DCIT (OSD)(TDS)-2(3) , MUMBAI vs. TOTAL ENERGIES MARKETING INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

TDS section 201 section 201 default under (1A) of ₹ (1) of ₹ section 201 (1) 3,562,616 45,760,000 of ₹ and interest

DCIT (OSD)(TDS)-2(3), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL ENERGIES MARKETING INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

TDS section 201 section 201 default under (1A) of ₹ (1) of ₹ section 201 (1) 3,562,616 45,760,000 of ₹ and interest

DCIT (OSD)(TDS)-2(3), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL ENERGIES MARKETING INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

TDS section 201 section 201 default under (1A) of ₹ (1) of ₹ section 201 (1) 3,562,616 45,760,000 of ₹ and interest

DCIT (OSD)(TDS)-2(3) , MUMBAI vs. TOTAL ENERGIES MARKETING INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

TDS section 201 section 201 default under (1A) of ₹ (1) of ₹ section 201 (1) 3,562,616 45,760,000 of ₹ and interest

DCIT (OSD)(TDS)-2(3), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL ENERGIES MARKETING INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

TDS section 201 section 201 default under (1A) of ₹ (1) of ₹ section 201 (1) 3,562,616 45,760,000 of ₹ and interest

DCIT (OSD)(TDS)-2(3), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL ENERGIES MARKETINGS INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

TDS section 201 section 201 default under (1A) of ₹ (1) of ₹ section 201 (1) 3,562,616 45,760,000 of ₹ and interest

DCIT (OSD)(TDS)-2(3), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL ENERGIES MARKETING INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

TDS section 201 section 201 default under (1A) of ₹ (1) of ₹ section 201 (1) 3,562,616 45,760,000 of ₹ and interest

LATE SHRI JAYESH THAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, WARD KALYAN , KALYAN

In the result, the appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated in the order

3) of section 206C which is to be delivered or caused to be delivered for tax deducted at source or tax collected at source, as the case may be, on or after the 1st day of July, 2012." 12. On 1.6.2015, clauses (c) to (f) came to be substituted under Section 200A providing that the fee under Section 234E

LATE SHRI JAYEESH THAR ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD KALYAN , KALYAN

In the result, the appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated in the order

3) of section 206C which is to be delivered or caused to be delivered for tax deducted at source or tax collected at source, as the case may be, on or after the 1st day of July, 2012." 12. On 1.6.2015, clauses (c) to (f) came to be substituted under Section 200A providing that the fee under Section 234E

LATE JAYESH THAR ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, WARD KALYAN, KALYAN

In the result, the appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated in the order

3) of section 206C which is to be delivered or caused to be delivered for tax deducted at source or tax collected at source, as the case may be, on or after the 1st day of July, 2012." 12. On 1.6.2015, clauses (c) to (f) came to be substituted under Section 200A providing that the fee under Section 234E

LATE JAYESH THAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, WARD KALYAN, KALYAN

In the result, the appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated in the order

3) of section 206C which is to be delivered or caused to be delivered for tax deducted at source or tax collected at source, as the case may be, on or after the 1st day of July, 2012." 12. On 1.6.2015, clauses (c) to (f) came to be substituted under Section 200A providing that the fee under Section 234E

ACIT(TDS)-2(2),, MUMBAI vs. SODEXO SVC INDIA PVT. LTD.,, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed and the cross-objection of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1402/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बिधम/ Acit (Tds)-2(2) Sodexo Svc India Pvt. Ltd. Room No.717, K. G. Mittal Nesco Complex, Indabrator Vs. Building, W.E. Highway, Ayurvedic Hospital Bldg, Goregaon (E), Mumbai- Charni Road, West , 400051. Mumbai-400002. Co. No.108/Mum/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita. No.1402/Mum/2019) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Sodexo Svc India Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Acit (Tds)-2(2) Nesco Complex, Indabrator Room No.717, K. G. Mittal Vs. Building, W.E. Highway, Ayurvedic Hospital Bldg, Goregaon (E), Mumbai- Charni Road, West , Mumbai- 400051. 400002. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aalcs9822Q (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Jasbir Chouhan Assessee By: Shri Gautam Thakkar & Shri Yazdi P. Jijina सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue As Well As Assessee Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeal As Well As Cross-Objection Against The Order Dated 28.12.2018 Passed

TDS within the time prescribed under section 200 of the Act. Therefore, the assessee will be covered by clause (i) of section (3) of section 201

NATIONAL LAMINATE CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. CPC (TDS), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

3) of section 206C which is to be delivered or caused to be delivered for tax deducted at source or tax collected at source, as the case may be, on or after the 1st day of July, 2012." 12. On 1.6.2015, clauses (c) to (f) came to be substituted under Section 200A providing that the fee under Section 234E

CITIZENCREDIT CO OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED ( BORIVILI BRANCH),MUMBAI vs. ITO (TDS)1(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the results, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

201(1)/201(1A) of the I. T. Act, 1961, aggregating to Rs. 54,257 deserves to be deleted in toto. 3. According to the order passed by the TDS authority, consequent to a of survey proceedings, it was noticed that the assessee, being a Cooperative bank had not deducted and deposited TDS u/s.194A on interest paid to certain entities

LAWMEN CONCEPTS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CPC-TDS , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated in the order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

3) of section 206C which is to be delivered or caused to be delivered for tax deducted at source or tax collected at source, as the case may be, on or after the 1st day of July, 2012." 12. On 1.6.2015, clauses (c) to (f) came to be substituted under Section 200A providing that the fee under Section 234E

CITIZEN CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO (TDS)-1(1)(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

201 of the Act. It is the contention of the Id. Sr. DR that there are specific provisions, which require the assessee to deduct TDS. He has referred to the provisions of section 194A(3

CITIZENCREDIT CO OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED( FOUR BUNGALOWS BRANCH) ,MUMBAI vs. ITO (TDS)1(1)(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

201 of the Act. It is the contention of the Id. Sr. DR that there are specific provisions, which require the assessee to deduct TDS. He has referred to the provisions of section 194A(3

CITIZENCREDIT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED (MANORI BRANCH),MUMBAI vs. ITO (TDS) 1(1)(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

201 of the Act. It is the contention of the Id. Sr. DR that there are specific provisions, which require the assessee to deduct TDS. He has referred to the provisions of section 194A(3