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

206 and 206C and 71[statements under sub-section (2A) or sub section (3) of section 200 or the proviso to sub- section (3) or under sub-section (3A) of section 206C] shall not exceed the amount of tax deductible or collectible, as the case may be: section for the failure referred to in clause (k), if such failure relates

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

206 and 206C and 71[statements under sub-section (2A) or sub section (3) of section 200 or the proviso to sub- section (3) or under sub-section (3A) of section 206C] shall not exceed the amount of tax deductible or collectible, as the case may be: section for the failure referred to in clause (k), if such failure relates

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

206 and 206C and 71[statements under sub-section (2A) or sub section (3) of section 200 or the proviso to sub- section (3) or under sub-section (3A) of section 206C] shall not exceed the amount of tax deductible or collectible, as the case may be: section for the failure referred to in clause (k), if such failure relates

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

206 and 206C and 71[statements under sub-section (2A) or sub section (3) of section 200 or the proviso to sub- section (3) or under sub-section (3A) of section 206C] shall not exceed the amount of tax deductible or collectible, as the case may be: section for the failure referred to in clause (k), if such failure relates

ASPANDIAR R. IRANI & GUSTAD R. IRANI,THANE vs. CIT (A)-1, THANE

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singh

section 206 related to collection of tax and not TDS whereas section 133 was also unrelated to TDS and therefore

DCIT(OSD)(TDS) - 2(3), MUMBAI vs. WOCKHARDT LTD., MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

206/- towards TDS under section 201(1) and interest under section Wockhardt Ltd. 201(1A). Aggrieved the assessee filed further

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 ()

206 (Kar) held that the provisions of section 205 of the Act bars the Department from demanding tax deducted at epartment from demanding tax deducted at source from the source from the assessee who has already suffered deduction. Thus, the Hon'ble assessee who has already suffered deduction. Thus, the Hon'ble assessee who has already suffered deduction. Thus

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 ()

206 (Kar) held that the provisions of section 205 of the Act bars the Department from demanding tax deducted at epartment from demanding tax deducted at source from the source from the assessee who has already suffered deduction. Thus, the Hon'ble assessee who has already suffered deduction. Thus, the Hon'ble assessee who has already suffered deduction. Thus

ROYAL WESTERN INDIA TURF CLUB LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT TDS 3(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi: A.Y : 2012-13

206 ITR 6 Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd. 495 (Bom.). Thus, as per him, the Assessing Officer erred in applying Section 194B of the Act, which is a general provision applicable to 'card game or other game of any sort’, which would not cover stake money on horse races; and, for the latter income, Section 194BB

ROSE ROCK REAL ESTATE INDIA PVT.,MUMBAI vs. ITO (TDS) 2(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, these appeals are allowed

TDS (supra) and vide para 15, order dated 21.12.2017 it was held as under:- Further, before parting, we may also refer to the order of the CIT(A) in these two appeals. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals of the assessee being delayed for a period of two and half years. The CIT(A) had taken the date

INCOME TAX OFFICER, KAUTILYA BHAWAN BKC KURLA vs. GODREJ AGROVET LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Girish Agrawalthe Income Tax Officer, Godrej Agrovet Limited, Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Godrej One, Bkc Kurla, 3Rd Floor Pirojshanagar, Mumbai-400051 E.E, Highway, Vikhroli So Mumbai, Mumbai-400079. [Pan: Aaacg0617Q] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Ar Date Of Hearing 18.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16.12.2025 O R D E R Per Suchitra Kamble:

Section 112(1). The Ld. DR further submitted that the direction given by the CIT(A) to the Assessing Officer to do the necessary verification in accordance with the provisions of law, and to re-compute these TDS raised demands in respect of eight remittances to the shareholders of Creamline Dairy Asst. Year : 2016-17 - 5– Products

DCIT (TDS) 2(2), MUMBAI vs. SBI LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit-(Tds)-2(2), M/S Sbi Life Insurance Room No.1012, 10Th Floor, Company Ltd. “Natraj”, 5Th बनाम/ Smt. K.G. Mittal Ayurvedic Floor, M.V. Road & Western Vs. Hospital Building, Express High Way Charni Road, Junction, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400069 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aafcs2503P

section 194J are not applicable. I hold accordingly and the demand of Rs. 94,22,206/- raised by the AO in this regard is deleted. 17. We have considered rival contention and found that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of coordinate bench in case of M/s Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), wherein Tribunal observed as under

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 2(2),

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhstate Bank Of India Acit Circle (2)(2), Financial Reporting, Compliance & Mumbai. Taxation Department, 19Th Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit Circle (2)(2), State Bank Of India Mumbai. Financial Reporting, Compliance & Taxation Department, 19Th Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS under section 195 and accordingly no disallowance could be made under section 40(a)(i). 8. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition in respect of contribution of Rs. 10,00,00,000 to SBI Retired Employees Medical Benefit Fund. The learned CIT(A) erred in not following the decision of the Cochin Tribunal in the case

ACIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhstate Bank Of India Acit Circle (2)(2), Financial Reporting, Compliance & Mumbai. Taxation Department, 19Th Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit Circle (2)(2), State Bank Of India Mumbai. Financial Reporting, Compliance & Taxation Department, 19Th Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS under section 195 and accordingly no disallowance could be made under section 40(a)(i). 8. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition in respect of contribution of Rs. 10,00,00,000 to SBI Retired Employees Medical Benefit Fund. The learned CIT(A) erred in not following the decision of the Cochin Tribunal in the case

PERFECT FILAMENTS LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -4, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid decision

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailperfect Filaments Limited, E-23/24/25/26, Commerce Centre, Tardeo Road Tulsi Wadi, S.O., ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400034 Pan : Aaacp4215F V/S Principal Commissiioner Of Income Tax-4 ……………… Respondent 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400020 Assessee By : Shri Dharan Gandhi Revenue By : Shri R.A. Dhyani, Cit-Dr

TDS was deducted during the year under consideration requires necessary examination, which we are of the considered view was not undertaken by the AO during the assessment proceedings. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that the learned PCIT was justified in invoking the proceedings under section 263 of the Act and directing the AO to pass a fresh assessment

DISH TV INDIA LTD vs. ASST CIT RG 11(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumardish Tv India Ltd. Fc–19, Firm City, Sector–16A ……………. Appellant Noida 400 063 Pan – Aaaca5478M V/S Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Range–11(1), Mumbai Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Range–16(1), Mumbai V/S Dish Tv India Ltd. 135, Continental Building Dr. A.B. Road, Worli ……………. Respondent Mumbai 400 018 Pan – Aaaca5478M

section 194C of the Act held that it is a case of short deduction of tax and not a case of no TDS. Therefore, following the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in CIT v/s S.K. Tekriwal, 206

SBI LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (TDS) 3(2), MUMBAI

In the result ground taken by Revenue in all the years under consideration are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma() & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

section 194J are not applicable. I hold accordingly and the demand of Rs. 94,22,206/- raised by the AO in this regard is deleted. 17. We have considered rival contention and found that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of coordinate bench in case of M/s Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), wherein Tribunal observed as under

SBI LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (TDS) 3(2), MUMBAI

In the result ground taken by Revenue in all the years under consideration are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma() & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

section 194J are not applicable. I hold accordingly and the demand of Rs. 94,22,206/- raised by the AO in this regard is deleted. 17. We have considered rival contention and found that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of coordinate bench in case of M/s Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), wherein Tribunal observed as under