INCOME TAX OFFIECER-17(3)(4), MUMBAI vs. SUGARCHEM, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalincome Tax Officer-17(3)(4) M/S. Sugarchem 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Kshamalaya, 3Rd Floor Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 Marine Lines Mumbai 400020 Pan – Aayfs3762P Appellant Respondent

TDS was deductible on the payments made as the transporters have furnished their PAN details to the assessee as per provisions of Section 194C

A.C.I.T. (TDS)-1, MUMBAI vs. B4U BROADBANK INDIA PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result appeals of the revenue as well as the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.5664/Mum/2012 & 5665/M/2012 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12) Acit (Tds)-1(1), Room बिधम/ M/S. B4U Broadband India No. 804, K.G. Mittal Pvt Ltd. 45, Marol Vs. Hospital Bldg, Charni Road, Cooperative Industrial Estate Mumbai-2. Ltd. Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai- 400009. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcb5210F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri Suman Kumar Assessee By: Shri Vijay Mehta सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09.07.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25.07.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 29.06.2012 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2010-11. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

194C of the Act. 3.17. I do not agree with the stand adopted by the TDS officer in the impugned order that the placement fee should be treated as Fees for technical services for the purpose of TDS under section

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: -

194C as payment for work contract as also under section 194j as payments of fees for professional services. 2. It is hereby clarified that each section, regarding TDS

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 (TDS) 3(2), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

194C could be applied to deduct and deposit TDS and not 194J which deals with the deduction and deposit of TDS in case of technical, professional and consultancy services. Looking to the facts in the light of provisions of section

DCIT (TDS) 3(2), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

194C could be applied to deduct and deposit TDS and not 194J which deals with the deduction and deposit of TDS in case of technical, professional and consultancy services. Looking to the facts in the light of provisions of section

DCIT (TDS) 3(2), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE LIFE NSURANACE CO. LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

194C could be applied to deduct and deposit TDS and not 194J which deals with the deduction and deposit of TDS in case of technical, professional and consultancy services. Looking to the facts in the light of provisions of section

MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (MMRDA),MUMBAI vs. ACIT (TDS) CIRCLE - 1(3), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5186 & 5187/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) बिाम/ Mumbai Metropolitan Region Acit (Tds) Cir-1(3) Development Authority R.No. 703, 7 T H Floor, K.G. (Mmrda) , Bkc, Bandra(E), Mittal Hospital Building, V. Mumbai-400051 Charni Road(W), Mumbai- 400002 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan :Aaatm7106R(Tds Mum16747D) (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

TDS u/s. 194C of the I. T. Act and the provisions of section 194C are not applicable. The provisions of section

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

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

ITO (TDS) 3(5), MUMBAI vs. WIRE & WIRELESS (INDIA) LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2006-07 & Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito (Tds) 3(5), Wire & Wireless (India) Ltd. R.No.1008, 10Th Floor, Madhu Industrial Estate, 4Th बनाम/ Smt. K.G. Mittal Floor, Pandurang Budhkar Vs. Ayurvedic Hospital Marg, Worli Bldg, Charni Rd, (W) Mumbai-400018 Mumbai-400002 (Revenue) (Respondent) P.A. No.Mumv15600E Revenue By Shri Awungshi Gimsen & Shri Nitin Waghmode (Dr) Respondent By Shri Vijay Mehta (Ar) सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 20/01/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order: 24/02/2016

section 194C of the Act. Since the Appellant has already deducted TDS under section 194C of the Act on the pay channel

ITO (TDS) 3(5), MUMBAI vs. WIRE & WIRELESS (INDIA) LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2006-07 & Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito (Tds) 3(5), Wire & Wireless (India) Ltd. R.No.1008, 10Th Floor, Madhu Industrial Estate, 4Th बनाम/ Smt. K.G. Mittal Floor, Pandurang Budhkar Vs. Ayurvedic Hospital Marg, Worli Bldg, Charni Rd, (W) Mumbai-400018 Mumbai-400002 (Revenue) (Respondent) P.A. No.Mumv15600E Revenue By Shri Awungshi Gimsen & Shri Nitin Waghmode (Dr) Respondent By Shri Vijay Mehta (Ar) सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 20/01/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order: 24/02/2016

section 194C of the Act. Since the Appellant has already deducted TDS under section 194C of the Act on the pay channel

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

STAR INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 16(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm M/S. Star India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Asst. Cit 16(1) Room No.467, 4Th Floor Star House, Urmi Estate 95, Ganpat Rao Kadam Mumbai Marg, Lower Parel Mumbai – 400 013 Pan/Gir No.Aaacn1335Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

TDS is required to be deducted as per the provisions of Section 194J of the I.T.Act instead deducted by the 13 M/s. Star India Pvt. Ltd., assessee company as per the provisions of section 194C

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