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

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

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 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

BARCLAYS BANK PLC,MUMBAI vs. CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-RANGE-1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

TDS is required to be withheld on the same. 8.2 In the written submission dated 16 December 2016, it is contended as under: "Barclays Capital. ;i division of Barclays Bank Ple. UK (Barclays UK) manages the global derivatives operations of the Barclays group. The derivative products offered to clients typically include foreign exchange, interest rate and equity. The remittance made

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

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 and in view thereof, we hold that the Assessing Officer is not empowered

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

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 and in view thereof, we hold that the Assessing Officer is not empowered

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

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 and in view thereof, we hold that the Assessing Officer is not empowered

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

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 and in view thereof, we hold that the Assessing Officer is not empowered

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

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

ARPANNA MOTORS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO (TDS) 1(1)(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

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

DIAMOND SHIPBROKERS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO (TDS) 1(2)(1), 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

KASH REALTORS P. LTD,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 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

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

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