DCIT CEN CIR 8(4), MUMBAI vs. SAVITA OIL TECHNOLOGIES LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.7620/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11)

250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 or an order of the Settlement Commission under sub-section (4) of section 245D, the amount on which interest was payable under sub-section (1) has been increased or reduced, as the case may be, the interest shall be increased or reduced accordingly

K D LITE DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE 1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 194A (1) of the Act would not be made applicable. In other words, if no income is attributable to the payee, there is no liability to deduct tax at source in the hands of the tax Deductor. Further reliance placed on: 1. Neo Sports Broadcast (P.) Ltd. v/s Commissioner of Income-tax (TDS), Mumbai (ITAT MUMBAI IT APPEAL

K D LITE DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE 1(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 194A (1) of the Act would not be made applicable. In other words, if no income is attributable to the payee, there is no liability to deduct tax at source in the hands of the tax Deductor. Further reliance placed on: 1. Neo Sports Broadcast (P.) Ltd. v/s Commissioner of Income-tax (TDS), Mumbai (ITAT MUMBAI IT APPEAL

K D LITE DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE 1(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 194A (1) of the Act would not be made applicable. In other words, if no income is attributable to the payee, there is no liability to deduct tax at source in the hands of the tax Deductor. Further reliance placed on: 1. Neo Sports Broadcast (P.) Ltd. v/s Commissioner of Income-tax (TDS), Mumbai (ITAT MUMBAI IT APPEAL

K D LITE DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE 1(3),, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 194A (1) of the Act would not be made applicable. In other words, if no income is attributable to the payee, there is no liability to deduct tax at source in the hands of the tax Deductor. Further reliance placed on: 1. Neo Sports Broadcast (P.) Ltd. v/s Commissioner of Income-tax (TDS), Mumbai (ITAT MUMBAI IT APPEAL

VIACOM 18 MEDIA PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-16(1), MUMBAI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

250 or section 254 or section 260 section 260 or section 262 or or section 263 or section 264, wholly or partly, , wholly or partly, otherwise than by making a fresh assessment or reassessment, otherwise than by making a fresh assessment or reassessment, otherwise than by making a fresh assessment or reassessment, the assessee shall be entitled to receive

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, MUMBAI vs. VIACOM18 MEDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

250 or section 254 or section 260 section 260 or section 262 or or section 263 or section 264, wholly or partly, , wholly or partly, otherwise than by making a fresh assessment or reassessment, otherwise than by making a fresh assessment or reassessment, otherwise than by making a fresh assessment or reassessment, the assessee shall be entitled to receive

VIACOM 18 MEDIA PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-16(1), MUMBAI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

250 or section 254 or section 260 section 260 or section 262 or or section 263 or section 264, wholly or partly, , wholly or partly, otherwise than by making a fresh assessment or reassessment, otherwise than by making a fresh assessment or reassessment, otherwise than by making a fresh assessment or reassessment, the assessee shall be entitled to receive

DISHA DISTRIBUTORS,MUMBAI 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 Garg

250 of the Act is further appealable before the Tribunal under section 253 of the Act. Hence, we admit the present appeals filed by the assessee even on this preliminary issue. We have already adjudicated the issue of charging fees under section 234E of the Act by the Assessing Officer while processing returns / statements in the paras hereinabove

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

250 of the Act is further appealable before the Tribunal under section 253 of the Act. Hence, we admit the present appeals filed by the assessee even on this preliminary issue. We have already adjudicated the issue of charging fees under section 234E of the Act by the Assessing Officer while processing returns / statements in the paras hereinabove

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

250 of the Act is further appealable before the Tribunal under section 253 of the Act. Hence, we admit the present appeals filed by the assessee even on this preliminary issue. We have already adjudicated the issue of charging fees under section 234E of the Act by the Assessing Officer while processing returns / statements in the paras hereinabove

K D LITE DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE 1(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 194A (1) of the Act would not be made applicable. In other words, if по income is attributable to the payee, there is no liability to deduct tax at source in the hands of the tax Deductor. Further reliance placed on: 1. Neo Sports Broadcast (P.) Ltd. v/s Commissioner of Income-tax (TDS), Mumbai (ITAT MUMBAI IT APPEAL

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

250 of the Act is further appealable before the Tribunal under section 253 of the Act. Hence, we admit the present appeals filed by the assessee even on this preliminary issue. We have already adjudicated the issue of charging fees under section 234E of the Act by the Assessing Officer while processing returns / statements in the paras hereinabove

BABITA MALKANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO TDS 1(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

4 Babita Malkani & Bhaskar Krishna Shetty jurisdiction to levy penalty for delay in filing TDS statements as provided under section 200(3) of the Act. It has therefore been contended that the AO(TDS) has rightly exercised his jurisdiction while making adjustment of the fees leviable under section 234E for non compliance/delay in filing the TDS statements as provided under

FORESIGHT HOLDINGS, MUMBAI vs. DCIT (TDS) CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sanjay Gargm/S. Foresight Holdings Dcit (Tds) Cpc #11, 2Nd Floor, Ismail Mansion Aayakar Bhavan Vs. 94/96/98 Bazargate, Fort Sector 3, Vyshali Mumbai 400001 Ghaziabad 201010 Pan – Aacff9466H Appellant Respondent

4 M/s. Foresight Holdings “Rashmikant Kundalia vs. Union of India” (supra) so far as the issue is concerned, is of no help to the Revenue. One of the contentions raised before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court was that under the provisions of the Act, no appeal is provided for or from an arbitrary order passed under section 234E

CONCEPT MANAGEMENT CONSLUTING LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CPC TDS, UTTAR PRADESH

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

4 Concept management Consulting Ltd. The Ld. D.R. has further submitted that, even otherwise, the section 234E of the Act is an independent section and the AO (TDS) has otherwise jurisdiction to levy penalty for delay in filing TDS statements as provided under section 200(3) of the Act. It has therefore been contended that the AO(TDS) has rightly

ASST CIT 11(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. VRITTI IMPEX P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

4 Asha Gopal Garg, Khandelwal Jain & Co., Maximus Management Advisory Services P.Ltd & Arti Bharat Shetty introduced by way of amendment made vide Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.15 only. The Tribunal therefore held that the action of the AO in making adjustments with regard to the fees leviable under section 234E while processing the TDS statements under section 200A

DCIT 9(2), MUMBAI vs. K.P. POWER P. TD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.4518/Mum/2011, 547/Mum/2012 & 1306/Mum/2012 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2002-03, 2006-07 & 2007-08) Dcit, Range (9)(2) बिधम/ M/S. K.P. Power Pvt. Ltd. 229-230, 2Nd Floor, Arun Aayakar Bhavan, R. No. Vs. Chambers Tardeo, Mumbai- 218, 2Nd Floor, M.K. Road, 400034. Mumbai-400020. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.173/Mum/2012 & 1385/Mum/2012 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2006-07 & 2007-08) बिधम/ M/S. K.P. Power Pvt. Ltd. Additional Cit Range 9(2) Aayakar Bhavan, 2Nd Floor, 229/230, 2Nd Floor, Arun Vs. Maharishi Karve Road, Chambers Tardeo, Mumbai- Mumbai-400020. 400034. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabck9495M (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri S. K. Bepari Assessee By: Shri Girish Dave सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07.09.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31.10.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue As Well As The Assessee Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys.2002-03, 2006-07 & 2007-08. Ita. No. 4518/Mum/2011, 547/Mum/2012 & 1306/Mum/2012 173/Mum/2012 & 1385/Mum/2012 A.Ys. 2002-03, 2006-07 & 2007-08

250(4) of I.T. Act read with Rule 46A(4). The appellant has responded vide letter dt 25-03-2011 furnishing the following i) A copy oi letter No 34878 dt 18-09-2001 issued by the Chief Engineer (Commercial) Mumbai addressed to the appellant giving NOC u/s 44 of the Electricity (Supply) Act.1948 This is the letter referred

ITO 3(3)(4), MUMBAI vs. WATERMARK SYSTEMS (I) P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

250 of the Act, could direct the Assessing Officer to appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against such order. Sub-section (3) of section 253 lays down the period of limitation for filing such appeals. Sub- section (4) of section 253 pertains to cross-objections by the person against whom such appeal has been preferred before the Tribunal and reads