ASIAN PIPES & PROFILES P. LTD,AMBERNATH vs. A.O. TDS WD KALYAN, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by different assessees for different quarters relating to different years are allowed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sanjay Garg

TDS returns which were deemed to be filed by the assessee were filed after delay and the question was whether the Assessing Officer which processing the intimation under section 200A of the Act could charge late fee under the provisions of section 234E of the Act. The assessee claims that the Assessing Officer at best could charge the difference

SPRING TIME CLUBS & HOSPITALITY SERVICES P.LTD,KALYAN vs. A.O. TDS WD KALYAN, KALYAN

In the result, all the appeals filed by different assessees for different quarters relating to different years are allowed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sanjay Gargm/S. Sprigtime Clubs & Hospitality Assessing Officer, Tds Ward Services Pvt. Ltd. Rani Mansion, Murbad Road Vs. 2Nd Floor, Sprig Avenue, Club Road Kalyan (W), 421301 Kalyan (W) 421301 Pan – Aaocs9107M Appellant Respondent

TDS returns which were deemed to be filed by the assessee were filed after delay and the question was whether the Assessing Officer which processing the intimation under section 200A of the Act could charge late fee under the provisions of section 234E of the Act. The assessee claims that the Assessing Officer at best could charge the difference

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S ASIAN STAR COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm M/S Asian Star Company Ltd. Dcit, Central Circle-2(3) Room No.803, 8Th Floor, 114-C, Mitta Court, Pratishtha Bhavan, Vs. M.K. Road, Churchgate, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaca4856B Assessee By : Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ms. Vaishali More, Ars Revenue By : Smt. Shailja Rai, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.05.2023

section 24 of the prohibition of Benami property transaction act 1988 initiated against the recipient of the commission also held that these entities are not bogus. Accordingly he deleted the addition of Rs. 83,15,211/–. 014. Aggrieved with the order of the learned CIT – A the learned assessing officer is in appeal. The only ground is taken

DAIWA CAPITAL MARKETS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,LOWER PAREL vs. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 4 1 1 MUMBAI , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhandaiwa Capital Markets India Acit Circle 4(1)(1), Private Limited Room No. 640, 6Th Floor, Office No. N10 & N11, 9Th Floor, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Dextrus-Peninsula Tower, Peninsula Mumbai-400 020 Corporate Park, G. K. Marg, Lower Parel, Delisle Road, Mumbai-400 013 Pan: Aaccd7178B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Ms. Shivali Mhatre, Ld. Ar Department Represented By : Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 03.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.11.2025

TDS available to the Appellant is against the principals of judicial discipline and the same may be allowed. Daiwa Capital Markets India Private Limited 4. The Appellant prays that the Ld. AO be directed to grant the tax credit of INR 73,24,074 along with interest under section

DCIT 27(1) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. GANGA DEVELOPERS, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shripavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Dcit 27(1) R No.406, 4Th Floor, Tower M/S Ganga Developers Plot No. 219, Alal Asia, No.6, 11Th Road, Chembur, Vashi Railway Stn Complex, Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai Mumbai-400 071 Mumbai-400 703 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaafg 8230 C Assessee By : Shri J.P. Bairagra, Ar Revenue By : Shri Jasbir Chouhan, Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2022

24(1)(a) of the RFCTLARR Act could only be passed under the new Act and not under the repealed old Act of 1894. 5.27 Based on the above discussion, in spite of the mention of the old Act in the citation of the Award, it is to be held that the Award has been issued in terms of RFCTLARR

POOJA MARKETING,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT- 31 , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Us, The Core Issues To Be Decided Are As Under:-

24) The TDS is deducted by the Government on the lottery tickets, but the margins in the business are very low hence there is large refund. (25) The income is much more than the TDS. c) The assessee vide further submission dated 29.11.2016 furnished the details of prizes from unsold lottery tickets, quantity wise and value wise which are enclosed

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

Section 205 of the Act. 24. As stated earlier, in the present case the petitio 24. As stated earlier, in the present case the petitio 24. As stated earlier, in the present case the petitioner- assessee has established that from his salary income, tax has assessee has established that from his salary income, tax has assessee has established that from

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

Section 205 of the Act. 24. As stated earlier, in the present case the petitio 24. As stated earlier, in the present case the petitio 24. As stated earlier, in the present case the petitioner- assessee has established that from his salary income, tax has assessee has established that from his salary income, tax has assessee has established that from

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

Section 205 of the Act. 24. As stated earlier, in the present case the petitio 24. As stated earlier, in the present case the petitio 24. As stated earlier, in the present case the petitioner- assessee has established that from his salary income, tax has assessee has established that from his salary income, tax has assessee has established that from

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

Section 205 of the Act. 24. As stated earlier, in the present case the petitio 24. As stated earlier, in the present case the petitio 24. As stated earlier, in the present case the petitioner- assessee has established that from his salary income, tax has assessee has established that from his salary income, tax has assessee has established that from

DCIT-CC-5(4), MUMBAI vs. RAGHULEELA ESTATES PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

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

24,217/- assessed under house property income on account of maintenance charges without Raghuleela Estate Pvt. Ltd. appreciating the fact that common area maintenance charges were part of rent agreement. ix) On the fact and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court

DCIT-CC-5(4), MUMBAI vs. RAGHULEELA ESTATES PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

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

24,217/- assessed under house property income on account of maintenance charges without Raghuleela Estate Pvt. Ltd. appreciating the fact that common area maintenance charges were part of rent agreement. ix) On the fact and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court

DCIT -CC-5(4), MUMBAI vs. RAGHULEELA ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

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

24,217/- assessed under house property income on account of maintenance charges without Raghuleela Estate Pvt. Ltd. appreciating the fact that common area maintenance charges were part of rent agreement. ix) On the fact and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court

ADDL CIT 7(2), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE COMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kochar

24) of the Act. Income includes profits and gains. A commission is defined in Explanation (i) to section 194H as any payment received or receivable, directly or indirectly by an agent for services rendered acting on behalf of the principal. The element of agency is to be there in case of all services or transactions contemplated by Explanation

KAMAT HOTELS (INDIA) LIMITED,VILE PARLE MUMBAI vs. ACIT, MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

section 24 of the Act based on the TDS entries in Form 26AS. b. Learned CIT(A) erred in failing

KAMAT HOTELS (INDIA) LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

section 24 of the Act based on the TDS entries in Form 26AS. b. Learned CIT(A) erred in failing

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 2(1)(3), MUMBAI vs. KAMAT HOTELS INDIA LIMITED, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

section 24 of the Act based on the TDS entries in Form 26AS. b. Learned CIT(A) erred in failing

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

TDS after 01.07.2012. 19. Hence, it can be said that, the mechanism provided for enforceability of Section 200(3) or 206C (3) for filing of the statement by making it penal under Section 272A (2) (k) is done away in view of the insertion of Section 271H providing for penal provision for such failure to submit return. When the Parliament