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:

TDS on payment of rent, the ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that rent paid was merely a reimbursement of licence fee paid to the Government. The assessee paid for D-2 Licence as reimbursement charges. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee stated that without prejudice to the first arguments the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) would

MASINA HOSPITAL TRUST,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPITONS), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2024-25 Masina Hospital Trust, Cit(Exemptions), 1 Masina Hospital, Sant Satva Room No. 601, 6Th Floor, Cumballa Vs. Marg, Byculla, Hill Mtnl Te Building, Peddar Mumbai-400027. Road, Dr. Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Mumballa Hill, Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaatm 0786 D Appellant Respondent

TDS Rs.) 2018-19 Interest on loan 44,64,185 44,64,185 2,91,849 Masina Hospital Trust 2019-20 43,56,904 43,56,904 1,96,680 Interest on loan 2020-21 91,42,500 91,42,500 5,27,961 Interest on loan 2021-22 91,42,500 91,42,500 8,18,191 Interest

DELOITTE HASKINS AND SELLS LLP,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

TDS was deducted.\nHowever, the AO did not accept the submissions made by the assessee and\nproceeded to make addition towards all the payments as listed above totaling\nto Rs.81,69,987/-. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the AO.\n\n(a) Payment of professional fees\n\n14. The Id AR submitted that the services were rendered

SAPIENS TECHNOLOGIES(1982) INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 6(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Ble

TDS under wrong provision of law will not save assessee from disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia)of the Act. However, the Kolkata High Court in the matter of Samir Tekriwal(supra), has held that expenses are not liable to be disallowed u/s.40(a)(ia)on account of short deduction of tax. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court has not decided

SAPIENS TECHNOLOGIES (1982) INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT- 6(3)(1),, MUMBAI

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Ble

TDS under wrong provision of law will not save assessee from disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia)of the Act. However, the Kolkata High Court in the matter of Samir Tekriwal(supra), has held that expenses are not liable to be disallowed u/s.40(a)(ia)on account of short deduction of tax. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court has not decided

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

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 It is 5 Reliance Industries Ltd. submitted that the order under section 154 shall be passed within 4 years from the end of financial year in which order

EIGHT ROADS INVESTMENT ADVISORS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTRE , BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, as per our aforesaid

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2928/Mum/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2020-21 Eight Roads Investment Advisors Private Limited 16Th Floor, Plot No.82, Avighna House, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai-400 018 Pan: Aabcf1370N ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax/Cpc, Bengaluru ……""यथ" / Respondent

TDs twice in the Rectification Order. Other Grounds Ground 11 On the fact and circumstances of the case and in law, the Dl. CIT(A) has erred in not directing the Ld. CPC to grant applicable interest on income-tax refund under section 244A of the IT Act to the Appellant. The Appellant craves leave to add. to amend

COLE PARMER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 15(1)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly grounds are allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 957/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

TDS was applicable nor could it prove the genuineness of such expenses. 4.10 Assessee has failed to discharge its onus with respect to proving the genuineness of the expenses. Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act'1872 states that whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which

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

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, the amount is not allowed as deduction [refer para 6.17, page 20 of the Ld. CIT (A) order]. 2.5 Appellant’s submissions Advisory and Business support costs: Page 14 of 90  The Appellant submits that this issue is covered in favor of the Appellant, in the case of CIT vs. Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd [1996] 85 Taxman

BHASKAR ARVIND KUMAR HINGAD,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT CIT-24(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.692/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) Bhaskar Arvind Kumar बिधम/ Acit-24(1) Hingad 601, 6Th Floor, Piramal Vs. Flat No. 1, Ratnakar Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Building, 26 Narayan Mumbai-400012. Dhabolkar Road, Mumbai- 400006. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacph2812F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vijay Mehta Revenue By: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 29/08/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-20 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”], Mumbai Dated 31.03.2022 For Assessment Year 2014- 15 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “Following grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other, 1. The learned PCIT has erred in passing the order u/s. 263 of the Act which is bad in law and without jurisdiction. 2. The learned

PROCTER AND GAMBLE HEALTH PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -8 , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

186 TDS on Contracts\nSales & Promotion\nVarious Patries\n10 Not paid\nVarious Patries\n3,197,864\n959,359\nTDS on Contracts\nWarehousing\n11\nNot paid\nVarious Patries\n5,000,000\n1,500,000\nTDS on Contracts\nDismantling costs\n12\nNot paid\nRent\nVarious Patries\n882,738\n264,821\nTDS on Rent\n13\nNot paid\nVarious Patries\n1,789,227\n536

DCIT - 10 (3)(1), MUMBAI vs. NOUVEAU DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for AY

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 8047/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit-10(3)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Nouveau Developers Pvt. 1St Room No.217/212, Ltd. Vs. Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, 701, Natraj, M. V. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai- Junction, Western Express 400020. Highway, Andheri East, Mumbai-400072. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 7039/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2014-15) बिधम/ Dcit-10(3)(1) M/S. Nouveau Developers Pvt. Room No.212, 2Nd Floor, Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, M. K. 702, Natraj, M. V. Road, Road Churchgate, Junction, Western Express Mumbai-400020. Highway, Andheri East, Mumbai-400069. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccn5280G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Dr. Pratap Narayan Sharma (Sr.Ar) Assessee By: Shri Naresh Kumar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/06/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/07/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Of The Revenue Preferred Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-17, Mumbai Dated 24.10.2019 For A.Y.2013-14; & Order Dated 07.09.2018 For Ay.2014-15. 2. First We Deal With Appeal Pertaining To Ay. 2013-14 Wherein Ground No. 1 Of The Revenue Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Reversing The Action Of The Ao Capitalizing Rs.2,47,96,353/- Which

TDS under section 194C and 194J of I.T. Act, 1961 on payment of Rs.3,76,80,186/-. Since, the assessee

DY CIT 10 (3)91), MUMBAI vs. M/S NOUVEAU DEVELOPERS PVT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for AY

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 8047/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit-10(3)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Nouveau Developers Pvt. 1St Room No.217/212, Ltd. Vs. Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, 701, Natraj, M. V. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai- Junction, Western Express 400020. Highway, Andheri East, Mumbai-400072. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 7039/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2014-15) बिधम/ Dcit-10(3)(1) M/S. Nouveau Developers Pvt. Room No.212, 2Nd Floor, Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, M. K. 702, Natraj, M. V. Road, Road Churchgate, Junction, Western Express Mumbai-400020. Highway, Andheri East, Mumbai-400069. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccn5280G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Dr. Pratap Narayan Sharma (Sr.Ar) Assessee By: Shri Naresh Kumar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/06/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/07/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Of The Revenue Preferred Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-17, Mumbai Dated 24.10.2019 For A.Y.2013-14; & Order Dated 07.09.2018 For Ay.2014-15. 2. First We Deal With Appeal Pertaining To Ay. 2013-14 Wherein Ground No. 1 Of The Revenue Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Reversing The Action Of The Ao Capitalizing Rs.2,47,96,353/- Which

TDS under section 194C and 194J of I.T. Act, 1961 on payment of Rs.3,76,80,186/-. Since, the assessee

SPENCER STUART INTERNATIONAL B.V. TAX,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT (IT) -4(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

186 (SC). D. Interest under section 234D 21. The learned Assessing Officer erred in levying interest of Rs.62,798 under section 234D of the Act on excess refund granted without appreciating the fact that the refund received by the appellant is not in excess of its entitlement arising on account of non-taxability of search fees, management fees and reimbursement

DELOITTE HASKINS AND SELLS LLP,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

TDS was deducted. However, the AO did not accept the submissions made by the assessee and proceeded to make addition towards all the payments as listed above totaling to Rs. 81,69,987/-. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the AO. (a) Payment of professional fees 14. The Id AR submitted that the services were rendered by Deloitte

DELOITTE HASKINS AND SELLS LLP,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 16(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

TDS was deducted. However, the AO did not accept the submissions made by the assessee and proceeded to make addition towards all the payments as listed above totaling to Rs. 81,69,987/-. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the AO. (a) Payment of professional fees 14. The Id AR submitted that the services were rendered by Deloitte

DELOITTE HASKINS AND SELLS LLP,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 16(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

TDS was deducted. However, the AO did not accept the submissions made by the assessee and proceeded to make addition towards all the payments as listed above totaling to Rs. 81,69,987/-. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the AO. (a) Payment of professional fees 14. The Id AR submitted that the services were rendered by Deloitte

DELOITTE HASKINS AND SELLS LLP,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX - 11(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

TDS was deducted. However, the AO did not accept the submissions made by the assessee and proceeded to make addition towards all the payments as listed above totalling to Rs. 81,69,987/-. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the AO. (a) Payment of professional fees 14. The ld AR submitted that the services were rendered by Deloitte