ACIT 16(1), MUMBAI vs. UTV ENTERTAINMENT TELEVISION LTD(NOW KNOWN AS M/S.DISNEY BROADCASTING (INDIA) LIMITED), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5958/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिाम/ Acit 16(1) Utv Entertainment R.No. 439, Aayakar Television Ltd. (Now Bhavan, M.K Marg, Known As M/S. Disney V. Mumbai 400020 Broadcasting (India) Ltd.) 11, Solitaire Corporate Park, Guru Hargovind Marg, Chakala , Mumbai-400093 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaccv4782D (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri. Charanjeet Singh Gulati (Cit-Dr) Shri. Abhishek Tilak Assessee By: सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 11.03.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.06.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 5958/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 16.06.2017, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2012-13, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 15.03.2016 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2012-13. I.T.A. No.5958/Mum/2017

155 and 156 of 2016 judgment dated order dated 26.03.2018 which was later rectified on 13.04.2018. The assessee also relied on the decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in CIT,TDS v. UTV News Ltd., in ITA no. 1384 , 1437-1448 and 1446 of 2016 , judgment dated 18.01.2019. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that Hon‟ble Bombay

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. (AS SUCCESSOR IN BUSINESS OF ERSTWHILE ING VYSYA BANK LTD.),MUMBAI vs. A.C.I.T. CIR. - 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

155 or section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 or an order of the Settlement Commission under sub-section (4) of section 245D, the amount on which interest was payable under sub-section (1) has been increased or reduced, as the case may be, the interest shall be increased

VENUS ELECTRONICS AND CONTROLS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO (TDS) - 2(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanvenus Electronics & Controls Ito (Tds) – 2(3)(3) Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 44-45, Mumbai. Midc Indl. Area, Street No.14, Vs. Midc, Andheri East, Mumbai-400093. Pan: Aaacv4450C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Suhas Joshi (Ar) Respondent By : Shri Mohammed Rizwan (Dr)

section 200A passed by Assessing Officer dated 29.12.2013. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: (for Q-3 in AY 2013-14 the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal) 1. The TDS assessing officer [DCIT( CPC) TDS ] erred in determining interest on Late Payment Rs. 1,155

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD ( CORPORATE FINANCE DIVISION),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 6(3), MUMBAI

Bench: the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal preferred by the Assessee vide order, dated 18/05/2009. 4. Not being satisfied with the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A), the Assessee has preferred appeal before this Tribunal. The Revenue has also filed cross-appeal challenging the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A).

155 or section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 or an order of the Settlement Commission under sub-section (4) of section 245D, the amount on which interest was payable under sub-section (1) has been increased or reduced, as the case may be, the interest shall be increased

ACIT 6(3), MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

155 or section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 or an order of the Settlement Commission under sub-section (4) of section 245D, the amount on which interest was payable under sub-section (1) has been increased or reduced, as the case may be, the interest shall be increased

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:

155 or sub- section (4) of section 186, no amendment under this section shall be made after the expiry of four years [from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be amended was passed.]” A bare perusal of above provisions would show that the rectification/amendment in the order cannot be made after the expiry

BAJAJ AUTO LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX - 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry ()

155(18) stood triggered and the claim itself was withdrawn, no prejudice to the interests of the Revenue survived and, consequently, invocation of section 263 on this issue was unwarranted. 7.5 After considering the submission of the assessee, the Ld. PCIT in para 15.2 has accordingly directed the Assessing Officer to verify the contention of the assessee. The relevant finding

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

TDS certificate amounts to a debt due to deductee which can be allowed under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. In fact, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has also accepted the aforesaid legal position. The grounds on which he has rejected assessee’s claim are, firstly, it is not within the time prescribed under section 155

TOTAL OIL INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 8(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

TDS on such payment, therefore, no disallowance is liable u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Accordingly, we set aside the finding of the CIT(A) on this issue and allowed the claim of the assessee. ITA. NO.4300/M/2016 12. The revenue has filed the present appeal against the order dated 28.03.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

ACIT 11(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL OIL INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

TDS on such payment, therefore, no disallowance is liable u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Accordingly, we set aside the finding of the CIT(A) on this issue and allowed the claim of the assessee. ITA. NO.4300/M/2016 12. The revenue has filed the present appeal against the order dated 28.03.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (IT) 2(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalstandard Chartered Bank Taxation Department, 23-25, M. G. Road, 3Rd Floor, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Pan: Aabcs4681D ..... Appellant Vs. Ddit (Intl. Tax)-2(1) Scindia House, Ballard Estate, N. M. Marg, Mumbai-400 038 ..... Respondent

TDS / consequent disallowance under section 40(a) (i) of the Act Page 21 of 90 (copy enclosed at page247 of the Bank’s Appeal legal paperbook), which read as under: “88. Keeping in view all the facts of the case and the legal position emanating from the interpretation of the relevant provisions of domestic law as well as that

GLEN MORGAN D COSTA ,MUMBAI vs. ITO INT TAX WARD 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal are dismissed

Bench: The Learned Cit(A), The Assessee Submitted That He, Along With His Wife, Owned A Property, Each Having 50% Ownership. The Said Property Was Sold During The Relevant Financial Year For A Total Consideration Of Rs. 1 Crore & The Amount Was Credited By The Purchaser In The Joint Bank Account Of The Assessee With His Wife. The Assessee Submitted That The Tds Amounting To Rs.22,88,000/- Was Deducted By The Purchaser Under Section 194-Ia Of The Act On The Pan Of The Assessee. However, Both The Assessee & His Wife Computed Their Respective Capital Gains Tax At A 50% Share Of The Sale

155/-. Further, after claiming TDS credit of Rs.27,08,755/-, the assessee claimed a refund of Rs.10,76,600/- as per his original return of income. The return filed by the assessee was processed vide intimation issued under section

ACIT -25(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. GEPACH INTERNATIONAL, MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shris. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5943 & 5942/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15)

TDS was applicable only to pure income payments and not to composite payments which had an element of income embedded or incorporated in them. The controversy before us in this batch of cases is, therefore, quite different. In our view, the above observations of this court in Transmission Corporation case [1999] 239 ITR 587 (SC) which are put in italics

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (LTU)-2, MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Shri Shamim Yahya

155 of the FPB) and the order passed on 30-11-2018 (pg 153-154 of FPB), it can be noted that the AO sought to amend the rectification order passed on 06-03-2017. When one refers to the order under section 154 dated 06-03-2017 (pg 148 of the FPB), it can be seen that the said

AGILITY LOGISTICS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT TDS 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both Department’s appeal and assessee’s cross objection are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Dey

TDS provisions, ultimately restricted the penalty under section 271C of the Act to `10,57,155/–. In the present appeal

BULLDOG MEDIA AND ENTERTAINMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalbulldog Media & Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. Plot No. C-38-C-39, G-Block, Parinee Crescenzo Building, Behind Mumbai Cricket Association, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400051. Pan: Aadcb2393K ...... Appellant Vs. Cit (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, C.R. Building, Ip Estate, New Delhi-110002 ..... Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Sh. Chetan M. Kacha, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 27/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/10/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As [‘Nfac’] Dated 02.11.2021 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As [‘The Act’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

155 to provide that where in the assessment for any previous year or in any intimation or deemed intimation under sub section (1) of section 143 for any previous year, credit for tax deducted in accordance with the provisions of section 199 has not been given on the ground that the certificate furnished under section 203 was not filed with

JCIT(TDS)(OSD)-2(3), MUMBAI vs. ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2104/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Jcit(Tds)(Osd)-2(3) बिधम/ M/S. Zee Entertainment Room No. 718, 7Th Floor, Enterprises Ltd. Vs. 18Th Floor, Marathon Smt. K.G. Mittal Ayarvedic Futurex, N.M. Joshi Marg, Hospital Building, Charni Lower Parel, Mumbai- Road (W), Mumbai-400002. 400013. C. O. No. 105/M/2019 (Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.2104/Mum/2018) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Zee Entertainment बिधम/ Jcit(Tds)(Osd)-2(3) Room No. 718, 7Th Floor, Enterprises Ltd. Vs. 18Th Floor, Marathon Smt. K.G. Mittal Ayurvedic Futurex, N.M. Joshi Marg, Hospital Building, Charni Lower Parel, Mumbai- Road (W), Mumbai-400002. 400013. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacz0243R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Dr. Narender Kumar (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Jay Bhansali सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25/07/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/07/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue As Well As Assessee Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeal As Well As Cross-Objection Against The Order Dated 24.01.2018 Passed Co No.105/M/2019 A.Y.2011-12 By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -60, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2011-12. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

TDS) Vs. UTV Entertainment Television Ltd., dated 29th October, 2014, relating to Assessment Year 2008-09 to 2011-12, while dismissing the Revenue's appeal. Mr. Suresh Kumar further states that being aggrieved with the order dated 29th October, 2014 passed by the Tribunal in the case of UTV Entertainment Television Ltd. (supra), the Revenue filed appeals being Income

FLEMINGO LINERS PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WQARD-15(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

155 or sub-section (4) of section\n186, no amendment under this section shall be made after the expiry of\nfour years [from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be\namended was passed] [ Substituted by Act 67 of 1984, Section 29, for \" from\nthe date of the order sought to be amended\" (w.e.f