ACIT 17(2), MUMBAI vs. NATHALAL SHIVLAL, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Acit-17(2) Nathalal Shivlal Ramesh Room No. 134, Bhavan, Gr. Floor, 89, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Nakhodda Street, M.K. Road, Tambakata (Phydhonie), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400003. Pan No. Aaafn0757F Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. V. Vidhyadhar, Dr Assesseeby : Mr. Akash Kumar, Ar Date Of Hearing : 04/12/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/02/2018

194C(6) of the Act. The AO noted that as per para 49.3 of Explanatory Circular for Finance (No.2) Act, 2009 regarding provisions for payments and tax deducted at source to transporters, the Act has been amended to exempt payments to transport operators (as defined in section 44AE) from the purview of TDS

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: -

6 CO No.105/M/2019 A.Y.2011-12 "work" as provided under clause (iv) of the Explanation to section 194C which reads as under:- "Explanation -For the purpose of this Section – **************** **************** (iv) "work" shall include {a} Advertising; {b} Broadcasting and telecasting including production of programmes for such broadcasting or telecasting {c} Carriage of goods or passengers by any mode of transport other than

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: -

section 194C.” 6. The assessee has also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble ITAT in ITA. No.669/M/2012 and ITA. No. 670/M/2012 dated 17.03.2015 title as ITS (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

6 to 13 had argued on the preliminary jurisdiction point that UISPL is not the "person responsible for payment" as per section 194C read with section 204 of the Act. For the sake of convenience, the relevant extract of section 194C of the Act is reproduced hereinbelow:- Section 194C "(1) Any person responsible for paying any sum to any resident

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 as applied by the assessee by issuing show cause notice u/s 201(1) of the Act on 16.12.2009 and 17.02.2011 as to the assessee as to why the provisions of section 194J should not be applied. Further, AO opined that the payments made to Reliance Transport and Travels Pvt Ltd (RTTPL) on account of event management expenses attract

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 as applied by the assessee by issuing show cause notice u/s 201(1) of the Act on 16.12.2009 and 17.02.2011 as to the assessee as to why the provisions of section 194J should not be applied. Further, AO opined that the payments made to Reliance Transport and Travels Pvt Ltd (RTTPL) on account of event management expenses attract

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 as applied by the assessee by issuing show cause notice u/s 201(1) of the Act on 16.12.2009 and 17.02.2011 as to the assessee as to why the provisions of section 194J should not be applied. Further, AO opined that the payments made to Reliance Transport and Travels Pvt Ltd (RTTPL) on account of event management expenses attract

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 of the Act. 24. The AO is further noted to have laid much emphasis on the aspect that, the assessee had long term arrangements with these vendors and therefore it was not in the nature of ordinary purchases as claimed by the assessee. Having regard to the facts as already discussed in the foregoing, and also having perused

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 as per the provision of Section 194C of the said Act. The show-cause-notices were issued to the assessee for the Financial Years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11. 11. The Assessing Officer held that the placement charges will be governed by Section 194J. Similarly in case of dubbing charges, the same finding was recorded

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) ..

Section 194J are applicable in respect of payments made to M/s. DBM Geotechnics & Construction Pvt. Ltd. 6. In assessee's own case, earlier, on the same issue the then Assessing Officer while passing order u/s 201(1)/201(lA) for assessment year 2008-09 to 2011-12 treated the assessee as assessee in default for deducting TDS u/s 194C

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 of the Act. 24. The AO is further noted to have laid much emphasis on the aspect that, the assessee had long term arrangements with these vendors and therefore it was not in the nature of ordinary purchases as claimed by the assessee. Having regard to the facts as already discussed in the foregoing, and also having perused

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

6 M/s. Uber India Systems Pvt. Ltd., service tax law is irrelevant as the Learned DR is incorrect. Service tax law dated 1.3.2015 section 194C is concerned specifically brought the amendment in 2015 to amending with the person responsible provide that whenever the aggregator is involved in Notification for paying however, service any manner the service tax liability will

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

6 Wire & Wireless India Ltd. pay channel subscription charges by the Appellant to channel companies is liable to tax deduction at source @ 2% as per the provisions of section 194C of the Act. Since the Appellant has already deducted TDS

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

6 Wire & Wireless India Ltd. pay channel subscription charges by the Appellant to channel companies is liable to tax deduction at source @ 2% as per the provisions of section 194C of the Act. Since the Appellant has already deducted TDS

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

TDS is deductible under section 194C on ‘outsourcing contracts’ and whether ‘outsourcing’ constitutes ‘work’ or not. Hence to bring clarity on this issue, the definition of ‘work’ was consciously amended by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2009 wherein it was specifically provided that 6

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

TDS is deductible under section 194C on ‘outsourcing contracts’ and whether ‘outsourcing’ constitutes ‘work’ or not. Hence to bring clarity on this issue, the definition of ‘work’ was consciously amended by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2009 wherein it was specifically provided that 6

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

TDS u/s.194C or 194J is deleted. Thus,\nthe disallowance of Rs.24,30,389/- (30% of Rs.81,01,297/-)\nmade by the AO u/s.40(a)(ia) is deleted.\n6. Before us ld. Counsel for the assessee first of all referred to\nSection 194C and submitted that the same is not applicable\nbecause the Section requires the tax is to be deducted

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

TDS u/s.194C or 194J is deleted. Thus,\nthe disallowance of Rs.24,30,389/- (30% of Rs.81,01,297/-)\nmade by the AO u/s.40(a)(ia) is deleted.\n6. Before us ld. Counsel for the assessee first of all referred to\nSection 194C and submitted that the same is not applicable\nbecause the Section requires the tax is to be deducted