M/S CEAT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER OSD TDS CIRCLE 1(1), MUMBAI

Section 194C as compared to other TDS provisions. As\nper Section 194C, any person making payment to any resident\nfor

M/S CEAT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER OSD TDS CIRCLE 1(1), MUMBAI

Section 194C as compared to other TDS provisions. As\nper Section 194C, any person making payment to any resident\nfor

M/S CEAT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER OSD TDS CIRCLE 1(1), MUMBAI

Section 194C as compared to other TDS provisions. As\nper Section 194C, any person making payment to any resident\nfor

M/S CEAT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER OSD TDS CIRCLE 1(1), MUMBAI

Section 194C as compared to other TDS provisions. As\nper Section 194C, any person making payment to any resident\nfor

M/S CEAT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER OSD TDS CIRCLE 1(1), MUMBAI

Section 194C as compared to other TDS provisions. As\nper Section 194C, any person making payment to any resident\nfor

UBER INDIA SYSTEMS PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT (TDS)-2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhuber India Systems Vs. The Dcit(Tds)-2(3) Private Limited Smt. K.G. Mittal Unit 41/46, Floor 3 Ayurvedic Hospital Paragon, Phoenix Market Building, City, Lbs Marg, Charni Road (West) Kurla (W), Mumbai - 400002 Mumbai – 400070 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcu6223H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : J.D. Mistry & Hiten Chande Respondent By : Achal Sharma

194C read with section 206AA of the Act amounting to Rs.102,01,00,959 (which includes Rs. 26,49,49,072 where provisions of section 206AA has been applied), with respect to disbursements made to Driver-Partners on behalf of Uber BV: P a g e | 2 Uber India Systems pvt. Ltd. Vs. The DCIT(TDS

ACIT (OSD)-2(2), MUMBAI vs. SHOPPERS STOP LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1163/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13) Acit(Osd)(Tds)-2(2) बिधम/ Shoppers Stop Ltd Room No. 706, 7Th Floor, K. 5Th Floor, Umang Tower, Vs. G. Mittal Ayurvedic Malad Link Road, Hospital Bldg, Charni Road Minidspace, Malad (W), (W), Mumbai-400002. Mumbai-400064. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcs4383A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Manan Mathuria Revenue By: Shri Byomakesh Pradipta Kumar Panda (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22/12/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: The Present Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-52, Mumbai Dated 12.03.2021 For Ay. 2012-13. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Revenue Is Directed Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Holding That, The Payments Made By The Assessee To Several Vendors In Relation To Its Procurements From Them, Consisting Of Appeals/Clothes/Footwear/Goods Manufactured By These Vendors, Were Not In The Nature Of “Works Contract” But “Purchase Of Goods” & That, Therefore, The Provisions Of Section 194C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Invoked By The Assessing Officer In Relation Thereto, Were Not Applicable.

section 194C. There is ongoing litigation as to whether TDS is deductible under section 194C on outsourcing contracts and whether

DCIT (OSD) (TDS) -2 (2) , MUMBAI vs. SHOPPPERS STOP LTD, MUMBAI

Accordingly, all the grounds raised by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.1783/Mum/2021 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) बिधम/ Acit (Osd) Tds 2(2), M/S Shoppers Stop Limited Room No 706, 7Th Fl.., K.G Mittal 5Th Floor, Umang Tower, Vs. Ayurvedic Hospital Bldg, Malad Link Road, Charni Road (W), Minidspace, Malad (W), Mumbai- 400002 Mumbai-400064 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcs4383A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri .Vijay Mehta/Shri Manan Mathuriya Revenue By: Shri. Rakesh Ranjan (Dr) सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/10/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

section 194C. There is ongoing litigation as to whether TDS is deductible under section 194C on outsourcing contracts and whether

PARTHO DAS,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-28(2)(4), MUMBAI, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

sections": ["40(a)(ia)", "194C", "194C(1)", "194C(2)", "194C(1)(k)", "44AB"], "issues": "Whether the assessee was liable to deduct TDS

UBER INDIA SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. JT.CIT (TDS)(OSD)-2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 194C of the Act. (j) UISPL is the face of Uber B.V. in India as everything outside the App is done by UISPL. (k) UISPL is the person responsible for making payment and deducting tax at source as the payment is being made from the bank account of UISPL. Further, there is no requirement in law that person responsible

DCIT(OSD)(TDS)-2(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHOPPERS STOP LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, all the grounds raised by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

section 194C. There is ongoing litigation as to whether TDS is deductible under section 194C on outsourcing contracts and whether

DCIT(OSD)(TDS)-2(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHOPPERS STOP LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, all the grounds raised by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

section 194C. There is ongoing litigation as to whether TDS is deductible under section 194C on outsourcing contracts and whether

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PRARAMBH SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED , GUJARAT

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

section 194C of the Act were\nnot applicable, since the arrangement did not fall within the\nambit of a works contract or service contract as mandated by\nsection 194C of the Act. However, the Assessing Officer\nrejected the assessee's contention and held that TDS

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PRARAMBH SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED, GUJARAT

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

section 194C of the Act were\nnot applicable, since the arrangement did not fall within the\nambit of a works contract or service contract as mandated by\nsection 194C of the Act. However, the Assessing Officer\nrejected the assessee's contention and held that TDS

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PRARAMBH SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED, GUJARAT

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

section 194C of the Act were\nnot applicable, since the arrangement did not fall within the\nambit of a works contract or service contract as mandated by\nsection 194C of the Act. However, the Assessing Officer\nrejected the assessee's contention and held that TDS

DCIT (TDS)(OSD)-2(3), MUMBAI vs. UBER INDIA SYSTEMS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 194C of the Act. The Assessing Officer-TDS (“AO- TDS”) noted that Uber EATS is a food delivery App similar

DZ BANK INDIA REPRESENTATIVE OFFICE,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee to the extent of In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee to the extent of the recalled grounds, are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dz Bank, India Representative Dcit (International Taxation) Office C/O Srbc & Associates Llp, Range-2(1)(2), 14Th Floor, The Ruby, 29, Senapati Vs. 16Th Floor, Room No. 1612, Air Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400028. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aabcd 6455 E Appellant Respondent

194C, Section Section 194B Section 194D, Section 19 Section 194E, Section 195 and Section 196A, the assessee , the assessee shall not be called upon to pay the tax himself to the extent to shall not be called upon to pay the tax himself to the extent to shall not be called upon to pay the tax himself to the extent

DZ BANK INDIA REPRESENTATIVE OFFICE,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee to the extent of In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee to the extent of the recalled grounds, are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dz Bank, India Representative Dcit (International Taxation) Office C/O Srbc & Associates Llp, Range-2(1)(2), 14Th Floor, The Ruby, 29, Senapati Vs. 16Th Floor, Room No. 1612, Air Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400028. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aabcd 6455 E Appellant Respondent

194C, Section Section 194B Section 194D, Section 19 Section 194E, Section 195 and Section 196A, the assessee , the assessee shall not be called upon to pay the tax himself to the extent to shall not be called upon to pay the tax himself to the extent to shall not be called upon to pay the tax himself to the extent