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

TDS (as they have quoted PAN) will be required to intimate these PAN details to the I.T. Department in the prescribed format. However, the applicability of provision of section 194C(6) for non-deduction is not complete without the fulfilment of conditions laid down u/s 194C(7

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: -

7. Thus after examination of the Explanation III to the then section 194C, the Hon'ble High Court held that the payment for obtaining the telecast licenses from the licensor falls under the provisions of section 194C. We find that the work of broadcasting/telecasting including production of programme or such broadcasting or telecasting falls under the definition of “work

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: -

7 CO No.105/M/2019 A.Y.2011-12 be to the specific provision. Therefore, when the, work of broadcasting and' telecasting of the programmes specifically falls under the ambit of provisions of section 194C, then In view of the decision of Hon‘ble Delhi High Court (supra), the provisions of section 194J con not be applied on such payments. The CBDT Circular

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)-2(3) 2. Arbitrarily

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 194C for deduction of TDS on total payment amounting to Rs. 7,59,32,109/- made to M/s. DBM Geotechnics

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 of the Act and provisions of section 194J are not applicable. I hold accordingly and demand of Rs. 5,47,721/- raised by the AO in this regard is deleted on merits.‖ 7. Aggrieved with the above decision of the CIT (A), Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld DR vehemently submitted before us that the payment

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 of the Act and provisions of section 194J are not applicable. I hold accordingly and demand of Rs. 5,47,721/- raised by the AO in this regard is deleted on merits.‖ 7. Aggrieved with the above decision of the CIT (A), Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld DR vehemently submitted before us that the payment

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 of the Act and provisions of section 194J are not applicable. I hold accordingly and demand of Rs. 5,47,721/- raised by the AO in this regard is deleted on merits.‖ 7. Aggrieved with the above decision of the CIT (A), Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld DR vehemently submitted before us that the payment

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.

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

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, “work includes broadcasting and telecasting including production of programmes”. We are also helped by the order of the coordinate Bench of ITAT Mumbai in the case of ACIT(TDS) vs UTV Entertainment Television Ltd., ITA No. 2699/Mum/2012, wherein the ITAT held that while making the payment of carriage fee to cable operators, TDS has to be deducted

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, “work includes broadcasting and telecasting including production of programmes”. We are also helped by the order of the coordinate Bench of ITAT Mumbai in the case of ACIT(TDS) vs UTV Entertainment Television Ltd., ITA No. 2699/Mum/2012, wherein the ITAT held that while making the payment of carriage fee to cable operators, TDS has to be deducted

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:

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

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 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 not be paid No.30/2012 tax law is concerned with by service provider but by the aggregator involved in service provider or receiver. the transaction

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 shall be deducted on the whole of the invoice value. It is further proposed to make the amendments effective from the 1st day of October, 2009. Accordingly, the proposed amendments will apply to credits or payments effected on or after 1st October, 2009." 16. In view of the above, the legal position which emerges is that, in a case

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 shall be deducted on the whole of the invoice value. It is further proposed to make the amendments effective from the 1st day of October, 2009. Accordingly, the proposed amendments will apply to credits or payments effected on or after 1st October, 2009." 16. In view of the above, the legal position which emerges is that, in a case

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)

7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant- Revenue has taken us through the impugned orders. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the payments made by the respondent will not be covered by Section 194C. It was submitted that, in fact, Section 194J will be applicable. He invited our attention to the findings of the fact recorded

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

TDS held that the assessee is making substantial payments to driver partners, the restaurant partners, and the courier partners without deducting tax at source, thereby violating the provisions of Chapter XVIIB of the Act and more specifically section 194C r/w section 204 of the Act. 7

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

194C and the assessee was not liable to\ndeduct tax therefrom. Accordingly section 40(a)(ia) is also not\napplicable. The payments, in our view, were rightly allowed as\ndeduction by the CIT (A). The grounds 7 to 10 are dismissed.”\n7. We, therefore, following the decision of the co-ordinate Bench\nin the case of M/s. Asset Alliance Securities