DCIT(TDS)-2(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TATA AIA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,, MUMBAI

In the result Ground No. 1(c) raised by the revenue is also dismissed

Bench: Shriaby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyaldcit (Tds)-2(3), Room No. 718, K.G. Mittal Ayurvedic Hospital Building, Charni Road, Mumbai-400002. ...... Appellant Vs. Tata Aia Life Insurance Co. Ltd. 14Th Floor, Tower-A, Peninsula Business Park, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013. Pan: Aabct3784C ..... Respondent Appellant By : Smt. Mahita Nair- Cit (Dr) Respondent By : Sh. Hiten Chande Date Of Hearing : 25/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/10/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-60, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As [‘Cit(A)’] Dated 30.11.2018 Passed Under Section 201(1) / 201(1A) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As [‘The Act’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2009-10. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

section 194J. Moreover, where such technical equipment/gadgets require maintenance, then technical support staff is used for maintaining the system but that itself does not establish that the services provided by the maintenance crew are in the nature of technical services. We relied on the case of Vodafone South Limited (241 Taxman 407) and Tata Teleservices (Maharashtra

VODAFONE ESSAR MOBILE SERVICES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

241\ntaxmann.com 497, when the Hon'ble High Court was seized\ninteralia with the following substantial question of law.\n1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case,\nthe Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee\ncould not have been deemed as one in default for non-\ndeduction of tax at source on roaming

VODAFONE ESSAR MOBILE SERVICES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

241\ntaxmann.com 497, when the Hon'ble High Court was seized\ninteralia with the following substantial question of law.\n1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case,\nthe Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee\ncould not have been deemed as one in default for non-\ndeduction of tax at source on roaming

ITO WD 4(1), THANE vs. ASPIRE ORAL CARE P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

241 (Bom) held that the disallowance of certain expenditure under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and added back the same to the income of the assessee by the AO will increase the deduction under section 80IB of the Act claimed by assessee on the entire gross total income of the assessee. Hon’ble Bombay High Court has considered

INCOME TAX OFFICER (IT) 3 (2) (2) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LTD (AS SUCESSOR OF LODHA DEVELOPERS LTD WHICH WAS BELLISSIMO CROWN BUILDMART PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and all the cross objection filed by the assesse are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh

TDS was deductible from said payments. We have also considered the similar findings in the other judicial pronouncements as cited supra by the ld. Counsel. 13. In the light of the facts as discussed above in this order, the A.O has not brought any material on record to demonstrate that how the service provider has made available to the assesse

INCOME TAX OFFICER (IT) 3(2) (2) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LTD (AS SUCESSOR OF LODHA DEVELOPERS LTD WHICH WAS BELLISSIMO CROWN BUILDMART PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and all the cross objection filed by the assesse are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh

TDS was deductible from said payments. We have also considered the similar findings in the other judicial pronouncements as cited supra by the ld. Counsel. 13. In the light of the facts as discussed above in this order, the A.O has not brought any material on record to demonstrate that how the service provider has made available to the assesse

INCOME TAX OFFICER (IT) 3(2) (2) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. MACROTECH DEVELOPE\RS LTD (AS SUCESSOR OF LODHA DEVELOPERS LTD WHICH WAS SUCESSOR OF BELLISSIMO CROWN BUILDERS P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and all the cross objection filed by the assesse are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singh

TDS was deductible from said payments. We have also considered the similar findings in the other judicial pronouncements as cited supra by the ld. Counsel. 13. In the light of the facts as discussed above in this order, the A.O has not brought any material on record to demonstrate that how the service provider has made available to the assesse

INCOME TAX OFFICER (IT) 3(2) (2) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and all the cross objection filed by the assesse are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singh

TDS was deductible from said payments. We have also considered the similar findings in the other judicial pronouncements as cited supra by the ld. Counsel. 13. In the light of the facts as discussed above in this order, the A.O has not brought any material on record to demonstrate that how the service provider has made available to the assesse

INCOME TAX OFFICER (IT), MUMBAI vs. M/S. MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LTD (AS SUCESSOR OF LODHA DEVELOPERS LTD WHICH WAS BELLISSIMO CROWN BUILDMART PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and all the cross objection filed by the assesse are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singh

TDS was deductible from said payments. We have also considered the similar findings in the other judicial pronouncements as cited supra by the ld. Counsel. 13. In the light of the facts as discussed above in this order, the A.O has not brought any material on record to demonstrate that how the service provider has made available to the assesse

VODAFONE ESSAR MOBILE SERVICES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Rahul Chaudharyassessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vodafone Mobile Assistant Commissioner Services Limited Of Income Tax Circle C-45, 51(1) Okhla Indusrial Area, Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, Phase Ii, Distt. Centre, New Delhi- 110020 Laxmi Nagar, Pan: Aaacs4457Q New Delhi. Appellant : Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Vodafone Mobile Joint Commissioner Of Services Limited Income Tax Circle 51(1) C-45, Aayakar Bhawan, Okhla Indusrial Area, Vs. Distt. Centre, Phase Ii, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi- 110020 New Delhi. Pan: Aaacs4457Q Appellant : Respondent

241 taxmann.com 497, when the Hon'ble High Court was seized interalia with the following substantial question of law. 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee could not have been deemed as one in default for non- deduction of tax at source on roaming

ISHARES MSCI EMERGING MARKETS ETF (AS A SUCCESSOR TO ISHARES EMERGING MARKETS INDEX MAURITIUS CO ),MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

TDS credit. During the hearing, the learned AR submitted\nthat the assessee has also filed a rectification application before the AO on\n07/02/2025 in this regard, which is still pending consideration. Accordingly,\nwe deem it appropriate to restore this issue to the file of the AO with the\ndirection to grant the credit of taxes deducted at source, in accordance

DCIT 8 (3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TATA TELESERVICES (MAH.) LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for assessment years 2012-2013

TDS) v. Vodafone Sough Ltd. [2016] 72 taxmann.com 347 (Karnataka)/[2016] 241 Taxman 497 (Karnataka)/[2016] 290 CTR 436 (Karnataka/[2016] 241 Taxman 497/72 taxmann.com 347 (Karnataka).”…………………………………… “The issue is also covered in favour of the appellant by the decision of jurisdictional Tribunal, ITAT Mumbai, in the case of the appellant in ITA No. 2043 - 2045/MUM/2014

IDEA CELLULAR LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 3(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

TDS) Pune vs Vodafone Cellular Ltd (assessee‟s own case) in Income Tax Appeal Nos. 1152 , 1274, 1995, of 2017 & Income Tax Appeal Nos. 571, 1266 of 2018 dated 27/01/2020 had also taken an identical view in respect of identical issue. 2.8.6. The ld.DR before us placed heavy reliance on the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case

DCIT 3(2), MUMBAI vs. IDEA CELLULAR LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

TDS) Pune vs Vodafone Cellular Ltd (assessee‟s own case) in Income Tax Appeal Nos. 1152 , 1274, 1995, of 2017 & Income Tax Appeal Nos. 571, 1266 of 2018 dated 27/01/2020 had also taken an identical view in respect of identical issue. 2.8.6. The ld.DR before us placed heavy reliance on the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case

DCIT - 14(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. IDEA CELLULAR LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the ground no

TDS as per Section 194J of the Act which has also been reiterated by the\nHon'ble Madara Court in the case of Skycell Communications Ltd. (supra). The ld. AR\nfurther contended that referring to various decisions which has held that payment of\nroaming and interconnect usage charges are only for use of standard facility and the\n\n11\nITA

ATOS INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the additional grounds

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1795/Mum/2017 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit-14(1)1), Atos India Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan Godrej & Boyce Complex, बनाम/ Mumbai Plant 5, Pirojshanagar, Vs. Lbs Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400079 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaaco2461J (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Dhanesh Bafna /Chandni Sha /Riddhi Maru /Kinjal Patel, Ld. Ars प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Yogesh Kamat, Ld. Dr सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ 01.06.2022 & : 25.01.2023 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 23.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: 1. The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) In 2

TDS of Foreign Parties 4 I.T.A. No. 1795/Mum/2017 Atos India Pvt. Ltd. 8. Denial of claim of deduction in 1,74,35,513 employee's ESIC contribution & Labour welfare fund Sub-total (B) 23,12,42,582 Total (A+B) 102,00,93,469 4. Apart from above, assessee has also raised the following additional grounds, which are as under

ITO 3(3)2, MUMBAI vs. SHAMROCK PHARMACHEMI P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1774/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बिाम/ Ito 3(3)2, M/S. Shamrock R.No. 602, Pharmachemi Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 83E,Hansraj Pragi Bldg., V. M.K Road, Opp. Dr. E Moses Road, Mumbai 400020 Worli, Mumbai-400018 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacs6290H (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri. Ashim Kumar Modi (Cit- Dr), Shri V. Justin & Ms. Chaitna Ajaria Shri. Bharat L. Gandhi Assessee By: सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 01.03.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 1774/Mum/2013, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 29.10.2012, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called ―The Cit(A)‖) In Appeal Number Cit(A)-7/Ito-3(3)(2)/It-166/11-12, For Assessment Year 2009-10, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 29.12.2011 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called ―The Ao‖) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ―The Act‖) For Ay 2009-10. I.T.A. No.1774/Mum/2013

241 ITR (St.) 132 where it is been clearly stated that there is no need to deduct the Tax i.e TDS u/s 195 would arise if the payment of commission is to the non resident agent is chargeable to tax in India. Further attention is drawn on the CBDT circular No. 23 dated 23.07.1969 where the taxability of foreign agent

VODAFONE INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(3)(2), MUMBAI

Appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

TDS on Discount extended to prepaid distributors Penalty payment DoT disallowed under 7,54,000 Section 37(1) Disallowance of depreciation on spectrum 4,08,01,38,956 fees Total Disallowances 9,62,14,04,426 Taxable income under the head business or 2,16,66,85,561 profession Income from Other Sources (as per revised computation) Interest on fixed