THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Ms. Padmavathy S

TDS liability within the due date as prescribed by the Act. 8) The provisions of Section 192(3) of the Act read as under: "The person responsible for making the payment referred to in sub-section (1

THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD ,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Ms. Padmavathy S

TDS liability within the due date as prescribed by the Act. 8) The provisions of Section 192(3) of the Act read as under: "The person responsible for making the payment referred to in sub-section (1

THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS, CIRCLE 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Ms. Padmavathy S

TDS liability within the due date as prescribed by the Act. 8) The provisions of Section 192(3) of the Act read as under: "The person responsible for making the payment referred to in sub-section (1

THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD ,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS, CIRCLE 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Ms. Padmavathy S

TDS liability within the due date as prescribed by the Act. 8) The provisions of Section 192(3) of the Act read as under: "The person responsible for making the payment referred to in sub-section (1

THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD ,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Ms. Padmavathy S

TDS liability within the due date as prescribed by the Act. 8) The provisions of Section 192(3) of the Act read as under: "The person responsible for making the payment referred to in sub-section (1

THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD ,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee\nare allowed

TDS liability within the due\ndate as prescribed by the Act.\n8) The provisions of Section 192(3) of the Act read as under:\n\"The person responsible for making the payment referred to in\nsub-section (1

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 3(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

192/- after reducing the suo-motu disallowance made by the assessee. On further appeal the CIT(A) upheld the disallowance to the extent of adhoc amount of Rs. 50,00,000/-. Both the assessee and the revenue are contesting the decision of the CIT(A). 12. The ld. AR submitted that the AO has not recorded dissatisfaction with respect

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 3(3)(1), MUMBAI , MUMBAI vs. SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

192/- after reducing the suo-motu disallowance made by the assessee. On further appeal the CIT(A) upheld the disallowance to the extent of adhoc amount of Rs. 50,00,000/-. Both the assessee and the revenue are contesting the decision of the CIT(A). 12. The ld. AR submitted that the AO has not recorded dissatisfaction with respect

SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(3)(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

192/- after reducing the suo-motu disallowance made by the assessee. On further appeal the CIT(A) upheld the disallowance to the extent of adhoc amount of Rs. 50,00,000/-. Both the assessee and the revenue are contesting the decision of the CIT(A). 12. The ld. AR submitted that the AO has not recorded dissatisfaction with respect

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 3(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

192/- after reducing the suo-motu disallowance made by the assessee. On further appeal the CIT(A) upheld the disallowance to the extent of adhoc amount of Rs. 50,00,000/-. Both the assessee and the revenue are contesting the decision of the CIT(A). 12. The ld. AR submitted that the AO has not recorded dissatisfaction with respect

M/S THE MAHARASHTRA STATE CO. OP BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO-1(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

TDS deducted, invoking section 199 of the Act. Therefore, M/s The Maharashtra State Co-op. Bank Ltd. M/s The Maharashtra State Co ITA Nos. 3878 & 3916/Mum/2019 we feel it necessary to look into Section 199 of the IT Act, which we feel it necessary to look into Section 199 of the IT Act, which we feel it necessary to look

DY CIT-1(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

TDS deducted, invoking section 199 of the Act. Therefore, M/s The Maharashtra State Co-op. Bank Ltd. M/s The Maharashtra State Co ITA Nos. 3878 & 3916/Mum/2019 we feel it necessary to look into Section 199 of the IT Act, which we feel it necessary to look into Section 199 of the IT Act, which we feel it necessary to look

SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(3)(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI

192/- after reducing the suo-motu disallowance made\nby the assessee. On further appeal the CIT(A) upheld the disallowance to the\nextent of adhoc amount of Rs.50,00,000/-. Both the assessee and the revenue are\ncontesting the decision of the CIT(A).\n12.\nThe Id. AR submitted that the AO has not recorded dissatisfaction with\nrespect

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 3(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

192/- after reducing the suo-motu disallowance made\nby the assessee. On further appeal the CIT(A) upheld the disallowance to the\nextent of adhoc amount of Rs.50,00,000/-. Both the assessee and the revenue are\ncontesting the decision of the CIT(A).\n12.\nThe Id. AR submitted that the AO has not recorded dissatisfaction with\nrespect

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 3(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

192/- after reducing the suo-motu disallowance made\nby the assessee. On further appeal the CIT(A) upheld the disallowance to the\nextent of adhoc amount of Rs.50,00,000/-. Both the assessee and the revenue are\ncontesting the decision of the CIT(A).\n\n12.\nThe Id. AR submitted that the AO has not recorded dissatisfaction with\nrespect

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

1 66,32,320 has been paid on account of incentive plans to its employees in the nature of performance shares of TOTAL SA France. This performance shares is awarded become final after the specified three-year vesting period subject to a presence condition and performance condition based on the return on equity. The claim of the assessee was that

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

1 66,32,320 has been paid on account of incentive plans to its employees in the nature of performance shares of TOTAL SA France. This performance shares is awarded become final after the specified three-year vesting period subject to a presence condition and performance condition based on the return on equity. The claim of the assessee was that

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

1 66,32,320 has been paid on account of incentive plans to its employees in the nature of performance shares of TOTAL SA France. This performance shares is awarded become final after the specified three-year vesting period subject to a presence condition and performance condition based on the return on equity. The claim of the assessee was that