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

226; (i) to furnish a statement as required by sub-section (2C) of section 192; (j) to deliver or cause to be delivered in due time a copy of the declaration referred to in sub-section (1A) of section 206C; (k) to deliver or cause to be delivered a copy of the statement within the time specified in sub-section

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

226; (i) to furnish a statement as required by sub-section (2C) of section 192; (j) to deliver or cause to be delivered in due time a copy of the declaration referred to in sub-section (1A) of section 206C; (k) to deliver or cause to be delivered a copy of the statement within the time specified in sub-section

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

226; (i) to furnish a statement as required by sub-section (2C) of section 192; (j) to deliver or cause to be delivered in due time a copy of the declaration referred to in sub-section (1A) of section 206C; (k) to deliver or cause to be delivered a copy of the statement within the time specified in sub-section

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

226; (i) to furnish a statement as required by sub-section (2C) of section 192; (j) to deliver or cause to be delivered in due time a copy of the declaration referred to in sub-section (1A) of section 206C; (k) to deliver or cause to be delivered a copy of the statement within the time specified in sub-section

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

Section 115JB of the I.T.Act, 1961 are not \napplicable in the case of the assessee. \n9. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in \nlaw, the Ld. CIT(A) was right in deleting the disallowance \nof Rs.776,13,61,000/- on account of reserve for \nunexpired risk without appreciating the fact the said \nreserved was created

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

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

Section 37(1) of the Act.We have perused the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in that case it was stated, during the assessment proceeding, the assessing officer noted that as per material available on record, the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Chennai Zone (DGCEI) had carried out investigation in respect of certain auto dealers and intermediaries. In course

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

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

Section 37(1) of the Act.We have perused the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in that case it was stated, during the assessment proceeding, the assessing officer noted that as per material available on record, the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Chennai Zone (DGCEI) had carried out investigation in respect of certain auto dealers and intermediaries. In course

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

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

Section 37(1) of the Act.We have perused the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in that case it was stated, during the assessment proceeding, the assessing officer noted that as per material available on record, the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Chennai Zone (DGCEI) had carried out investigation in respect of certain auto dealers and intermediaries. In course

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

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

Section 37(1) of the Act.We have perused the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in that case it was stated, during the assessment proceeding, the assessing officer noted that as per material available on record, the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Chennai Zone (DGCEI) had carried out investigation in respect of certain auto dealers and intermediaries. In course

HIMACHAL MITRA MANDAL CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, WARD 1(2)(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarhimachal Mitra Mandal V/S. Income Tax Officer, Tds Cooperative Credit Society बनाम Ward – 1(2)(3), Room No. Limited 419, 4Th Floor, Cumballa Hill C/O Vaish Associates, 106, Mtnl Te Building, Peddar Peninsula Centre, Dr. S.S. Road, Dr. Gopalrao Rao Road, Parel, Mumbai – Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai – 400 012, Maharashtra 400051, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaah0613D Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

section 194A(3)(v) must have subscribed to and fully paid for at least one share of the co- operative bank, must be entitled to participate and vote in the General Body Meetings and/or Special General Body Meetings of the co-operative bank and must be entitled to receive share from the profits of the co- operative bank." Accordingly

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

3 to 6 raised by the Assessee are \nallowed.\n65. Thus, appeal preferred by the Assessee [ITA \nNo.2616/Mum/2025] is partly allowed.\nITA No.2845/Mum/2024 [Revenue’s Appeal]\n& Cross Objection No.97/Mum/2024 [in Revenue’s \nAppeal]\n66. Now we would take up appeal preferred by the Revenue for the \n Assessment Year 2012-2013 (ITA No.2845/Mum/2024) which is \ndirected against the Order

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(2)(2), MUMBAI

Section 37(1) of the Act would not\napply. In this context, we respectfully agree with the\nobservations made by the coordinate Bench in case of\nMilestone Real Estate Fund (Supra). Pertinently, in case of\nM/s Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. [2025]\n174 taxmann.com 603 (Mad.), identical issue of\ndisallowance of payment made to motor vehicle dealers\nu/s.37

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -3(2)(2), MUMBAI

3/- paid by\nthe assessee was to be amortized over the\nremaining period of three years. The basis behind\nthis Rule, in our humble understanding, is to value\nthe investment only at its face value which is what\nthe assessee would get at the end of the period\nand any excess paid over the face value while\nacquiring the security

INCOME TAX OFFICER 8(3)(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S.VIBGYOR TEXOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, whereas appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3), M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 616, 6Th Floor, Aayakar 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400015. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner Of 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Income Tax-8(3)(2), Mumbai-400015. Vs. Mumbai. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent

TDS) also the Assessing Officer disallowed expenditure amounting to Rs.3,97,90,291/-in terms of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Additions for unexplained cash credit in terms of section 68 of the Act amounting to Rs.1,46,24,270/- and difference in valuation of fixed asset of Rs.2,50,19,760/- being written off were also made

M/S.VIBGYOR TEXOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-8(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, whereas appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3), M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 616, 6Th Floor, Aayakar 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400015. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner Of 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Income Tax-8(3)(2), Mumbai-400015. Vs. Mumbai. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent

TDS) also the Assessing Officer disallowed expenditure amounting to Rs.3,97,90,291/-in terms of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Additions for unexplained cash credit in terms of section 68 of the Act amounting to Rs.1,46,24,270/- and difference in valuation of fixed asset of Rs.2,50,19,760/- being written off were also made

JAWAHAR B. PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22XC, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

TDS on payment for labour charges & professional charges respectively without appreciating that the ratio of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages P. Ltd vs. CIT 293 ITR 226 is only in respect of section 201 & not in respect of section 40(a)(ia). 4 Jawahar B. Purohit, M/s M.R. Construction

JAWAHAR B. PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22XC, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

TDS on payment for labour charges & professional charges respectively without appreciating that the ratio of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages P. Ltd vs. CIT 293 ITR 226 is only in respect of section 201 & not in respect of section 40(a)(ia). 4 Jawahar B. Purohit, M/s M.R. Construction

M.R. CONSTRUCTION,.,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

TDS on payment for labour charges & professional charges respectively without appreciating that the ratio of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages P. Ltd vs. CIT 293 ITR 226 is only in respect of section 201 & not in respect of section 40(a)(ia). 4 Jawahar B. Purohit, M/s M.R. Construction