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

240 payment of ₹ 533,500,000 on which TDS ITA Nos. 127 to 133/Mum/2023 Total Energies Marketing India Pvt. Ltd.; A.Ys. 2013-14 to 19-20 13,709,009 on which TDS default under 808/- on default under section

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

240 payment of ₹ 533,500,000 on which TDS ITA Nos. 127 to 133/Mum/2023 Total Energies Marketing India Pvt. Ltd.; A.Ys. 2013-14 to 19-20 13,709,009 on which TDS default under 808/- on default under section

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

240 payment of ₹ 533,500,000 on which TDS ITA Nos. 127 to 133/Mum/2023 Total Energies Marketing India Pvt. Ltd.; A.Ys. 2013-14 to 19-20 13,709,009 on which TDS default under 808/- on default under section

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

240 payment of ₹ 533,500,000 on which TDS ITA Nos. 127 to 133/Mum/2023 Total Energies Marketing India Pvt. Ltd.; A.Ys. 2013-14 to 19-20 13,709,009 on which TDS default under 808/- on default under section

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

240 payment of ₹ 533,500,000 on which TDS ITA Nos. 127 to 133/Mum/2023 Total Energies Marketing India Pvt. Ltd.; A.Ys. 2013-14 to 19-20 13,709,009 on which TDS default under 808/- on default under section

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

240 payment of ₹ 533,500,000 on which TDS ITA Nos. 127 to 133/Mum/2023 Total Energies Marketing India Pvt. Ltd.; A.Ys. 2013-14 to 19-20 13,709,009 on which TDS default under 808/- on default under section

ROYAL WESTERN INDIA TURF CLUB LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS WARD 2(1)(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

240 dated 19.05.1978,\nbut it cannot be disputed that Section 194BB of the Act is the\nspecific section which deals with TDS

ROYAL WESTERN INDIA TURF CLUB LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD 2(1)(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

240 dated 19.05.1978, but it cannot be disputed that Section 194BB of the Act is the specific section which deals with TDS

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

240 dated 19.05.1978, but it cannot be disputed that Section 194BB of the Act is the specific section which deals with TDS

ELLORA PROPERTY SERVICES P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. TDS CPC, GHAZIBAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed”

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Assessment Year: 2014-15

240/- 2013-14 Q1 10.06.2014 15.06.2014 98,600/- 2014-15 Q3 17.06.2015 26.06.2015 12,010/- 2014-15 Q1 01.10.2014 08.10.2014 45,500/- 2014-15 Q2 17.10.2014 25.10.2014 4,890/- 2014-15 Q1 01.10.2014 08.10.2014 38,830/- 2014-15 Q2 17.10.2014 25.10.2014 11,810/- Ellora Property Services Pvt. Ltd. 5. From the above chart, it is clear that the penalties

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

240 ITR 628, 630 (Guj.), d. Foramer vs CIT (2001) 247 ITR 436 (All.), affirmed in CIT vs Foramer Finance (2003) 264 ITR 566, 567 (SC), e. Ipca Laboratories vs DCIT (2001) 251 ITR 416 (Bom.), f. Ritu Investment Pvt. Ltd.(2012) 345 ITR 214 (Del.), g. Ketan B. Mehta vs ACIT (2012) 346 ITR 254 (Guj.), h. Ms. Praveen

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

240 ITR 628, 630 (Guj.), d. Foramer vs CIT (2001) 247 ITR 436 (All.), affirmed in CIT vs Foramer Finance (2003) 264 ITR 566, 567 (SC), e. Ipca Laboratories vs DCIT (2001) 251 ITR 416 (Bom.), f. Ritu Investment Pvt. Ltd.(2012) 345 ITR 214 (Del.), g. Ketan B. Mehta vs ACIT (2012) 346 ITR 254 (Guj.), h. Ms. Praveen

BAKHTAWAR CONSTRUCTION CO. P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT (TDS) RG 1, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6943/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ Bakhtawar Construction Co. Addl. Cit (Tds) Rg 1 P. Ltd, Meher House, 10T H Floor, K.G. Mittal 1St Floor, Casasji Patel Street Ayurvedic Hosptial Bldg, V. Fort, Bombay 400001 Charni Road(W) Mumbai 400002 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacb4942P (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

TDS Deduced AND PAID DURING FINANCIAL YEAR 1.4.2009 TO 31.3.2 Financial Year Section Code Tax deducted & Date on which 2009-10 paid tax deposited

SHELF DRILLING J.T. ANGEL LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, IT, CIRCLE 4 (2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, accordingly

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं. 2135/मुं/ 2022 ("न.व. 2015-16) Shelf Drilling J.T.Angel Limited, 4Th Floor, Schindier House, Main Street, Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai 400 076. Pan: Aascs-2719-P ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs.

240. While doing so, needless to say, the Assessing Officer shall give a due and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee on this point as well. Ordered, accordingly.” Following the aforesaid decision we deem it appropriate to restore the file back to the Assessing Officer with similar directions. 7. The assessee in ground No.3 of appeal has assailed charging

SHELF DRILLING RON TAPPMEYER LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT- IT, CIRCLE 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, accordingly

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं. 2135/मुं/ 2022 ("न.व. 2015-16) Shelf Drilling J.T.Angel Limited, 4Th Floor, Schindier House, Main Street, Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai 400 076. Pan: Aascs-2719-P ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs.

240. While doing so, needless to say, the Assessing Officer shall give a due and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee on this point as well. Ordered, accordingly.” Following the aforesaid decision we deem it appropriate to restore the file back to the Assessing Officer with similar directions. 7. The assessee in ground No.3 of appeal has assailed charging

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (IT)-4(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S SHELF DRILLING J.T. ANGEL LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, accordingly

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं. 2135/मुं/ 2022 ("न.व. 2015-16) Shelf Drilling J.T.Angel Limited, 4Th Floor, Schindier House, Main Street, Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai 400 076. Pan: Aascs-2719-P ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs.

240. While doing so, needless to say, the Assessing Officer shall give a due and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee on this point as well. Ordered, accordingly.” Following the aforesaid decision we deem it appropriate to restore the file back to the Assessing Officer with similar directions. 7. The assessee in ground No.3 of appeal has assailed charging

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (IT)-4(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S SHELF DRILLING RON TAPPMEYER, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, accordingly

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं. 2135/मुं/ 2022 ("न.व. 2015-16) Shelf Drilling J.T.Angel Limited, 4Th Floor, Schindier House, Main Street, Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai 400 076. Pan: Aascs-2719-P ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs.

240. While doing so, needless to say, the Assessing Officer shall give a due and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee on this point as well. Ordered, accordingly.” Following the aforesaid decision we deem it appropriate to restore the file back to the Assessing Officer with similar directions. 7. The assessee in ground No.3 of appeal has assailed charging

THE BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (TDS) 2, MUMBAI

In the result , the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1999/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12) बिाम/ The Board Of Control For Acit (Tds) 2 Cricket In India, R.No. 701, 7 Th Floor, Wankhede Stadium, Smt. K.G. Mittal V. “D” Road, Churchgate, Ayurvedic Hospital Mumbai 400020 Bldg., Charni Road, Mumbai-400002 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaatb0186A (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Nitesh Joshi Shri. Anil Sathe Revenue By : Shri. D.G Pansari , Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.10.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 1999/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Date 10.01.2017 Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-60, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2011-12, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Penalty Order Dated 16.12.2011 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 272A(2)(K) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2011-12. I.T.A. No.1999/Mum/2017

Section 273B of the 1961 Act. It was submitted that the assessee has gradually improved in filing of TDS returns in time and subsequently quarterly TDS returns were either filed in time within due date or small delay took place. The assessee relied upon decision I.T.A. No.1999/Mum/2017 of Lucknow Tribunal in the case of PNB v. ACIT

PARTHO DAS,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-28(2)(4), MUMBAI, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

240 (Ctk).\n6. From the side of the Revenue, Ld DR placed reliance on\nthe orders of the authorities below. He has argued that as per\nthe provisions of section 194C(2) any person being a\ncontractor responsible for paying any sum to a sub-contractor\nin pursuance of a contract with the sub-contractor for\ncarrying out any part