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

section 194H of the act. This is also mandate of decision of Honourable supreme court in case of Singapore Airlines limited [2022] 144 taxmann.com 221 (SC), that unless there is principal to agent relationship established as per agreement , there is no requirement of TDS

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

section 194H of the act. This is also mandate of decision of Honourable supreme court in case of Singapore Airlines limited [2022] 144 taxmann.com 221 (SC), that unless there is principal to agent relationship established as per agreement , there is no requirement of TDS

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

section 194H of the act. This is also mandate of decision of Honourable supreme court in case of Singapore Airlines limited [2022] 144 taxmann.com 221 (SC), that unless there is principal to agent relationship established as per agreement , there is no requirement of TDS

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

section 194H of the act. This is also mandate of decision of Honourable supreme court in case of Singapore Airlines limited [2022] 144 taxmann.com 221 (SC), that unless there is principal to agent relationship established as per agreement , there is no requirement of TDS

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

section 194H of the act. This is also mandate of decision of Honourable supreme court in case of Singapore Airlines limited [2022] 144 taxmann.com 221 (SC), that unless there is principal to agent relationship established as per agreement , there is no requirement of TDS

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

section 194H of the act. This is also mandate of decision of Honourable supreme court in case of Singapore Airlines limited [2022] 144 taxmann.com 221 (SC), that unless there is principal to agent relationship established as per agreement , there is no requirement of TDS

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 amount with interest is recovered there unt with interest is recovered there shall be a charge on all the assets of such person or the shall be a charge on all the assets of such person or the shall be a charge on all the assets of such person or the company. Penalty under company. Penalty under Section 221

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 amount with interest is recovered there unt with interest is recovered there shall be a charge on all the assets of such person or the shall be a charge on all the assets of such person or the shall be a charge on all the assets of such person or the company. Penalty under company. Penalty under Section 221

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 amount with interest is recovered there unt with interest is recovered there shall be a charge on all the assets of such person or the shall be a charge on all the assets of such person or the shall be a charge on all the assets of such person or the company. Penalty under company. Penalty under Section 221

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 amount with interest is recovered there unt with interest is recovered there shall be a charge on all the assets of such person or the shall be a charge on all the assets of such person or the shall be a charge on all the assets of such person or the company. Penalty under company. Penalty under Section 221

AMRRUT SHAVJJIBHAI GADA,MUMBAI vs. DYCIT, CIRCLE-13(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri. Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhailamrrut Shavjjibhai Gada Sejal Glass House, Krishna Kunj Ground Floor, S.V. Road, Malad West, Mumbai 400064 ……………. Appellant Pan: Aadpg5298D V/S

TDS deducted and tax already paid, the return of income filed by the assessee was processed under section 143(1) of the Act computed a demand of INR 1,21,24,070, which the assessee did not pay as a self-assessment tax. Accordingly, a penalty under section 221

VINAY VIKRAM OBEROI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO 22(3)4, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainshri Vinay Vikram Oberoi Income Tax Officer-22(3)-4 22, Punit Chambers Tower 6, 3Rd Floor Plot 769-C, Sector 18 Vs. Vashi Railway Station Complex Turbhe, Vashi Vashi, Navi Mumbai 400703 Navi Mumbai 400705 Pan - Aaapo2816L Appellant Respondent

section 221(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') by the Assessing Officer’s order dated 28.01.2013. 2. This appeal was fixed for hearing on a number occasions, but neither anyone was present for the assessee nor was any adjournment sought on his behalf. Even the notice for hearing issued by RPAD could not elicit compliance

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

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

TDS amount with interest as stated above is paid to the Central Government, there shall be a charge upon all the assets of the company. Moreover, section 221

M/S CEAT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER OSD TDS CIRCLE 1(1), MUMBAI

TDS provisions. As\nper Section 194C, any person making payment to any resident\nfor carrying out work in pursuance of a contract is liable for\ndeduction of tax at source. The relevant extract of section 194C is\nreproduced for ease of reference 194C. (1) Any person\nresponsible for paying any sum to any resident (hereafter in this\nsection referred

M/S CEAT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OSD TDS CIRLCE 1(1), MUMBAI

TDS provisions. As\nper Section 194C, any person making payment to any resident\nfor carrying out work in pursuance of a contract is liable for\ndeduction of tax at source. The relevant extract of section 194C is\nreproduced for ease of reference 194C. (1) Any person\nresponsible for paying any sum to any resident (hereafter in this\nsection referred

MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (MMRDA),MUMBAI vs. ACIT (TDS) CIRCLE - 1(3), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5186 & 5187/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) बिाम/ Mumbai Metropolitan Region Acit (Tds) Cir-1(3) Development Authority R.No. 703, 7 T H Floor, K.G. (Mmrda) , Bkc, Bandra(E), Mittal Hospital Building, V. Mumbai-400051 Charni Road(W), Mumbai- 400002 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan :Aaatm7106R(Tds Mum16747D) (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

TDS should be deducted as per the provision of section 194J and not as per the provisions of section 194C for the two assessment years. 3) However, the assessee had filed an appeal before the Hon. ITAT for AY 2008-09 & AY 2011-12 which is still pending before the Tribunal The hearing for the two appeals has been fixed

M/S CEAT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER OSD TDS CIRCLE 1(1), MUMBAI

TDS provisions. As\nper Section 194C, any person making payment to any resident\nfor carrying out work in pursuance of a contract is liable for\ndeduction of tax at source. The relevant extract of section 194C is\nreproduced for ease of reference 194C. (1) Any person\nresponsible for paying any sum to any resident (hereafter in this\nsection referred

DCIT(TDS)-1(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. HOUSE OF ANITA DONGRE PVT LTD, BANDRA WEST

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: BEFOR SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

221 (SC)]which is distinguishable. In that case, travel agents received standard and supplemental commission from the airlines and operated as agents under an admitted principal-agent relationship. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that TDS under Section