JANI PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh (Jm) & Shri Rifaur Rahman (Am) Jani Properties Pvt Ltd Vs Ito, 2(2)(1), Gkdj & Associates, Cas Aayakar Bhavan, 333, Sohrab Hall, 21, Sassoon M.K. Road, Road, Opp Jehangir Hospital, Mumbai -400020 Pune-411 001 Pan : Aaacj7356D Appellant Respondednt

section 154(7) is to be considered from the date of the original order or in subsequent rectification order only if the said rectification order dealing with the same which is sought to be rectified. In this view of the matter and having noted that the first rectification order dealt with entirely different issue i.e. excess allowance of TDS

ASST. CIT-1(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. TILAKNAGAR INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Baskaran B.R & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 1355/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2009-10) Acit-1(3)(1), Room No.540, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. Tilaknagar Industries Limited. 3Rd Floor, Indl.Assurance Bldg. Jd Tata Marg, Churchgate, Mumbai 400 020 Pan:Aaact-6047-R ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Rajesh Damor ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Dr. K.Shivram, Sr. Advocate With Ms. Neelam Jadhav सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 04/07/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 29/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai [In Short ‘The Cit(A)] Dated 04/01/2021 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case As Emanating From Records Are: The Assessee Is Engaged In Manufacturing & Selling Of Indian Made Foreign Liquor. The 2 Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For A.Y 2009-10 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.29,19,12,503/- On 30/09/2009. The Assessment Order U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) Was Passed On 07/12/2011. Thereafter, The Assessing Officer Issued Notice U/S. 154 Of The Act Dated 18/03/2013 To Rectify The Alleged Mistake In Assessment Order On Two Counts:

7 section 143(3) of the Act dated 07/12/2011. Therefore, under provisions of section 154 of the Act, the mistake, if any, in the original assessment order could have been rectified on or before 31/03/2016. Whereas, in the instant case, the Assessing Officer initially issued notice under section 154 of the Act on 18/03/2013. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer chose

DISHA DISTRIBUTORS,MUMBAI vs. A.O. TDS WD KALYAN, KALYAN

In the result, all the appeals filed by different assessees for different quarters relating to different years are allowed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sanjay Garg

154 of the Act and / or is also appealable under section 246A of the Act, since the demand issued by the Assessing Officer is deemed to be a notice of payment under section 156 of the Act. Since the intimation in question issued by the Assessing Officer was appealable order under section 246A(1)(a) of the Act, therefore

ASIAN PIPES & PROFILES P. LTD,AMBERNATH vs. A.O. TDS WD KALYAN, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by different assessees for different quarters relating to different years are allowed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sanjay Garg

154 of the Act and / or is also appealable under section 246A of the Act, since the demand issued by the Assessing Officer is deemed to be a notice of payment under section 156 of the Act. Since the intimation in question issued by the Assessing Officer was appealable order under section 246A(1)(a) of the Act, therefore

ASIAN PIPES & PROFILES P. LTD,AMBERNATH vs. A.O. TDS WD KALYAN, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by different assessees for different quarters relating to different years are allowed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sanjay Garg

154 of the Act and / or is also appealable under section 246A of the Act, since the demand issued by the Assessing Officer is deemed to be a notice of payment under section 156 of the Act. Since the intimation in question issued by the Assessing Officer was appealable order under section 246A(1)(a) of the Act, therefore

SPRING TIME CLUBS & HOSPITALITY SERVICES P.LTD,KALYAN vs. A.O. TDS WD KALYAN, KALYAN

In the result, all the appeals filed by different assessees for different quarters relating to different years are allowed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sanjay Gargm/S. Sprigtime Clubs & Hospitality Assessing Officer, Tds Ward Services Pvt. Ltd. Rani Mansion, Murbad Road Vs. 2Nd Floor, Sprig Avenue, Club Road Kalyan (W), 421301 Kalyan (W) 421301 Pan – Aaocs9107M Appellant Respondent

154 of the Act and / or is also appealable under section 246A of the Act, since the demand issued by the Assessing Officer is deemed to be a notice of payment under section 156 of the Act. Since the intimation in question issued by the Assessing Officer was appealable order under section 246A(1)(a) of the Act, therefore

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

154 of the 22,471,662 on which TDS having a TDS act dated and TDS default under default under 31/12/2019 default section 201 section 201 (1) thereon under (1) is of ₹ 34,723,358 section 201 determined at and interest (1) of ₹ ₹ under section 6,741,499 20,340,000/– 201 (1A of ₹ and interest and interest 7

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

154 of the 22,471,662 on which TDS having a TDS act dated and TDS default under default under 31/12/2019 default section 201 section 201 (1) thereon under (1) is of ₹ 34,723,358 section 201 determined at and interest (1) of ₹ ₹ under section 6,741,499 20,340,000/– 201 (1A of ₹ and interest and interest 7

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

154 of the 22,471,662 on which TDS having a TDS act dated and TDS default under default under 31/12/2019 default section 201 section 201 (1) thereon under (1) is of ₹ 34,723,358 section 201 determined at and interest (1) of ₹ ₹ under section 6,741,499 20,340,000/– 201 (1A of ₹ and interest and interest 7

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

154 of the 22,471,662 on which TDS having a TDS act dated and TDS default under default under 31/12/2019 default section 201 section 201 (1) thereon under (1) is of ₹ 34,723,358 section 201 determined at and interest (1) of ₹ ₹ under section 6,741,499 20,340,000/– 201 (1A of ₹ and interest and interest 7

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

154 of the 22,471,662 on which TDS having a TDS act dated and TDS default under default under 31/12/2019 default section 201 section 201 (1) thereon under (1) is of ₹ 34,723,358 section 201 determined at and interest (1) of ₹ ₹ under section 6,741,499 20,340,000/– 201 (1A of ₹ and interest and interest 7

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

154 of the 22,471,662 on which TDS having a TDS act dated and TDS default under default under 31/12/2019 default section 201 section 201 (1) thereon under (1) is of ₹ 34,723,358 section 201 determined at and interest (1) of ₹ ₹ under section 6,741,499 20,340,000/– 201 (1A of ₹ and interest and interest 7

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

154 of the 22,471,662 on which TDS having a TDS act dated and TDS default under default under 31/12/2019 default section 201 section 201 (1) thereon under (1) is of ₹ 34,723,358 section 201 determined at and interest (1) of ₹ ₹ under section 6,741,499 20,340,000/– 201 (1A of ₹ and interest and interest 7

DCIT -4(1), MUMBAI vs. FOUR DIMENSION SECURITIES (I) LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off in terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S Four Dimensions Addl. Commissioner Of Securities (India) Ltd. Income Tax, Range-4(1), बनाम/ 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F Assessment Year: 2005-06 Addl. Commissioner Of M/S Four Dimensions Income Tax, Range-4(1), Securities (India) Ltd. बनाम/ 6Th Floor,Aayakar Bhavan, 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Fort, Mumbai (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S Four Dimensions Addl. Commissioner Of Securities (India) Ltd. Income Tax, Range-4(1), बनाम/ 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F

154 ITR 148 (SC) (para 20) iv. Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation v. CIT [2000] 242 ITR 450 (SC) (para 13) v. Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan [2003] 263 ITR 706 (SC) (para 20) If this issue is analyzed with the provision contained in the Income Tax Act itself, section 294 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by providing

FOUR DIMENSIONS SECURITIES (I) LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 4(1), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off in terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S Four Dimensions Addl. Commissioner Of Securities (India) Ltd. Income Tax, Range-4(1), बनाम/ 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F Assessment Year: 2005-06 Addl. Commissioner Of M/S Four Dimensions Income Tax, Range-4(1), Securities (India) Ltd. बनाम/ 6Th Floor,Aayakar Bhavan, 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Fort, Mumbai (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S Four Dimensions Addl. Commissioner Of Securities (India) Ltd. Income Tax, Range-4(1), बनाम/ 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F

154 ITR 148 (SC) (para 20) iv. Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation v. CIT [2000] 242 ITR 450 (SC) (para 13) v. Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan [2003] 263 ITR 706 (SC) (para 20) If this issue is analyzed with the provision contained in the Income Tax Act itself, section 294 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by providing

FOUR DIMENSIONS SECURITIES (INDIA) LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 4(1), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off in terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S Four Dimensions Addl. Commissioner Of Securities (India) Ltd. Income Tax, Range-4(1), बनाम/ 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F Assessment Year: 2005-06 Addl. Commissioner Of M/S Four Dimensions Income Tax, Range-4(1), Securities (India) Ltd. बनाम/ 6Th Floor,Aayakar Bhavan, 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Fort, Mumbai (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S Four Dimensions Addl. Commissioner Of Securities (India) Ltd. Income Tax, Range-4(1), बनाम/ 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F

154 ITR 148 (SC) (para 20) iv. Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation v. CIT [2000] 242 ITR 450 (SC) (para 13) v. Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan [2003] 263 ITR 706 (SC) (para 20) If this issue is analyzed with the provision contained in the Income Tax Act itself, section 294 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by providing

ULTRA TECH CEMENT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. CIT CC-1(4), MUMBAI

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

Section 154(7) of the Act. In the instant case, the assessee was not granted TDS credit for the full

SHILPA PRABHAKAR KULKARNI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly for stati...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Shilpa Prabhakar Kulkarni, Dcit Centralized Processing 3 Neel Sagar, 1280 Prabhadevi Centre, Seaface Prabhadevi, Vs. Bengaluru-560 500. Mumbai-400025. Pan No. Brhpk 8129 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Chandni Shah & Kinjal Patel Revenue By : Mr. A.N. Bhalekar, Dr Date Of Hearing : 03/05/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 11/05/2023 Order

section 154 of the Income-tax Act, tax Act, 1961 (the Act) (the rectification order') by the Learned 1961 (the Act) (the rectification order') by the Learned 1961 (the Act) (the rectification order') by the Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC Bangalore Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC Bangalore Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC Bangalore