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

221 (SC), that unless there is principal to agent relationship established as per agreement , there is no requirement of TDS on Commission payment. Assessee has also produced before us the details of several sales promotion schemes based on which discounts are offered to the various Distributors. The distributorship agreement clearly states that company shall supply the products on the basis

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

221 (SC), that unless there is principal to agent relationship established as per agreement , there is no requirement of TDS on Commission payment. Assessee has also produced before us the details of several sales promotion schemes based on which discounts are offered to the various Distributors. The distributorship agreement clearly states that company shall supply the products on the basis

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

221 (SC), that unless there is principal to agent relationship established as per agreement , there is no requirement of TDS on Commission payment. Assessee has also produced before us the details of several sales promotion schemes based on which discounts are offered to the various Distributors. The distributorship agreement clearly states that company shall supply the products on the basis

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

221 (SC), that unless there is principal to agent relationship established as per agreement , there is no requirement of TDS on Commission payment. Assessee has also produced before us the details of several sales promotion schemes based on which discounts are offered to the various Distributors. The distributorship agreement clearly states that company shall supply the products on the basis

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

221 (SC), that unless there is principal to agent relationship established as per agreement , there is no requirement of TDS on Commission payment. Assessee has also produced before us the details of several sales promotion schemes based on which discounts are offered to the various Distributors. The distributorship agreement clearly states that company shall supply the products on the basis

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

221 (SC), that unless there is principal to agent relationship established as per agreement , there is no requirement of TDS on Commission payment. Assessee has also produced before us the details of several sales promotion schemes based on which discounts are offered to the various Distributors. The distributorship agreement clearly states that company shall supply the products on the basis

SAFE AND SURE MARINE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO (TDS), WARD 8(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for partly allowed for 7

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee () Assessment Year: 2013-14

TDS is confirmed. Ground no 1 to 4 is dismissed. dismissed.” 6. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned DR as well as the written submissions of the assessee. The assessee DR as well as the written submissions

WIN CABLE & DATACOM P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (TDS) 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

Bench: S/Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Amarjit Singh (Jm) I.T.A. No. 3635/Mum/2016(Assessment Year 2001-02)

TDS)’) passed order on 28.3.2011 raising demand u/s 201(1) and charging interest u/s 201(1A) of the Act. The Ld CIT(A) also confirmed the order of the AO on majority of the issues, but gave partial relief with regard to the period for computing interest u/s 201(1A) of the Act. 5. In the appeal filed before

ACIT 11(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL OIL INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

TDS has been deducted under section 19B. While ruling on the issue of deduction u/s 195 and applicability of section 40(a) (i) to the demurrage charges, the Court held that; "12. Having considered the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, in our view, the facts of the present case, are governed by section

TOTAL OIL INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 8(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

TDS has been deducted under section 19B. While ruling on the issue of deduction u/s 195 and applicability of section 40(a) (i) to the demurrage charges, the Court held that; "12. Having considered the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, in our view, the facts of the present case, are governed by section

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

CRESCENT CONSTRUCTION CO.,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 22(3), 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

221/- thereon was deposited on 7th March, 2007. The balance amount of Rs.78,51,800/- was paid/released in the month of March, 2007 and TDS was deducted and was paid on the said amount before the due date in the month of April, 2007. Deduction, therefore, was due and made in the month of M/s Crescent Construction Co. March

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

221/- thereon was deposited on 7th March, 2007. The balance amount of Rs.78,51,800/- was paid/released in the month of March, 2007 and TDS was deducted and was paid on the said amount before the due date in the month of April, 2007. Deduction, therefore, was due and made in the month of M/s Crescent Construction Co. March

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED, MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails