DCIT CEN CIR 8(4), MUMBAI vs. SAVITA OIL TECHNOLOGIES LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.7620/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11)

148 or section 153A, as the case may be, the assessee shall be liable to pay such tax together with interest payable under any provision of this Act for any delay in furnishing the return", makes it clear that there is no difference between: (i) the tax paid under section 115WJ, which deals with advance tax in respect of fringe

CHEMOX EXPORTS IMPORTS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, ASSESSMENT UNIT, DELHI

1,77,500\nTDS-1941(B)\nTDS Statement\n(Section TDS-1941)\nRent Chennai\nNetwork\nInfrastructure Limited\nAmount paid or credited 9,34,710\nTDS-1941(B)\nTDS Statement\n(Section TDS-1941)\nRent Vodafone\nLimited\nIndia\nAmount paid or credited 9,20,000\nTDS-1941(B)\nTDS Statement\n(Section TDS-1941)\nRent\nIndus Towers Limited Amount paid

M/S THE MAHARASHTRA STATE CO. OP BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO-1(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

TDS of Rs. 12,23,608/- has been allowed by the has been allowed by the Income-tax Department in the hands of Shri Kapil Ahluwalia or tax Department in the hands of Shri Kapil Ahluwalia or tax Department in the hands of Shri Kapil Ahluwalia or not. If it has been not allowed, then the credit of this amount

DY CIT-1(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

TDS of Rs. 12,23,608/- has been allowed by the has been allowed by the Income-tax Department in the hands of Shri Kapil Ahluwalia or tax Department in the hands of Shri Kapil Ahluwalia or tax Department in the hands of Shri Kapil Ahluwalia or not. If it has been not allowed, then the credit of this amount

VIPENDRA RAVINDRA MANDAL,THANE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- WARD 22(3)(6), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Vipendra Ravindra Mandal, Ito Ward 22(3)(6), 405, Orchid Wing-F Lodha Crown, Piramal Chamber, Taloja Bypass Road, Kohni B.O. Vs. Mumbai-400012. Khoni, Thane-421204. Pan No. Alepm 8472 H Appellant Respondent

1 to section 148, such information provided by Risk Management section 148, such information provided by Risk Management section 148, such information provided by Risk Management Strategy (RMS) constitutes/ suggest income chargeable to tax Strategy (RMS) constitutes/ suggest income chargeable to tax Strategy (RMS) constitutes/ suggest income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for A.Y. 2016 has escaped assessment

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED, MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

DCIT CC 5-1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED , MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), CENTRAL RANGE-4, MUMBAI vs. M/S.GROWMORE RESEARCH & ASSET MANAGEMENT LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 1991-92 Dcit, M/S. Growmore Research Cent. Cir.-4(3) & Assets Management Central Range-4, Ltd., Room No.1921, 32, Madhuli Apartment, Vs. 19Th Floor, 3Rd Floor, Air India Bldg., Dr. Annie Besant Road, Nariman Point, Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aaacg4936C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 1991-92 M/S. Growmore Research Dcit & Assets Management Cent. Cir.-4(3), Ltd., Central Range-4, 32, Madhuli Apartment, Room No.1921, 3Rd Floor, Vs. 19Th Floor, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Air India Bldg., Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Nariman Point, Pan: Aaacg4936C Mumbai - 400021

TDS and hence on the said amount of tax, no interest can be computed u/s.234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. 19. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in making addition of Rs. 5,50,04,109/- by enhancing the assessed income without appreciating that- a. The Ld.CIT(A) had exceeded the jurisdiction by invoking powers of enhancement

M/S. GROWMORE RESEARCH & ASSETS MANAGEMENT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENT. CIR. - 4(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 1991-92 Dcit, M/S. Growmore Research Cent. Cir.-4(3) & Assets Management Central Range-4, Ltd., Room No.1921, 32, Madhuli Apartment, Vs. 19Th Floor, 3Rd Floor, Air India Bldg., Dr. Annie Besant Road, Nariman Point, Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aaacg4936C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 1991-92 M/S. Growmore Research Dcit & Assets Management Cent. Cir.-4(3), Ltd., Central Range-4, 32, Madhuli Apartment, Room No.1921, 3Rd Floor, Vs. 19Th Floor, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Air India Bldg., Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Nariman Point, Pan: Aaacg4936C Mumbai - 400021

TDS and hence on the said amount of tax, no interest can be computed u/s.234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. 19. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in making addition of Rs. 5,50,04,109/- by enhancing the assessed income without appreciating that- a. The Ld.CIT(A) had exceeded the jurisdiction by invoking powers of enhancement

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

1,66,32,320/– the learned CIT – A following the decision of the coordinate ITA Nos. 127 to 133/Mum/2023 Total Energies Marketing India Pvt. Ltd.; A.Ys. 2013-14 to 19-20 benches in case of Biocon Ltd versus DCIT, Bharat financial inclusion Ltd versus DCIT [2018] 96 taxmann.com 540 (Hyderabad - Trib.)and IBM India private limited versus ITO held that

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

1,66,32,320/– the learned CIT – A following the decision of the coordinate ITA Nos. 127 to 133/Mum/2023 Total Energies Marketing India Pvt. Ltd.; A.Ys. 2013-14 to 19-20 benches in case of Biocon Ltd versus DCIT, Bharat financial inclusion Ltd versus DCIT [2018] 96 taxmann.com 540 (Hyderabad - Trib.)and IBM India private limited versus ITO held that

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

1,66,32,320/– the learned CIT – A following the decision of the coordinate ITA Nos. 127 to 133/Mum/2023 Total Energies Marketing India Pvt. Ltd.; A.Ys. 2013-14 to 19-20 benches in case of Biocon Ltd versus DCIT, Bharat financial inclusion Ltd versus DCIT [2018] 96 taxmann.com 540 (Hyderabad - Trib.)and IBM India private limited versus ITO held that

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

1,66,32,320/– the learned CIT – A following the decision of the coordinate ITA Nos. 127 to 133/Mum/2023 Total Energies Marketing India Pvt. Ltd.; A.Ys. 2013-14 to 19-20 benches in case of Biocon Ltd versus DCIT, Bharat financial inclusion Ltd versus DCIT [2018] 96 taxmann.com 540 (Hyderabad - Trib.)and IBM India private limited versus ITO held that

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

1,66,32,320/– the learned CIT – A following the decision of the coordinate ITA Nos. 127 to 133/Mum/2023 Total Energies Marketing India Pvt. Ltd.; A.Ys. 2013-14 to 19-20 benches in case of Biocon Ltd versus DCIT, Bharat financial inclusion Ltd versus DCIT [2018] 96 taxmann.com 540 (Hyderabad - Trib.)and IBM India private limited versus ITO held that

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

1,66,32,320/– the learned CIT – A following the decision of the coordinate ITA Nos. 127 to 133/Mum/2023 Total Energies Marketing India Pvt. Ltd.; A.Ys. 2013-14 to 19-20 benches in case of Biocon Ltd versus DCIT, Bharat financial inclusion Ltd versus DCIT [2018] 96 taxmann.com 540 (Hyderabad - Trib.)and IBM India private limited versus ITO held that

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

1,66,32,320/– the learned CIT – A following the decision of the coordinate ITA Nos. 127 to 133/Mum/2023 Total Energies Marketing India Pvt. Ltd.; A.Ys. 2013-14 to 19-20 benches in case of Biocon Ltd versus DCIT, Bharat financial inclusion Ltd versus DCIT [2018] 96 taxmann.com 540 (Hyderabad - Trib.)and IBM India private limited versus ITO held that