INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-1 THANE , THANE vs. M/S BLUE STAR REALTORS PVT LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Tds-1, M/S Blue Star Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Gr. Floor, Qureshi Mansion, Ground Floor, Dewan Tower, Gokhale Road, Teen Hat Naka, Vs. Navghar, Vasai Road (W), Thane-400 602. Thane-401202. Pan No. Aaacb 8570 F Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Mr. Abdul Memon, Ar Date Of Hearing : 08/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/10/2022

TDS officer by preferring an application in Form No. 13 seeking for lower / nil deduction certificate u/s 197(1) of the seeking for lower / nil deduction certificate u/s 197(1) of the seeking for lower / nil deduction certificate u/s 197(1) of the Act. In the instant case, section

ITO(E)-1(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. BHAVITHA FOUNDATION, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2021-22

197 of the Act (LDC) for the FY 2021-22 and FY 2022 22 and FY 2022-23 with the jurisdictional TDS Assessing Officer with a request of NIL withholding of ctional TDS Assessing Officer with a request of NIL withholding of ctional TDS Assessing Officer with a request of NIL withholding of tax in respect of income from corpus

M/S. SATELITE TELEVISION ASIAN REGION LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (INT. I.T) 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee and the Revenue are partly

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

197 of the Act. The Appellant therefore prays the disallowance be deleted. Ground No 3 The learned CIT(A) has erred in concluding that the Appellant is not a telecasting company and failing to apply the provisions of Circular 742 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The Appellant respectfully submits that the above finding is erroneous and should

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADD/JOINT/DEPUTY/ACIT, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

197 crores. In fact in the assessment order the\nfollowing table has reproduced by the AO:\n5.13 The Assessee has written off bad debts of Rs. 106, 48, 70,590/- in the profit and loss\naccount. The balance amount in Provision for Bad & Doubtful debts Account is as under\nParticulars\nAmount Rs\nOpening Balance On 1.4.2011 (as per appeal\neffect

DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

197 crores. In fact in the assessment order the\nfollowing table has reproduced by the AO:\n5.13 The Assessee has written off bad debts of Rs. 106, 48, 70,590/- in the profit and loss\naccount. The balance amount in Provision for Bad & Doubtful debts Account is as under\nParticulars\nAmount Rs\nOpening Balance On 1.4.2011 (as per appeal\neffect

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD ( CORPORATE FINANCE DIVISION),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 6(3), MUMBAI

Bench: the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal preferred by the Assessee vide order, dated 18/05/2009. 4. Not being satisfied with the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A), the Assessee has preferred appeal before this Tribunal. The Revenue has also filed cross-appeal challenging the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A).

TDS & TCS in respect of income and expenses included in the previous year's income for which the appellant could not file the claim due to non receipt of the requisite certificates from the issuer.” 11.1. During the course of hearing it was pointed out that vide order dated 15/04/2010 passed under Section 154 of the Act, the grievance

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

DCIT CC 5-1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED , MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED, MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

FRANKLIN TEMPLETON INTERNATIONAL SERVICES (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 6(3)(1), MUMBAI

TDS was applicable on payments made to\nKone based on the certificates under section 197(1) of the Act authorizing

THE MAHARASHTRA STATE CO OP MARKETING FEDERATION LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 13(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed,

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Maharashtra State Co-Op. Addl. Cit Range-13(3), Marketing Federation Limited 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Kanmoor House, Narsi Natha Mumbai-400020. Street, Masjid, Mumbai-400 009 Pan No. Aaaat 6218 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Maharashtra State Co-Op. Jt. Cit Range-13(3), Marketing Federation Limited 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Kanmoor House, Narsi Natha Mumbai-400020. Street, Masjid, Mumbai-400 009 Pan No. Aaaat 6218 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Maharashtra State Co-Op. Asst. Cit-17(3), Marketing Federation Limited Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Kanmoor House, Narsi Natha Vs. Mumbai-400020. Street, Masjid, Mumbai-400 009 Pan No. Aaaat 6218 L Appellant Respondent

section (40)(a) Nature of Expenses Nature of Expenses Amt on which TDS Not Remark Remark Deducted Prof. Fees 2,05,000/- TDS Not Deducted TDS Not Deducted Contract 1,20,110/- TDS Not Deducted TDS Not Deducted TDS Not Deducted Market Market Cess Cess & & 1,20,83,197

HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assesse bearing ITA No

TDS was not required. The disallowance under Section 14A was deleted as it is not applicable to insurance companies.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": ["Section 37(1)", "Section 40(a)(i)", "Section 40(a)(ia)", "Section 14A", "Rule 8D", "Section 43B", "Section 115-O", "Section 244A", "Section 194H", "Section 197

DELOITTE HASKINS AND SELLS,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 11(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Amit Shukla

1)(vii), because, professional services cannot be reckoned as technical services and the definition of „professional services‟ has been specifically given in section 194J which is separate from definition of „fee for technical services‟. Another very important submissions which was made by the assessee with regard to payment made to DTT Switzerland was that, the said entity is an organization

DELOITTE HASKINS AND SELLS,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 11(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Amit Shukla

1)(vii), because, professional services cannot be reckoned as technical services and the definition of „professional services‟ has been specifically given in section 194J which is separate from definition of „fee for technical services‟. Another very important submissions which was made by the assessee with regard to payment made to DTT Switzerland was that, the said entity is an organization

DELOITTE HASKINS AND SELLS,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 11(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Amit Shukla

1)(vii), because, professional services cannot be reckoned as technical services and the definition of „professional services‟ has been specifically given in section 194J which is separate from definition of „fee for technical services‟. Another very important submissions which was made by the assessee with regard to payment made to DTT Switzerland was that, the said entity is an organization

DAE(SY22) LEASING (IRELAND)41, DESIGNATED ACTIVITY COMPANY ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE 2(1)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

1 &Vodafone International Holdings (Supra) has held that TRC is conclusive proof of residency of foreign taxpayers unless it is a case of treaty shopping or fraud. It is inconceivable to presume that Irish tax authorities are not familiar with the principal purpose test and have issued TRCs without application of mind. As a judicial authority, this Tribunal cannot assume

ORTUS AIRCRAFT LEASE 6(DUBLIN) LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(2)(2) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

1 &Vodafone International Holdings (Supra) has held that TRC is conclusive proof of residency of foreign taxpayers unless it is a case of treaty shopping or fraud. It is inconceivable to presume that Irish tax authorities are not familiar with the principal purpose test and have issued TRCs without application of mind. As a judicial authority, this Tribunal cannot assume