CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - 2(1)(2), MUMBAI

22\nabove. Thus, the company means any Indian company. Indian\ncompany has been defined in Section 2(26) (incorporated in para\n23 of the order) which defines Indian company' means company\nformed and registered under the Companies Act. Thus, the\ncompany for the purpose of the Income Tax Act is a company\nwhich is formed and registered under the Companies

DCIT CIRCLE 2.3.1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PRESTIGE HOLIDAY RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, ground no. 2 and 3 are

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Arun Khodpia

TDS which was paid to government account. No deficiency or discrepancy was point out by AO in the evidence furnished by the assessee. Similar Prestige Holiday Resorts Private Limited ITA No. 4161 & 4162 & CO No 204 & 205 (AY 2015-16 & 2016- 17) commission was paid in earlier years and has been accepted in the assessment order passed under section

DCIT CIRCLE 2.3.1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PRESTIGE HOLIDAY RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, ground no. 2 and 3 are

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Arun Khodpia

TDS which was paid to government account. No deficiency or discrepancy was point out by AO in the evidence furnished by the assessee. Similar Prestige Holiday Resorts Private Limited ITA No. 4161 & 4162 & CO No 204 & 205 (AY 2015-16 & 2016- 17) commission was paid in earlier years and has been accepted in the assessment order passed under section

BLOOM PACKAGING P LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 39, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Amit Shukla

2(22)(a) and u/s 115-O of the Act and (iii) gift of UPL and UEL shares is colourable device are identical to that of the ones we have already adjudicated while dealing with the appeal ITA No.4663/M/2015 in the above paras of this order. Considering the commonality of the issues raised as well as the facts and evidences

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

TDS)-2(3), Mumbai on 10th February, 2011. During the course of the survey it was found that assessee received lease premium against the property from different parties. In this regard assessee was asked to furnish details of lease premium. In response, Ld. AR of the assessee submitted as under: - “The Authority has auctioned land in Bandra Kurla Complex

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

TDS)-2(3), Mumbai on 10th February, 2011. During the course of the survey it was found that assessee received lease premium against the property from different parties. In this regard assessee was asked to furnish details of lease premium. In response, Ld. AR of the assessee submitted as under: - “The Authority has auctioned land in Bandra Kurla Complex

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

TDS)-2(3), Mumbai on 10th February, 2011. During the course of the survey it was found that assessee received lease premium against the property from different parties. In this regard assessee was asked to furnish details of lease premium. In response, Ld. AR of the assessee submitted as under: - “The Authority has auctioned land in Bandra Kurla Complex

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

TDS)-2(3), Mumbai on 10th February, 2011. During the course of the survey it was found that assessee received lease premium against the property from different parties. In this regard assessee was asked to furnish details of lease premium. In response, Ld. AR of the assessee submitted as under: - “The Authority has auctioned land in Bandra Kurla Complex

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

TDS)-2(3), Mumbai on 10th February, 2011. During the course of the survey it was found that assessee received lease premium against the property from different parties. In this regard assessee was asked to furnish details of lease premium. In response, Ld. AR of the assessee submitted as under: - “The Authority has auctioned land in Bandra Kurla Complex

ITO - 3(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S MULTIVENTURE FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

2(22)(e) of the Act. Since the facts in the present case are similar to one as decided by us in ITA No.3717/M/2019 A.Y. 2013-14 in ground Nos.4 to 6 wherein we have upheld the order of Ld. CIT(A) by dismissing the appeal of the Revenue. Therefore, our finding in ground Nos.4 to 6 of ITA No.3717/M/2019

M/S MULTIVENTURE FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO 3 (2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

2(22)(e) of the Act. Since the facts in the present case are similar to one as decided by us in ITA No.3717/M/2019 A.Y. 2013-14 in ground Nos.4 to 6 wherein we have upheld the order of Ld. CIT(A) by dismissing the appeal of the Revenue. Therefore, our finding in ground Nos.4 to 6 of ITA No.3717/M/2019

OBEROI FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. CIT (E), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleoberoi Foundation V. Cit (Exemptions) Commerz, 3Rd Floor 6Th Floor, Piramal Chambers International Business Park Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400 012 Oberoi Garden City, Off. W.E. Highway Goregaon (E), Mumbai - 400063 Pan: Aaato1684L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vijay Mehta Department Represented By : Shri K.C. Salvamani

TDS compliance. The real issue raised by the assessee in this appeal is whether the provisions of section 11 is applicable and in the subsequent proceedings, the Assessing Officer has verified the allowability of the rent and he has not properly verified the same. In our view, the venturing in the subsequent proceedings are beyond the scope of the grounds

TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT - 8(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

TDS on reinsurance premium paid to non residents and hence action of the AO to disallow the same under section 40(a)(i) of the Act is accordingly upheld. Ground 2 and 3 of the appellant is hereby dismissed.‖ 3.16. We find that the Hon‟ble Madras High Court in the aforesaid case had held that definition in Section 2

ARUNKUMAR JAYANTILAL MUCHHALA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 2(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

section 2(22)(e) of the Act provides that any payment by a\ncompany, not being a company in which the public are substantially\nInterested, of any sum by way of advance or loan to any concern in\nwhich such shareholder is a member or a partner and in which he has a\nsubstantial interest, to the extent to which

NETWORTH STOCK BROKING LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

22. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee during the previous year 2007-08 relevant to this assessment year 2008-09 paid transaction charges to NSE and BSE amounting to Rs.1,29,49,218/-and Rs.19,70,364/- respectively. The assessee has not deducted any TDS while making the above payments. According to the AO the transactions charges

NETWORTH STOCK BROKING LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

22. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee during the previous year 2007-08 relevant to this assessment year 2008-09 paid transaction charges to NSE and BSE amounting to Rs.1,29,49,218/-and Rs.19,70,364/- respectively. The assessee has not deducted any TDS while making the above payments. According to the AO the transactions charges

ACIT 4(2), MUMBAI vs. NETWORTH STOCK BROKING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

22. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee during the previous year 2007-08 relevant to this assessment year 2008-09 paid transaction charges to NSE and BSE amounting to Rs.1,29,49,218/-and Rs.19,70,364/- respectively. The assessee has not deducted any TDS while making the above payments. According to the AO the transactions charges

ACIT 4(2), MUMBAI vs. NETWORTH STOCK BROKING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

22. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee during the previous year 2007-08 relevant to this assessment year 2008-09 paid transaction charges to NSE and BSE amounting to Rs.1,29,49,218/-and Rs.19,70,364/- respectively. The assessee has not deducted any TDS while making the above payments. According to the AO the transactions charges