DCIT(TDS)OSD-1(2), MUMBAI, CUMBALLA HILL vs. HOUSE OF ANITA DONGRE PVT LTD, BANDRA WEST

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: BEFOR SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

TDS under Section 194H was applicable to both standard and supplemental commission in light of specific contractual clauses (e.g., Clause 7.2 of the Passenger Sales Agency Agreement), wherein agents held all collected monies in trust for the airline. No such clause exists in the assessee’s agreements with the franchisees/LFS. Hence, the facts in Singapore Airlines are materially different

DCIT(TDS)OSD-1(2), MUMBAI, CUMBALLA HILL vs. HOUSE OF ANITA DONGRE PVT LTD, BANDRA WEST

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: BEFOR SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

TDS under Section 194H was applicable to both standard and supplemental commission in light of specific contractual clauses (e.g., Clause 7.2 of the Passenger Sales Agency Agreement), wherein agents held all collected monies in trust for the airline. No such clause exists in the assessee’s agreements with the franchisees/LFS. Hence, the facts in Singapore Airlines are materially different

DCIT(TDS)-1(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. HOUSE OF ANITA DONGRE PVT LTD, BANDRA WEST

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: BEFOR SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

TDS under Section 194H was applicable to both standard and supplemental commission in light of specific contractual clauses (e.g., Clause 7.2 of the Passenger Sales Agency Agreement), wherein agents held all collected monies in trust for the airline. No such clause exists in the assessee’s agreements with the franchisees/LFS. Hence, the facts in Singapore Airlines are materially different

ROSE ROCK REAL ESTATE INDIA PVT.,MUMBAI vs. ITO (TDS) 2(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, these appeals are allowed

173 ITD 575 • ITAT MUMBAI in the case of BCCI v/s ACIT (TDS)-2, Mumbai, I.T.A. No.1999/Mum/2017, in the order dated 5-10-2018 • Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai Bench, in the case of Hardik Shantilal Sheth Vs ACIT (TDS)-CPC, vide ITA No. 6506/MUM/2017 • Hon'ble ITAT Cuttack Bench in the case of Spectra Vision Vs DCIT, CPC, TDS, Ghaziabad

BLUE SPOT EQUIPMENT COMPANY PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. TDS CPC., GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singh

173, 174, 175 & 176/M/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-15 ITA Nos.177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183 & 184/M/2022 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/s. Blue Spot Equipment TDE CPC, Company Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 35-36/ C.L.K. Arcade, Sector – 3, Marol Naka, Vs. Vaishali, Sir M.V. Road, Ghaziabad, Andheri (East), Uttar Pradesh – 201 010 Mumbmai – 400 059 PAN: AAACB4554B (Appellant) (Respondent) Present

BLUE SPOT EQUIPMENT COMPANY PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. TDS CPC, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singh

173, 174, 175 & 176/M/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-15 ITA Nos.177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183 & 184/M/2022 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/s. Blue Spot Equipment TDE CPC, Company Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 35-36/ C.L.K. Arcade, Sector – 3, Marol Naka, Vs. Vaishali, Sir M.V. Road, Ghaziabad, Andheri (East), Uttar Pradesh – 201 010 Mumbmai – 400 059 PAN: AAACB4554B (Appellant) (Respondent) Present

BLUE SPOT EQUIPMENT COMPANY PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. TDS CPC, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singh

173, 174, 175 & 176/M/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-15 ITA Nos.177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183 & 184/M/2022 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/s. Blue Spot Equipment TDE CPC, Company Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 35-36/ C.L.K. Arcade, Sector – 3, Marol Naka, Vs. Vaishali, Sir M.V. Road, Ghaziabad, Andheri (East), Uttar Pradesh – 201 010 Mumbmai – 400 059 PAN: AAACB4554B (Appellant) (Respondent) Present

BLUE SPOT EQUIPMENT COMPANY PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. TDS CPC, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singh

173, 174, 175 & 176/M/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-15 ITA Nos.177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183 & 184/M/2022 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/s. Blue Spot Equipment TDE CPC, Company Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 35-36/ C.L.K. Arcade, Sector – 3, Marol Naka, Vs. Vaishali, Sir M.V. Road, Ghaziabad, Andheri (East), Uttar Pradesh – 201 010 Mumbmai – 400 059 PAN: AAACB4554B (Appellant) (Respondent) Present

M/S. BLUE SPOT EQUIPMENT COMPANY PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. TDS CPC, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singh

173, 174, 175 & 176/M/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-15 ITA Nos.177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183 & 184/M/2022 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/s. Blue Spot Equipment TDE CPC, Company Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 35-36/ C.L.K. Arcade, Sector – 3, Marol Naka, Vs. Vaishali, Sir M.V. Road, Ghaziabad, Andheri (East), Uttar Pradesh – 201 010 Mumbmai – 400 059 PAN: AAACB4554B (Appellant) (Respondent) Present

BLUE SPOT EQUPMENT COMPANY PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. TDS CPC, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singh

173, 174, 175 & 176/M/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-15 ITA Nos.177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183 & 184/M/2022 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/s. Blue Spot Equipment TDE CPC, Company Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 35-36/ C.L.K. Arcade, Sector – 3, Marol Naka, Vs. Vaishali, Sir M.V. Road, Ghaziabad, Andheri (East), Uttar Pradesh – 201 010 Mumbmai – 400 059 PAN: AAACB4554B (Appellant) (Respondent) Present

BLUE SPOT EQUIPMENT COMPANY PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. TDS CPC, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singh

173, 174, 175 & 176/M/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-15 ITA Nos.177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183 & 184/M/2022 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/s. Blue Spot Equipment TDE CPC, Company Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 35-36/ C.L.K. Arcade, Sector – 3, Marol Naka, Vs. Vaishali, Sir M.V. Road, Ghaziabad, Andheri (East), Uttar Pradesh – 201 010 Mumbmai – 400 059 PAN: AAACB4554B (Appellant) (Respondent) Present

BLUE SPOT EQUIPMENT COMPANY PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. TDS CPC, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singh

173, 174, 175 & 176/M/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-15 ITA Nos.177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183 & 184/M/2022 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/s. Blue Spot Equipment TDE CPC, Company Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 35-36/ C.L.K. Arcade, Sector – 3, Marol Naka, Vs. Vaishali, Sir M.V. Road, Ghaziabad, Andheri (East), Uttar Pradesh – 201 010 Mumbmai – 400 059 PAN: AAACB4554B (Appellant) (Respondent) Present

BLUE SPOT EQUPMENT COMPANY PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. TDS CPC, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singh

173, 174, 175 & 176/M/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-15 ITA Nos.177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183 & 184/M/2022 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/s. Blue Spot Equipment TDE CPC, Company Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 35-36/ C.L.K. Arcade, Sector – 3, Marol Naka, Vs. Vaishali, Sir M.V. Road, Ghaziabad, Andheri (East), Uttar Pradesh – 201 010 Mumbmai – 400 059 PAN: AAACB4554B (Appellant) (Respondent) Present

BLUE SPOT EQUIPMENT COMPANY PVT. LTD MUMBAI,MUMBAI vs. TDS CPC, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singh

173, 174, 175 & 176/M/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-15 ITA Nos.177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183 & 184/M/2022 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/s. Blue Spot Equipment TDE CPC, Company Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 35-36/ C.L.K. Arcade, Sector – 3, Marol Naka, Vs. Vaishali, Sir M.V. Road, Ghaziabad, Andheri (East), Uttar Pradesh – 201 010 Mumbmai – 400 059 PAN: AAACB4554B (Appellant) (Respondent) Present

ORIENT OVERSEAS CONTAINER LINE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAX)-3(2)(2) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleorient Overseas Container Line Limited V. Dcit(It)-3(2)(2) C/O. Oocl (India) Private Limited 16Th Floor Icc Chambers, 5Th Floor Air India Building Saki Vihar Road, Opp. Santogen Silk Mills Nariman Point Powai, Mumbai - 400072 Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaaco5679E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Tiwari Department By : Ms. Bharati Singh

173 as against Rs. 1,43,26,628 as claimed by the Appellant in the return of income, thereby arbitrarily reducing the TDS credit claim by Rs. 4,35,455. 2. Erred in not considering the fact that out of the total TDS credit short granted, TDS credit amounting to Rs. 3,73,540 pertained to TDS deducted

GOLDMAN SACHS (INDIA) FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI

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

173 and additionally disallowing the same expense again, resulting\nin an inflated disallowance of INR 2,67,43,66,346.\n5.2 In making a disallowance under section 36 read with section 37 of the Act\nwhich lacks basis and is contrary to law.\n6. Ground No. 6: Short-grant of TDS

DY CIT 9 (1)(2), MUMBAI vs. SABMILLER INDIA LTD (NOW KNOWN AS ANHEUSER BUSCH INBEV INDIA LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s cross objection is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Sood

TDS. 22. Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee had to reimburse certain expenses such as travelling charges, telephone expenses, printing and stationery, etc., incurred by the commission agents on behalf of the assessee. He submitted that the commission agents issue a separate debit note along with the supporting documents for the underlying expenses incurred

KRISHNA PANDURANG KOBNAK,THANE vs. CIT APPEAL, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE

The appeal is allowed

TDS Statement issued intimation to the Appellant under Section 200A of the Act and levied late filing fee of INR 40,000/- under Section 234E of the Act. The Appellant preferred appeal before CIT(A) which was dismissed. Being aggrieved, the Appellant is in appeal before us. 5. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record