DCIT(TDS)OSD-1(2), MUMBAI, CUMBALLA HILL vs. HOUSE OF ANITA DONGRE PVT LTD, BANDRA WEST

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: BEFOR SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

Section 194H do not get attracted. It was further submitted that TDS under Section 194H is required only if either

DCIT(TDS)-1(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. HOUSE OF ANITA DONGRE PVT LTD, BANDRA WEST

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: BEFOR SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

Section 194H do not get attracted. It was further submitted that TDS under Section 194H is required only if either

DCIT(TDS)OSD-1(2), MUMBAI, CUMBALLA HILL vs. HOUSE OF ANITA DONGRE PVT LTD, BANDRA WEST

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: BEFOR SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

Section 194H do not get attracted. It was further submitted that TDS under Section 194H is required only if either

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

Section 194H. Therefore, the assessee was justified in deducting TDS under Section 194C at 2%.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "194C", "194H

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

Agents (CFAs) for logistical services constitute 'commission' attracting TDS under Section 194H or 'contractual services' attracting TDS under Section 194C." } }

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

services rendered were contractual payments subject to TDS under Section 194C or commission payments subject to TDS under Section 194H." } }

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

TDS under Section 194H at 5%, whereas the assessee had deducted TDS under Section 194C at 2%. The AO treated

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

TDS under Section 194C, not Section 194H. The Tribunal found that the CFAs acted as agents with limited independence and their

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO (TDS)-2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, in the present batch of appeals for the

TDS under Section 194A is applicable. Furthermore, the Tribunal found no basis to consider the retained amount as fees for technical/professional services (Section 194J) or commission/brokerage (Section 194H

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

dispatch services are contractual payments subject to TDS under Section 194C or commission payments subject to TDS under Section 194H." } }

DCIT (TDS), CIRCLE-2(2), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, in the present batch of appeals for the

TDS under Section 194A. The Tribunal also found no basis to consider the retained amount as fees for professional/technical services (Section 194J) or commission/brokerage (Section 194H

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

such as storage, warehousing, and dispatch are contractual payments attracting TDS under Section 194C or commission attracting TDS under Section 194H." } }

ASUS INDIA PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE LD. ADDL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ACIT/ ITO, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Asus India Private Limited The Learned. 402, Supreme Chambers, Addl/Joint/Deputy/Acit/Ito 17-18 Shah Industrial Estate, Room No.305, Ara Centre 2-E Veera Desai Road, Vs. Jhandewalan Extn, New Delhi, Andheri (West), Delhi-110055 Mumbai-400 053 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aajca6450C Assessee By : Mr. Vijay Mehta, Adv. Revenue By : Mr. Nihar Ranjan Samal, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing: 19.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.08.2023

section 194H of the Act. 37. The learned Departmental Representative submitted, firstly the expenditure claimed by the assessee is merely a provision. Therefore, it cannot be allowed as expenditure. Further, he ITA No. 2427/Mum/2022; Asus India Private Ltd; 2018-19 submitted, even if it is a provision still since the assessee has claimed it as deduction, TDS

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI CITY vs. ITO (TDS)-2(2)(1), MUMBAI

TDS should\nhave been deducted under section 194) (if on principal-to-principal basis) or\nalternatively under section 194H (if on principal

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO (TDS)-2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, in the present batch of appeals for the

TDS should\nhave been deducted under section 194) (if on principal-to-principal basis) or\nalternatively under section 194H (if on principal

IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO SPICE COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. DY. CIT, CIRCLE- 3(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Is Interconnected With Ground No.Ii. Hence, They Are Taken Up Together For Disposal.

TDS. Even on an indirect payment stemming from the consumer, the Assessees would remain liable under the IT Act. However, the assessee contends that in the case before Hon'ble SC, the fact that section 1941 applies in that case was not under dispute as regards the standard commission. Once section 194H

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO (TDS)-2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, in the present batch of appeals for the assessment years

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

TDS should have been deducted under section 194) (if on principal-to-principal basis) or alternatively under section 194H (if on principal

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI CITY vs. ITO (TDS)-2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, in the present batch of appeals for the assessment years

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

TDS should have been deducted under section 194) (if on principal-to-principal basis) or alternatively under section 194H (if on principal

DCIT (TDS), CIRCLE-2(2), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, in the present batch of appeals for the assessment years

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

TDS should have been deducted under section 194) (if on principal-to-principal basis) or alternatively under section 194H (if on principal