Holding That The Appellant Is Outside The Purview Of Section 44Ad & The Cit(A) Erred In Partly Confirming The Same.

TDS were already deducted and deposited in the government treasury. The explanation regarding “turnover/gross receipts” submitted by the assessee is not applicable in the instant case as the section itself is a deeming provision and income from gross receipts are estimated after considering all type of expenses which a assessee may claim under section 28 to 43C and hence, there

PIRAMAL GLASS PRIVATE LTD(EARLIER KNOWN AS PIRAMAL GLASS LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. DCIT 7(3)(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri N.K.Pradhanआअसं. 556/मुं/2018 ("न.व. 2013-14) Piramal Glass Private Limited, (Earlier Known As Piramal Glass Ltd) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013 Pan: Aabcg0093R ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant

145A, keeping in view the principle laid down in judicial precedents referred to above and only after providing due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Ground no.8 is allowed for statistical purposes.” 33. Facts being identical, respectfully following the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal, we restore the issue to the Assessing Officer for deciding afresh in terms with

PIRAMAL GLASS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 7(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

145A, keeping in view the principle laid down in judicial precedents referred to above and only after providing due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Ground no.8 is allowed for statistical purposes.” 33. Facts being identical, respectfully following the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal, we restore the issue to the Assessing Officer for deciding afresh in terms with

DEVIKA RAJESH JAGGI,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE CIT RANGE-19, MUMBAI

In the result, the present appeal is allowed

TDS Chalet 194A 1,20,93,663 13,90,771 3,13,54,275 13,90,771 - The said Hotels income in Pvt. ITR shown Ltd. as Sale of Goods xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx - - xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx - - …” (Emphasis Supplied) 12. On perusal of above reply letter dated 06.11.2019, it can be seen that the Appellant

DCIT CEN CIR 1(2), MUMBAI vs. HIRANANDNANI PALACE GARDENS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negi

section 145A of the I.T. Act. The AO has not assigned any cogent reason as to why the method, which has been consistently followed by assessee and accepted by the department in past as well in succeeding assessment years and which is in accordance with the : 6 : ITA Nos. 4392, 4393 & 4394/Mum/2016 recognized principles of accounting by ICAI, is being

SERVICOS DE PETROLEO CONSTELLATION SA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-4(2)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt Renu Jauhri, Am Servicos De Petroleo Constellation Sa Dcit(International Taxation), India Project Office: Circle-4(2)(1) Unit No. 1803 To 1808, 18Th Floor, Mumbai B-Wing, Business Park, Vs. Veer Savarkar Road, Part Site, Vikhroli (W), Mumbai-400 079

145A of the Act provides for method of valuation where the assessee can include the GST/service tax paid on the credit side on the P & L account and can debit the same in the P & L account on payment of the said amount and further stated that if the service tax amount is not an income element, it should

DCIT 4(2), MUMBAI vs. GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

145A of the Act and therefore the said amount was allowable as deduction. The ld. CIT(A) after examining the issue thoroughly allowed the deduction and therefore it should be upheld as the claim being per the provisions of the Act. The ld DR on the other hand relied on the order of AO and prayed for restoring the same

GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(2), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

145A of the Act and therefore the said amount was allowable as deduction. The ld. CIT(A) after examining the issue thoroughly allowed the deduction and therefore it should be upheld as the claim being per the provisions of the Act. The ld DR on the other hand relied on the order of AO and prayed for restoring the same

ACIT 4(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

145A of the Act and therefore the said amount was allowable as deduction. The ld. CIT(A) after examining the issue thoroughly allowed the deduction and therefore it should be upheld as the claim being per the provisions of the Act. The ld DR on the other hand relied on the order of AO and prayed for restoring the same

GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(2), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

145A of the Act and therefore the said amount was allowable as deduction. The ld. CIT(A) after examining the issue thoroughly allowed the deduction and therefore it should be upheld as the claim being per the provisions of the Act. The ld DR on the other hand relied on the order of AO and prayed for restoring the same

ACIT 4(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

145A of the Act and therefore the said amount was allowable as deduction. The ld. CIT(A) after examining the issue thoroughly allowed the deduction and therefore it should be upheld as the claim being per the provisions of the Act. The ld DR on the other hand relied on the order of AO and prayed for restoring the same

GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 4(2)(2), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

145A of the Act and therefore the said amount was allowable as deduction. The ld. CIT(A) after examining the issue thoroughly allowed the deduction and therefore it should be upheld as the claim being per the provisions of the Act. The ld DR on the other hand relied on the order of AO and prayed for restoring the same