DZ BANK INDIA REPRESENTATIVE OFFICE,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee to the extent of In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee to the extent of the recalled grounds, are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dz Bank, India Representative Dcit (International Taxation) Office C/O Srbc & Associates Llp, Range-2(1)(2), 14Th Floor, The Ruby, 29, Senapati Vs. 16Th Floor, Room No. 1612, Air Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400028. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aabcd 6455 E Appellant Respondent

TDS certificate issued under Section 203 Section 203 of the Act. Section 205 Section 205 of the Act provides that

DZ BANK INDIA REPRESENTATIVE OFFICE,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee to the extent of In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee to the extent of the recalled grounds, are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dz Bank, India Representative Dcit (International Taxation) Office C/O Srbc & Associates Llp, Range-2(1)(2), 14Th Floor, The Ruby, 29, Senapati Vs. 16Th Floor, Room No. 1612, Air Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400028. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aabcd 6455 E Appellant Respondent

TDS certificate issued under Section 203 Section 203 of the Act. Section 205 Section 205 of the Act provides that

TOMORROW CAPITAL ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(3), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeal

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

TDS liability as "not recoverable" from the petitioner". In all the decisions relied upon by the appellant, Hon'ble Courts In all the decisions relied upon by the appellant, Hon'ble Courts In all the decisions relied upon by the appellant, Hon'ble Courts have cited the Section 2 have cited the Section 205

TOMORROW CAPITAL ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(3) , MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeal

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

TDS liability as "not recoverable" from the petitioner". In all the decisions relied upon by the appellant, Hon'ble Courts In all the decisions relied upon by the appellant, Hon'ble Courts In all the decisions relied upon by the appellant, Hon'ble Courts have cited the Section 2 have cited the Section 205

KIRAN S PATEL,MUMBAI vs. ADIT , CPC, BENGALURU

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

205 of the Act comes into operation and the revenue is barred from recovering the TDS amount once again from the employee from whose income, TDS 10 A.Y. 2019-20 Kiran S. Patel amount has been deducted. It is pertinent to note that the purpose of issuing TDS certificate under Section

DHANANJAY SANJIV RAWAL ,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD, 17(2)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

205 of the Act comes into operation and the revenue is barred from recovering the TDS amount once again from the employee from whose income, TDS amount has been deducted. It is pertinent to note that the purpose of issuing TDS certificate under Section

ANIL KUMAR GANG,JODHPUR vs. ITO 3(1) JODHPUR, JODHPUR

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

205 of the Act comes into operation and the revenue is barred from recovering the TDS amount once again from the employee from whose income, TDS amount has been deducted. It is pertinent to note that the purpose of issuing TDS certificate under section

NAIK NAIK AND CO ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT -16(3), MUMBAI

In the result we hold that the assessee is entitled to credit of TDS to the extent deduction from its receipts is established on the basis of the contemporaneous material placed on record

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

section 205 squarely applies and the deductee cannot be asked to pay again, even if the employer or payer has failed to deposit the tax or issue TDS

NISAR EBRAHIM OOKABHOY ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 16(3)(1), MUMBAI

TDS is matter of\nbilateral commercial dispute between the parties, and that the appellant cannot\nescape legal tax liability. Since legally deductor is acting as govt. agent for\ncollection of tax, no liability can be enforced on appellant for deductor's failure.\n7. The learned CIT(A) further failed to appreciate that Section 205

SHRI. AMIT PRAKASH MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- CPC , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

205 of the Act comes into operation and the revenue is barred from recovering the TDS amount once again from the employee from whose income, TDS amount has been deducted. It is pertinent to note that the purpose of issuing TDS certificate under Section

REKHA MAHESHWARI ,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

TDS credit to them was also filed. However, the ld. CIT (A) after referring the Section 199 and 205 of the Act and CBDT

ALTICO CAPITAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ( FORMERLY CLEARWATER CAPITAL PARTNERS (I) PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri N.K.Pradhanaltico Capital India Private Limited, (Formerly Clearwater Capital Partners India Private Limited,) 7Th Floor, Mudra House, Opp. Grand Hyatt, Santacruz(E), Mumbai 400 055. Pan:Aaccc3064F ...... Appellant Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... Respondent

TDS amount has already been deducted. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee also referred to CBDT Office Memorandum dated 11/03/2016, wherein it has been mentioned that non-deposit of tax deducted at source by the deductor, provisions of section 205

STOCK HOLDING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT 8 (2) (2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Stock Holding Corporation Of Dy. Commissioner Of Income – India Ltd., Tax, Range -8(2)(2), Unit No. 301, 3Rd Floor, Peninsula Room No. 615, Center Point, Opp. Bharat Mata Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Cinema, Dr. Babasaheb Maharishi Karve Road, Ambedkar Road, Parel, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400012 Pan: Aabcs1429B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Akram Khan (Ar) Revenue By : Shri B K Bagchi (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 11/12/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 05/01/2022

TDS certificates, following the finding of the 13 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Tribunal in the case of Mahesh Software Systems Private Limited (supra) , the corresponding income is assessable in assessment year under consideration i.e. AY 2011-12. The section 205

ADITYA RAMNIWAS DHOOT,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 3(2)(1), MUMBAI

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

205 of the Income Tax Act, as the employer is liable for the non-deposit of TDS. The assessee is entitled to the credit of TDS deducted by the employer.", "result": "Allowed", "sections

SANJEEV RAJENDRA PANDIT,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (CPC) , MUMBAI

In the result, both these appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2020-21 & Assessment Year: 2021-22 Sanjeev Rajendra Pandit, The Assistant Director Of Top Floor Madhav Vilas, 8 Income Tax (Cpc), Setalwad Road, Off Neapean Vs. Post Bag No.2, Electronic Sea Road, Cumballa Hill, S.O., City Post Office, Mumbai-400026. Bangalore-560500. Pan No. Agypp 4026 D Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Milin Dattani, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Aditya M. Rai, Dr : Date Of Hearing 18/01/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 24/01/2023

Section 205 of the Act. Relief Sought: Relief Sought: Your appellant prays that: Your appellant prays that: 1. The learned Assessing officer be directed to grant full TDS

SANJEEV RAJENDRA PANDIT,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (CPC), MUMBAI

In the result, both these appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2020-21 & Assessment Year: 2021-22 Sanjeev Rajendra Pandit, The Assistant Director Of Top Floor Madhav Vilas, 8 Income Tax (Cpc), Setalwad Road, Off Neapean Vs. Post Bag No.2, Electronic Sea Road, Cumballa Hill, S.O., City Post Office, Mumbai-400026. Bangalore-560500. Pan No. Agypp 4026 D Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Milin Dattani, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Aditya M. Rai, Dr : Date Of Hearing 18/01/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 24/01/2023

Section 205 of the Act. Relief Sought: Relief Sought: Your appellant prays that: Your appellant prays that: 1. The learned Assessing officer be directed to grant full TDS

ACIT 16(1), MUMBAI vs. UTV ENTERTAINMENT TELEVISION LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleacit – 16(1) V. M/S. Utv Entertainment Television Ltd., 1St Floor, Building No. 14 Room No. 439, Aayakar Bhavan Solitaire Corporate Park M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Guru Hargovind Marg, Chakala Andheri(E), Mumbai – 400 053 Pan: Aaccv4782D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajit Kumar Jain Department By : M. Samatha

TDS u/s. 194J and invoking provisions of section u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act by treating such 'Carriage Fees/Channel Placement fees' as royalty as process/royalty as per Explanation 6 to section 9(1)(vi) of the I.T. Act. Ld.CIT(A) following the order of the Tribunal deleted the disallowance observing as under: - “4.1. In appeal, it is contended

ITO 22(3)(1), NAVI MUMBAI vs. CRESCENT CONSTRUCTION, NAVI MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06

TDS provisions apply but he is not deemed to be an assessee in default under section 201 of the Act, which provides that if the payee of the such amount computed the same into his income tax return and has paid the due taxes, then such an assessee will not be deemed to be an assessee in default and then