ACIT 11(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL OIL INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

TDS) under Section 195(2) or 195(3) either by the non-resident or by the resident payer is to avoid

TOTAL OIL INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 8(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

TDS) under Section 195(2) or 195(3) either by the non-resident or by the resident payer is to avoid

TOTAL OIL INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 11(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

TDS) under Section 195(2) or 195(3) either by the non-resident or by the resident payer is to avoid

ASST CIT RANGE 11(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL OIL INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

TDS) under Section 195(2) or 195(3) either by the non-resident or by the resident payer is to avoid

ACIT CIR 11(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL OIL INDIA P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

TDS) under Section 195(2) or 195(3) either by the non-resident or by the resident payer is to avoid

TOTAL OIL INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 11(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

TDS) under Section 195(2) or 195(3) either by the non-resident or by the resident payer is to avoid

DY CIT 11 (3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL OIL INDIA PVT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy&F Shri Amarjit Singhdy. Commissioner Of Vs. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax-11(3)(1) 3Rd Floor, The Leela Room No. 204, Aayakar Galleria, Bhavan, M.K.Road, Andheri (E) Marine Lines Mumbai 400 059 Mumbai – 400 020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaace2175M Appellant .. Respondent

TDS) under Section 195(2) or 195(3) either by the non-resident or by the resident payer is to avoid

TOTAL OIL INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 11(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd., V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax 3Rd Floor, The Leela Galleria Circle – 11(3)(1) Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai – 400 059 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaace2175M (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. M/S. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd., 3Rd Floor, The Leela Galleria Circle – 11(3)(1) Room No. 204, 2Nd Floor Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400 059 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaace2175M (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS) under Section 195(2) or 195(3) either by the non-resident or by the resident payer is to avoid

DCIT- 11 (3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL OIL INDIA PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd., V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax 3Rd Floor, The Leela Galleria Circle – 11(3)(1) Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai – 400 059 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaace2175M (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. M/S. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd., 3Rd Floor, The Leela Galleria Circle – 11(3)(1) Room No. 204, 2Nd Floor Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400 059 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaace2175M (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS) under Section 195(2) or 195(3) either by the non-resident or by the resident payer is to avoid

DCIT CC 7(2).MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MAN INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2020-2021

3)(iii) of the Act, any payment made to a banking company are outside the purview of provisions of TDS, therefore, the Assessing Officer was erred in purview of provisions of TDS, therefore, the Assessing Officer was erred in purview of provisions of TDS, therefore, the Assessing Officer was erred in invoking the provision of section 195

BAJAJ ECO TEC PRODUCTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO (TDS) (IT), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri G. Manjunatha, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 4609, 4610 & 4611/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2011-12 & 2010-11) Bajaj Eco Tec Products Limited The Income-Tax Officer (Tds)-3, (Now Merged With Bajaj Hindustan (International Taxation), बनाम/ Sugar Limited) Scindia House, Ballard Pier, 2Nd Floor, Bajaj Bhavan, Mumbai-400 038 Vs. 226, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccb 8572 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Kirit Kamdar/ Shri Parth Achwal ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Rajat Mittal

3)(iii) does not help the assessee. It is seen that loan was sanctioned and disbursed by the ICICI Singapore branch in US dollars to whom it is paying regular interest through foreign mode. More so, branch. However, to make it crystal clear, that these interest payments are liable for TDS, the provisions of section 195

DDIT (IT) 4(2),MUMBAI vs. ABU DHABI SHIP BLDG PJSC, MUMBAI

In the result, Department’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

3 M/s. Abu Dhabi Ship Building PJSC the payer ONGC that no tax is required to be deducted as per the double taxation avoidance agreement between India and UAE and further the consortium does not have a Permanent Establishment (P.E) in India. Along with the application for non–deduction of tax, the ONGC also filed other details. The Assessing Officer

ACIT -25(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. GEPACH INTERNATIONAL, MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shris. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5943 & 5942/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15)

3,32,605.56 Sales Promotion Expense 2,16,41,556.61 Sub-total 2,19,74,162.17 Statement of Administrative: 2,60,35,460.10 4,80,09,622.27 Total Details of Sales Promotion Expenses- Pharmark Consulting FZE Reimbursement of Expenses 2,15,01,469 Advertisement Expenses 1,12,232 Gepach Representative Office (Russia) 6 I.T.A. No. 5943 & 5942/Mum/2018 M/s Gepach International

DCIT 8(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SHAMROCK PHARMACHEMI P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M.Balaganeshita Nos. 862 & 863/Mum/2018 (Assessment Years :2013-14 & 2014-15) Dcit-8(2)(1) Vs. M/S. Shamrock Pharmachemi Room No.624, Pvt.Ltd. Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Off Dr. E Moses Road Mumbai-400 020 Worli, Mumbai-400 025 Pan/Gir No.Aaacs6290H (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Bharat Gandhi, Ar Revenue By Shri V.Vinod Kumar, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing 28/10/2020 Date Of Pronouncement 11/11/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per M. Balaganesh (A.M): These Two Appeals Filed By Revenue In Ita Nos. 862 & 863/Mum/2018 For Assessment Years (Ay) 2013-14 & 2014-15 Arise Out Of The Order By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 14, Mumbai In Appeals No.Cit(A)-14/It-170/15-16 & Cit(A)-14/It- 119/16-17, Dated 27/11/2017 (Ld. Cit(A) In Short) Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As Act) Dated 31/08/2016 By The Ld. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-8(2)(1), Mumbai (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. Ao).

3. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the appeal on the ground that no part of the income had arisen or accrued in India. The payee was not liable to pay tax at such income. Requirement of TDS therefore would not arise. 4. As is well known, section 195

ASIAN PIPES & PROFILES P. LTD,AMBERNATH vs. A.O. TDS WD KALYAN, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by different assessees for different quarters relating to different years are allowed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sanjay Garg

TDS statements and returns for default in furnishing statements under section 234E of the Act, by way of intimations issued under section 200A of the Act, in respect of defaults before 01.06.2015. 5. Per contra, the learned D.R. for Revenue emphatically supported and placed reliance on the orders of the authorities below. 6.1 We have heard the rival contentions

DISHA DISTRIBUTORS,MUMBAI vs. A.O. TDS WD KALYAN, KALYAN

In the result, all the appeals filed by different assessees for different quarters relating to different years are allowed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sanjay Garg

TDS statements and returns for default in furnishing statements under section 234E of the Act, by way of intimations issued under section 200A of the Act, in respect of defaults before 01.06.2015. 5. Per contra, the learned D.R. for Revenue emphatically supported and placed reliance on the orders of the authorities below. 6.1 We have heard the rival contentions

ASIAN PIPES & PROFILES P. LTD,AMBERNATH vs. A.O. TDS WD KALYAN, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by different assessees for different quarters relating to different years are allowed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sanjay Garg

TDS statements and returns for default in furnishing statements under section 234E of the Act, by way of intimations issued under section 200A of the Act, in respect of defaults before 01.06.2015. 5. Per contra, the learned D.R. for Revenue emphatically supported and placed reliance on the orders of the authorities below. 6.1 We have heard the rival contentions

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

Section 115JB of the I.T.Act, 1961 are not \napplicable in the case of the assessee. \n9. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in \nlaw, the Ld. CIT(A) was right in deleting the disallowance \nof Rs.776,13,61,000/- on account of reserve for \nunexpired risk without appreciating the fact the said \nreserved was created

SPRING TIME CLUBS & HOSPITALITY SERVICES P.LTD,KALYAN vs. A.O. TDS WD KALYAN, KALYAN

In the result, all the appeals filed by different assessees for different quarters relating to different years are allowed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sanjay Gargm/S. Sprigtime Clubs & Hospitality Assessing Officer, Tds Ward Services Pvt. Ltd. Rani Mansion, Murbad Road Vs. 2Nd Floor, Sprig Avenue, Club Road Kalyan (W), 421301 Kalyan (W) 421301 Pan – Aaocs9107M Appellant Respondent

TDS statements and returns for default in furnishing statements under section 234E of the Act, by way of intimations issued under section 200A of the Act, in respect of defaults before 01.06.2015. 5. Per contra, the learned D.R. for Revenue emphatically supported and placed reliance on the orders of the authorities below. 4 Sprigtime Clubs&Hospitality Services