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 (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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 195 of the Act on payment of transponder charges/transponder service fees, considering it as payment of Royalty. 5. 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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 195 of the Act on payment of transponder charges/transponder service fees, considering it as payment of Royalty. 5. 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

VIACOM 18 MEDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST DIT (IT) 4(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

section 248 of the income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) contesting its liability to deduct TDS under section 195 the Act. The assessee

BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENT. CIR. 6(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

248 of the Act seeking a declaration The Board of Control for Cricket in India ITA no.5492/Mum./2017 ITA no.5493/Mum./2017 that the tax was not required to be deducted on the said amount paid by it to the CSA. 8. The learned CIT(A) vide impugned order held that CSA received compensation by way of annual price fees