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

3) of the Act; the Tribunal held ‘yes’ that the assessing authority had such power and after 01.06.2015, the Assessing Officer was within his limit to levy fees under section 234E of the Act even while processing the TDS statements under section 200A of the Act. In view of the present set of facts, where the Assessing Officer had charged

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

3) of the Act; the Tribunal held ‘yes’ that the assessing authority had such power and after 01.06.2015, the Assessing Officer was within his limit to levy fees under section 234E of the Act even while processing the TDS statements under section 200A of the Act. In view of the present set of 16 Sprigtime Clubs&Hospitality Services

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD ( CORPORATE FINANCE DIVISION),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 6(3), MUMBAI

Bench: the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal preferred by the Assessee vide order, dated 18/05/2009. 4. Not being satisfied with the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A), the Assessee has preferred appeal before this Tribunal. The Revenue has also filed cross-appeal challenging the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A).

TDS & TCS in respect of income and expenses included in the previous year's income for which the appellant could not file the claim due to non receipt of the requisite certificates from the issuer.” 11.1. During the course of hearing it was pointed out that vide order dated 15/04/2010 passed under Section 154 of the Act, the grievance

DCIT 3(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. WATERMARK SYSTEMS (INDIA) P. LTD, MUMBAI

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

253(4) of the Act. The Tribunal was, therefore, in error in holding that the finding recorded by the Commissioner A.Y. 2006-07 to 2010-11 M/s Watermark F. Consultants Ltd. M/s. Watermark System India P. Ltd. (Appeals) remained unchallenged since the assessee had not filed cross objections." 15. The first question is, therefore, answered against the Revenue

DCIT 3(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. WATERMARK FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS LTD, MUMBAI

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

253(4) of the Act. The Tribunal was, therefore, in error in holding that the finding recorded by the Commissioner A.Y. 2006-07 to 2010-11 M/s Watermark F. Consultants Ltd. M/s. Watermark System India P. Ltd. (Appeals) remained unchallenged since the assessee had not filed cross objections." 15. The first question is, therefore, answered against the Revenue

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

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

253(4) of the Act. The Tribunal was, therefore, in error in holding that the finding recorded by the Commissioner A.Y. 2006-07 to 2010-11 M/s Watermark F. Consultants Ltd. M/s. Watermark System India P. Ltd. (Appeals) remained unchallenged since the assessee had not filed cross objections." 15. The first question is, therefore, answered against the Revenue

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

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

253(4) of the Act. The Tribunal was, therefore, in error in holding that the finding recorded by the Commissioner A.Y. 2006-07 to 2010-11 M/s Watermark F. Consultants Ltd. M/s. Watermark System India P. Ltd. (Appeals) remained unchallenged since the assessee had not filed cross objections." 15. The first question is, therefore, answered against the Revenue

DCIT 3(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. WATERMARK SYSTEMS (INDIA) P. LTD, MUMBAI

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

253(4) of the Act. The Tribunal was, therefore, in error in holding that the finding recorded by the Commissioner A.Y. 2006-07 to 2010-11 M/s Watermark F. Consultants Ltd. M/s. Watermark System India P. Ltd. (Appeals) remained unchallenged since the assessee had not filed cross objections." 15. The first question is, therefore, answered against the Revenue

DCIT 3(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. WATERMARK FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS LTD, MUMBAI

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

253(4) of the Act. The Tribunal was, therefore, in error in holding that the finding recorded by the Commissioner A.Y. 2006-07 to 2010-11 M/s Watermark F. Consultants Ltd. M/s. Watermark System India P. Ltd. (Appeals) remained unchallenged since the assessee had not filed cross objections." 15. The first question is, therefore, answered against the Revenue

DCIT 3(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. WATERMARK FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS LTD, MUMBAI

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

253(4) of the Act. The Tribunal was, therefore, in error in holding that the finding recorded by the Commissioner A.Y. 2006-07 to 2010-11 M/s Watermark F. Consultants Ltd. M/s. Watermark System India P. Ltd. (Appeals) remained unchallenged since the assessee had not filed cross objections." 15. The first question is, therefore, answered against the Revenue

VIVEK VINOD VAID,MUMBAI vs. ITO 17(3)(5), MUMBAI

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

253(4) of the Act. The Tribunal was, therefore, in error in holding that the finding recorded by the Commissioner A.Y. 2006-07 to 2010-11 M/s Watermark F. Consultants Ltd. M/s. Watermark System India P. Ltd. (Appeals) remained unchallenged since the assessee had not filed cross objections." 15. The first question is, therefore, answered against the Revenue

ACIT 6(3), MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

TDS & TCS in respect of\nincome and expenses included in the previous year's income for\nwhich the appellant could not file the claim due to non receipt of the\nrequisite certificates from the issuer.”\n11. 1. During the course of hearing it was pointed out that vide order\ndated 15/04/2010 passed under Section 154 of the Act, the\ngrievance

BHASKAR KRISHNA SHETTY,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CPC TDS, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2013-14

253 of the Act. Hence, we do not find any illegality in the course adopted by the assessees of invoking the appealable jurisdiction of this Tribunal for redressal of their grievance on this issue. 9. So far as the issue whether for the period prior to 01.06.15, such adjustment can be made while processing the statements under section 200A

KAPOOR GLASS (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (TDS) CPC, UTTAR PRADESH

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2013-14

253 of the Act. Hence, we do not find any illegality in the course adopted by the assessees of invoking the appealable jurisdiction of this Tribunal for redressal of their grievance on this issue. 9. So far as the issue whether for the period prior to 01.06.15, such adjustment can be made while processing the statements under section 200A

BHOJA VITTAL SHETTY,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CPC TDS, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2013-14

253 of the Act. Hence, we do not find any illegality in the course adopted by the assessees of invoking the appealable jurisdiction of this Tribunal for redressal of their grievance on this issue. 9. So far as the issue whether for the period prior to 01.06.15, such adjustment can be made while processing the statements under section 200A

HITESH SHANKAR SHETTY,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CPC TDS, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2013-14

253 of the Act. Hence, we do not find any illegality in the course adopted by the assessees of invoking the appealable jurisdiction of this Tribunal for redressal of their grievance on this issue. 9. So far as the issue whether for the period prior to 01.06.15, such adjustment can be made while processing the statements under section 200A

MEDICAL ENGINEERS INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (TS) CPC, GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2013-14

253 of the Act. Hence, we do not find any illegality in the course adopted by the assessees of invoking the appealable jurisdiction of this Tribunal for redressal of their grievance on this issue. 9. So far as the issue whether for the period prior to 01.06.15, such adjustment can be made while processing the statements under section 200A

ROHA DYECHEM P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (TDS) 3(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2013-14

253 of the Act. Hence, we do not find any illegality in the course adopted by the assessees of invoking the appealable jurisdiction of this Tribunal for redressal of their grievance on this issue. 9. So far as the issue whether for the period prior to 01.06.15, such adjustment can be made while processing the statements under section 200A