VARIAN MEDICAL SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAIQQQ vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT NFAC CETNRE ITO, MINISTRY OF FINANCE DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partially allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

TDS credit Ground No. 9 (9.1 & 9.2) Incorrect calculation of interest under section 234B of Ground No. 10 (10.1 to 10.3) the Act Levy of additional interest under section 234C Ground No.11 (11.1 to 11.3) Initiation of penalty under section 270A of he Act Ground No. 12 (12.1 & 12.2) 4. Ground No.1 and 2 are general not warranting any separate

DCIT 27(1) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. GANGA DEVELOPERS, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shripavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Dcit 27(1) R No.406, 4Th Floor, Tower M/S Ganga Developers Plot No. 219, Alal Asia, No.6, 11Th Road, Chembur, Vashi Railway Stn Complex, Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai Mumbai-400 071 Mumbai-400 703 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaafg 8230 C Assessee By : Shri J.P. Bairagra, Ar Revenue By : Shri Jasbir Chouhan, Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2022

150(1) is to be read literally and considered as posing a hurdle as contended for by the appellant, we think this result can be overcome by a liberal interpretation of section 297(2)(k). This clause reads: M/s Ganga Developers; A.Y. 17–18 "297. Repeals and Savings.- (1) ** (2)(a) to (j) ** (k)any agreement entered into, appointment made

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)

TDS is required to be withheld on the same. 8.2 In the written submission dated 16 December 2016, it is contended as under: "Barclays Capital. ;i division of Barclays Bank Ple. UK (Barclays UK) manages the global derivatives operations of the Barclays group. The derivative products offered to clients typically include foreign exchange, interest rate and equity. The remittance made

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

TDS as per the provision of section 40(a) of the Act, therefore, the Ld. Assessing Officer disallowed the amount of ` 30,94,732/- being the payment made to a non-resident distributor to the total income of the assessee. Now, under these facts, we shall analyze, the validity of reopening u/s 147 r.w.s

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 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

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

ACIT 17(1), MUMBAI vs. ELVE CORPORATION, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

150/- b) Commission Rs.1,41,00,556/- Rs.1,41,56,894/- There was admittedly neither deduction of tax at source by the assessee, nor any certificate toward non-deduction of tax u/s. 195(2) stood obtained by it. Though the ld. CIT(A) approved the Revenue’s case in principle, i.e., qua the applicability of section

ACIT 17(1), MUMBAI vs. ELVE CORPORATION, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

150/- b) Commission Rs.1,41,00,556/- Rs.1,41,56,894/- There was admittedly neither deduction of tax at source by the assessee, nor any certificate toward non-deduction of tax u/s. 195(2) stood obtained by it. Though the ld. CIT(A) approved the Revenue’s case in principle, i.e., qua the applicability of section

VODAFONE INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 8(3)(2), MUMBAI

Section 234D and 244A of the Act and the same is disposed off as being consequential in nature with the directions to the Assessing Officer to re-compute the same as per law. Ground No. 9 17. Ground No. 9 raised by the Assessee pertains incorrect computation of Book Profits under Section 115JB of the Act. In this regard

AUTORIDERS INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 9(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, as above

Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 1997-98 Assessment Year: 1999-2000 Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/S. Autoriders India Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Comm. Of Income 4-A, Vikas Centre, Tax-9(1), 104 S.V. Road, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Santacruz, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 054 Pan: Aaaca8939R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R.P. Meena, D.R. & Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.11.2017 O R D E R

150/- for A.Y. 2004-05 respectively. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) further erred in holding that the order of AO is not bad in law. 3. The appellant submits that the order of AO dated 29.08.08 is bad in law as the official liquidator was appointed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and hence, no proceedings can be initiated

AUTORIDERS INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 9(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, as above

Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 1997-98 Assessment Year: 1999-2000 Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/S. Autoriders India Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Comm. Of Income 4-A, Vikas Centre, Tax-9(1), 104 S.V. Road, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Santacruz, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 054 Pan: Aaaca8939R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R.P. Meena, D.R. & Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.11.2017 O R D E R

150/- for A.Y. 2004-05 respectively. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) further erred in holding that the order of AO is not bad in law. 3. The appellant submits that the order of AO dated 29.08.08 is bad in law as the official liquidator was appointed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and hence, no proceedings can be initiated

AUTORIDERS INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 9(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, as above

Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 1997-98 Assessment Year: 1999-2000 Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/S. Autoriders India Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Comm. Of Income 4-A, Vikas Centre, Tax-9(1), 104 S.V. Road, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Santacruz, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 054 Pan: Aaaca8939R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R.P. Meena, D.R. & Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.11.2017 O R D E R

150/- for A.Y. 2004-05 respectively. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) further erred in holding that the order of AO is not bad in law. 3. The appellant submits that the order of AO dated 29.08.08 is bad in law as the official liquidator was appointed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and hence, no proceedings can be initiated

DCIT CC 5 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LTD, MUMBAI

150(1) are\napplicable.\n17. Reasons for the belief that income has\nescaped assessment\n18. Recommendations of the Additional/ Joint CIT\nCENTRAL CIRCLE 5(1), MUMBAI / CENTRAL\nRANGE 5, MUMBAI / PCIT (Central), Mumbai-3\n2019-20\nN/A\nN/A\nN/A\nN/A\nN/A\nN/A\nRefer Annexure for reasons\nRemarks: In view of the facts mentioned in the\nproposal, I agree with

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR DIGILINK LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

section 37(1). The above submissions of the assessee and the documents filed in this regard have been duly considered. As per the Schedule - 20 related to the "Statement of Significant Accounting Policies", the basis and the method of accounting regarding Asset Restoration Cost is given, which is reproduced as below: "4 Fixed Assets, Depreciation and Amortization. (a) Asset restoration

VODAFONE INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-8(3)(2), MUMBAI

Section 234D and 244A of the Act and the same is\ndisposed off as being consequential in nature with the directions\nto the Assessing Officer to re-compute the same as per law.\nGround No. 9\n17. Ground No. 9 raised by the Assessee pertains incorrect\ncomputation of Book Profits under Section 115JB of the Act. In\nthis regard