ACIT 16(1), MUMBAI vs. UTV ENTERTAINMENT TELEVISION LTD(NOW KNOWN AS M/S.DISNEY BROADCASTING (INDIA) LIMITED), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5958/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिाम/ Acit 16(1) Utv Entertainment R.No. 439, Aayakar Television Ltd. (Now Bhavan, M.K Marg, Known As M/S. Disney V. Mumbai 400020 Broadcasting (India) Ltd.) 11, Solitaire Corporate Park, Guru Hargovind Marg, Chakala , Mumbai-400093 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaccv4782D (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri. Charanjeet Singh Gulati (Cit-Dr) Shri. Abhishek Tilak Assessee By: सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 11.03.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.06.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 5958/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 16.06.2017, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2012-13, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 15.03.2016 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2012-13. I.T.A. No.5958/Mum/2017

TDS in respect of different types of expenditure such as Section 192, 194A, 194C, 194J, 195 etc. 3) If the assessee

SODEXO SVC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS)-2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

194C do not apply to the facts of the present case. The Learned CIT(A) erred in not holding the Order passed 2. under Section 201/ 201(1A) of the Act to be bad in law though the same was passed beyond the time limit allowed u/s 201(3). The Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the demand raised 3

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

TDS provisions. As\nper Section 194C, any person making payment to any resident\nfor carrying out work in pursuance of a contract is liable for\ndeduction of tax at source. The relevant extract of section 194C is\nreproduced for ease of reference 194C. (1) Any person\nresponsible for paying any sum to any resident (hereafter in this\nsection referred

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

TDS provisions. As\nper Section 194C, any person making payment to any resident\nfor carrying out work in pursuance of a contract is liable for\ndeduction of tax at source. The relevant extract of section 194C is\nreproduced for ease of reference 194C. (1) Any person\nresponsible for paying any sum to any resident (hereafter in this\nsection referred

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

TDS provisions. As\nper Section 194C, any person making payment to any resident\nfor carrying out work in pursuance of a contract is liable for\ndeduction of tax at source. The relevant extract of section 194C is\nreproduced for ease of reference 194C. (1) Any person\nresponsible for paying any sum to any resident (hereafter in this\nsection referred

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: -

TDS @ 2% as per the provisions of section 194C of the Act 3 17 I do not agree with the stand

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

3 raised by the Assessee are allowed.” 8. Similar view has been taken by the Nagpur Bench in the case of Manikgarh Cement (supra). It has been held that if the assessee complies with the provisions of Section 194C(6) disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) does not arise just because there is violation of provisions of Section 194C

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

TDS provisions. As\nper Section 194C, any person making payment to any resident\nfor carrying out work in pursuance of a contract is liable for\ndeduction of tax at source. The relevant extract of section 194C is\nreproduced for ease of reference 194C. (1) Any person\nresponsible for paying any sum to any resident (hereafter in this\nsection referred

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

TDS provisions. As\nper Section 194C, any person making payment to any resident\nfor carrying out work in pursuance of a contract is liable for\ndeduction of tax at source. The relevant extract of section 194C is\nreproduced for ease of reference 194C. (1) Any person\nresponsible for paying any sum to any resident (hereafter in this\nsection referred

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

TDS provisions. As\nper Section 194C, any person making payment to any resident\nfor carrying out work in pursuance of a contract is liable for\ndeduction of tax at source. The relevant extract of section 194C is\nreproduced for ease of reference 194C. (1) Any person\nresponsible for paying any sum to any resident (hereafter in this\nsection referred

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

TDS provisions. As\nper Section 194C, any person making payment to any resident\nfor carrying out work in pursuance of a contract is liable for\ndeduction of tax at source. The relevant extract of section 1940 is\nreproduced for ease of reference 194C. (1) Any person\nresponsible for paying any sum to any resident (hereafter in this\nsection referred

ACIT(TDS)-2(2),, MUMBAI vs. SODEXO SVC INDIA PVT. LTD.,, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed and the cross-objection of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1402/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बिधम/ Acit (Tds)-2(2) Sodexo Svc India Pvt. Ltd. Room No.717, K. G. Mittal Nesco Complex, Indabrator Vs. Building, W.E. Highway, Ayurvedic Hospital Bldg, Goregaon (E), Mumbai- Charni Road, West , 400051. Mumbai-400002. Co. No.108/Mum/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita. No.1402/Mum/2019) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Sodexo Svc India Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Acit (Tds)-2(2) Nesco Complex, Indabrator Room No.717, K. G. Mittal Vs. Building, W.E. Highway, Ayurvedic Hospital Bldg, Goregaon (E), Mumbai- Charni Road, West , Mumbai- 400051. 400002. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aalcs9822Q (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Jasbir Chouhan Assessee By: Shri Gautam Thakkar & Shri Yazdi P. Jijina सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/04/2022 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 28.12.2018 Passed

3)(i) of the Act as it stood at the relevant time which provided for a period of limitation of two years from the end of the financial year in which statement was filed in a case where the statement referred to in section 200 has been filed. The limitation for initiating action under section

M.R. CONSTRUCTION,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 22,

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

3. The learned Counsel for the assessee stated that the AO has made disallowance of the following items: - (a) excess remunerations disallowed under section 40(b) of the Act amounting to Rs. 19,500/-. (b) Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non deduction of TDS under section 194C

ACIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI vs. M.R. CONSTRUCTION, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

3. The learned Counsel for the assessee stated that the AO has made disallowance of the following items: - (a) excess remunerations disallowed under section 40(b) of the Act amounting to Rs. 19,500/-. (b) Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non deduction of TDS under section 194C

M.R. CONSTRUCTION,.,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

3. The learned Counsel for the assessee stated that the AO has made disallowance of the following items: - (a) excess remunerations disallowed under section 40(b) of the Act amounting to Rs. 19,500/-. (b) Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non deduction of TDS under section 194C

M.R. CONSTRUCTION,.,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

3. The learned Counsel for the assessee stated that the AO has made disallowance of the following items: - (a) excess remunerations disallowed under section 40(b) of the Act amounting to Rs. 19,500/-. (b) Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non deduction of TDS under section 194C

DCIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI vs. M.R. CONSTRUCTION, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

3. The learned Counsel for the assessee stated that the AO has made disallowance of the following items: - (a) excess remunerations disallowed under section 40(b) of the Act amounting to Rs. 19,500/-. (b) Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non deduction of TDS under section 194C

JAWAHAR B. PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22XC, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

3. The learned Counsel for the assessee stated that the AO has made disallowance of the following items: - (a) excess remunerations disallowed under section 40(b) of the Act amounting to Rs. 19,500/-. (b) Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non deduction of TDS under section 194C

ASST CIT CC-22, MUMBAI vs. JAWAHAR PUROHIT, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

3. The learned Counsel for the assessee stated that the AO has made disallowance of the following items: - (a) excess remunerations disallowed under section 40(b) of the Act amounting to Rs. 19,500/-. (b) Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non deduction of TDS under section 194C