ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL)-48, MUMBAI

In the result, all these five appeals are resorted to learned

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

TDS)-4(3) (2), claiming refund of withholding tax. On 7th May, 2019, the learned Assessing Officer vi. neither rejected nor approved the application of the assessee and passed the following order sheet:- “Mr. Jay Bhansali, C.A. attended the hearing today and assessee’s application was discussed. Assessee may explore option under Section 248

ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-48 , MUMBAI

In the result, all these five appeals are resorted to learned

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

TDS)-4(3) (2), claiming refund of withholding tax. On 7th May, 2019, the learned Assessing Officer vi. neither rejected nor approved the application of the assessee and passed the following order sheet:- “Mr. Jay Bhansali, C.A. attended the hearing today and assessee’s application was discussed. Assessee may explore option under Section 248

ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL)-48, MUMBAI

In the result, all these five appeals are resorted to learned

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

TDS)-4(3) (2), claiming refund of withholding tax. On 7th May, 2019, the learned Assessing Officer vi. neither rejected nor approved the application of the assessee and passed the following order sheet:- “Mr. Jay Bhansali, C.A. attended the hearing today and assessee’s application was discussed. Assessee may explore option under Section 248

ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL)-48 , MUMBAI

In the result, all these five appeals are resorted to learned

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

TDS)-4(3) (2), claiming refund of withholding tax. On 7th May, 2019, the learned Assessing Officer vi. neither rejected nor approved the application of the assessee and passed the following order sheet:- “Mr. Jay Bhansali, C.A. attended the hearing today and assessee’s application was discussed. Assessee may explore option under Section 248

ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-48 , MUMBAI

In the result, all these five appeals are resorted to learned

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

TDS)-4(3) (2), claiming refund of withholding tax. On 7th May, 2019, the learned Assessing Officer vi. neither rejected nor approved the application of the assessee and passed the following order sheet:- “Mr. Jay Bhansali, C.A. attended the hearing today and assessee’s application was discussed. Assessee may explore option under Section 248

IATA BSP, INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ADIT 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

section 248, as it stood after the amendment made by Finance Act, 2007. In other words the requirement of compliance of the condition of bearing of liability of TDS

IATA BSP, INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ADIT 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

section 248, as it stood after the amendment made by Finance Act, 2007. In other words the requirement of compliance of the condition of bearing of liability of TDS

IATA BSP INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ADIT 3(1),

In the result, these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

section 248, as it stood after the amendment made by Finance Act, 2007. In other words the requirement of compliance of the condition of bearing of liability of TDS

IATA BSP, INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ADIT 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

section 248, as it stood after the amendment made by Finance Act, 2007. In other words the requirement of compliance of the condition of bearing of liability of TDS

ITO IT 1.2.2, MUMBAI vs. BENNETT COLEMAN & CO LTD, MUMBAI

section 195 of the Act on payment of transponder charges/transponder service fees, considering it as payment of Royalty.\n5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company incorporated in India and is engaged in providing media publishing services in India and South Asia, which include publishing newspapers, magazines and books, operating television channels, radio

ITO (IT) 1.2.2, MUMBAI vs. BENNET COLEMAN & CO LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

section 195 of the Act on payment of transponder charges/transponder service fees, considering it as payment of Royalty.\n5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company incorporated in India and is engaged in providing media publishing services in India and South Asia, which include publishing newspapers, magazines and books, operating television channels, radio

ITO IT 1.2.2, MUMBAI vs. BENNETT COLEMAN & CO LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

section 195 of the Act on payment of transponder charges/transponder service fees, considering it as payment of Royalty.\n5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company incorporated in India and is engaged in providing media publishing services in India and South Asia, which include publishing newspapers, magazines and books, operating television channels, radio

DDIT (IT) 4(2),MUMBAI vs. ABU DHABI SHIP BLDG PJSC, MUMBAI

In the result, Department’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

248 of the I.T. Act, 1961 do not enable M/s Abu Dhabi Ship Building to file the appeal against the order of Section 195(2) of IT Act. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact mentioned in para 4 of order

ITO (IT) 1.2.2, MUMBAI vs. BENNET COLEMAN & CO LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

section 248 read with\nsection 254 of the Act are upheld.\n28. In the result, all the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed.\nOrder pronounced in the open Court on 14/01/2026\nSd/-\nOM PRAKASH KANT\nACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nSd/-\nSANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL\nJUDICIAL MEMBER\nMUMBAI, DATED: 14/01/2026\nPrabhat\nCopy of the order forwarded to:\n(1) The Assessee

NAUSHAD ALI ABDUL HAQ SHAIKH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 42(2)(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

248, the date of payment of the tax, or (b) Where the appeal relates to any assessment or penalty, the date (b) Where the appeal relates to any assessment or penalty, the date (b) Where the appeal relates to any assessment or penalty, the date of service of the notice of demand relating to the assessment or of service

NAUSHAD ALI ABDUL HAQ SHAIK,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 42(2)(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

248, the date of payment of the tax, or (b) Where the appeal relates to any assessment or penalty, the date (b) Where the appeal relates to any assessment or penalty, the date (b) Where the appeal relates to any assessment or penalty, the date of service of the notice of demand relating to the assessment or of service

UNITED HOME ENTERTAINMENT P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADIT (IT) 2(2), MUMBAI

The appeals are allowed in terms of our directions as given above

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

section 248 of the Act under which separate appeal was required for every transaction / payment. It has been stated that there has been restructuring in the organization of the assessee, multiple appeals were required to be filed. On earlier occasions, appeals were filed on time and relief was granted to the assessee. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that

UNITED HOME ENTERTAINMENT P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADIT (IT) 2(2), MUMBAI

The appeals are allowed in terms of our directions as given above

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

section 248 of the Act under which separate appeal was required for every transaction / payment. It has been stated that there has been restructuring in the organization of the assessee, multiple appeals were required to be filed. On earlier occasions, appeals were filed on time and relief was granted to the assessee. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that