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

22)(e). To support his submission, the ld.AR of the assessee relied upon the following decision: ⮚ DCIT v. Ashok D. Jain [ITA No. 4505/Mum/2013] dated 27.04.2018 ⮚ Chandrasekhar Maruti v. ACIT [159 ITD 822 (Mum.)] ⮚ Ishwar Chand Jindal v. ACIT [171 TTJ 436 (Del.)] ⮚ CIT v. Amrik Singh [56 taxmann.com 460 (P & H)] ⮚ CIT v. Amrik Singh [62 taxmann.com

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

22)(e). To support his submission, the ld.AR of the assessee relied upon the following decision: ⮚ DCIT v. Ashok D. Jain [ITA No. 4505/Mum/2013] dated 27.04.2018 ⮚ Chandrasekhar Maruti v. ACIT [159 ITD 822 (Mum.)] ⮚ Ishwar Chand Jindal v. ACIT [171 TTJ 436 (Del.)] ⮚ CIT v. Amrik Singh [56 taxmann.com 460 (P & H)] ⮚ CIT v. Amrik Singh [62 taxmann.com

UTILITY SUPPLY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(4) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

TDS claim and income shown are reconciled as per\n26AS. Appraisal report issues have been verified, status of\nAppeal if any to be mentioned, penalty interest charging, carry\nforward of losses, MAT credit, FDR, KVP any seizure of jewellery,\ncash taken care of.\n(VIJAY KUMAR SONI)\nAddl. Commissioner of Income Tax,\nCentral Range 8, Mumbai.\n21. The Assessee thus

THE BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (TDS) 2, MUMBAI

In the result , the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1999/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12) बिाम/ The Board Of Control For Acit (Tds) 2 Cricket In India, R.No. 701, 7 Th Floor, Wankhede Stadium, Smt. K.G. Mittal V. “D” Road, Churchgate, Ayurvedic Hospital Mumbai 400020 Bldg., Charni Road, Mumbai-400002 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaatb0186A (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Nitesh Joshi Shri. Anil Sathe Revenue By : Shri. D.G Pansari , Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.10.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 1999/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Date 10.01.2017 Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-60, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2011-12, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Penalty Order Dated 16.12.2011 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 272A(2)(K) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2011-12. I.T.A. No.1999/Mum/2017

e-TDS returns under section 272A(2)(k) of the Act. Since section 273B of the Act covers the cases of levy of penalty under section 272A(2) of the Act, then in line with the provisions of said section in case a person establishes its case of reasonable cause for not complying with the provisions of said section, then

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

UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT LTU (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

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

BAKHTAWAR CONSTRUCTION CO. P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT (TDS) RG 1, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6943/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ Bakhtawar Construction Co. Addl. Cit (Tds) Rg 1 P. Ltd, Meher House, 10T H Floor, K.G. Mittal 1St Floor, Casasji Patel Street Ayurvedic Hosptial Bldg, V. Fort, Bombay 400001 Charni Road(W) Mumbai 400002 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacb4942P (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

e-TDS returns under section 272A(2)(k) of the Act. Since section 273B of the Act covers the cases of levy of penalty under section 272A(2) of the Act, then in line with the provisions of said section in case a person establishes its case of reasonable cause for not complying with the provisions of said section, then

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

e) of section 2(22) of the Act are some of the situations, which attracts these provisions subject to exceptions provided therein. It is a settled legal proposition that the provisions of section 2(22) constitutes “deemed dividend” and must receive a „strict interpretation‟ [CIT vs Martin Burn Ltd (136 ITR 805) (Cal)]. The judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER (IT) 3(2) (2) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. MACROTECH DEVELOPE\RS LTD (AS SUCESSOR OF LODHA DEVELOPERS LTD WHICH WAS SUCESSOR OF BELLISSIMO CROWN BUILDERS P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and all the cross objection filed by the assesse are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singh

TDS applies only to those sums which are "chargeable to tax under the IT Act. It is P a g e | 22 9 Appeals ITO (IT)-3(2)(2) Vs. M/s Macrotech Developer Ltd. true that the judgment in Eli Lilly was confined to Section

INCOME TAX OFFICER (IT) 3(2) (2) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and all the cross objection filed by the assesse are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singh

TDS applies only to those sums which are "chargeable to tax under the IT Act. It is P a g e | 22 9 Appeals ITO (IT)-3(2)(2) Vs. M/s Macrotech Developer Ltd. true that the judgment in Eli Lilly was confined to Section

INCOME TAX OFFICER (IT), MUMBAI vs. M/S. MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LTD (AS SUCESSOR OF LODHA DEVELOPERS LTD WHICH WAS BELLISSIMO CROWN BUILDMART PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and all the cross objection filed by the assesse are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singh

TDS applies only to those sums which are "chargeable to tax under the IT Act. It is P a g e | 22 9 Appeals ITO (IT)-3(2)(2) Vs. M/s Macrotech Developer Ltd. true that the judgment in Eli Lilly was confined to Section

INCOME TAX OFFICER (IT) 3(2) (2) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LTD (AS SUCESSOR OF LODHA DEVELOPERS LTD WHICH WAS BELLISSIMO CROWN BUILDMART PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and all the cross objection filed by the assesse are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh

22 4 Appeals ITO (IT)-3(2)(2) Vs. M/s Macrotech Developer Ltd. that where such broker, general commission agent or any other agent works mainly or wholly on behalf of a non-resident (hereafter in this proviso referred to as the principal non-resident) or on behalf of such non- resident and other non-residents which are controlled