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 ()

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, in addition

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 ()

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, in addition

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 ()

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, in addition

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)

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, and in a case

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. (AS SUCCESSOR IN BUSINESS OF ERSTWHILE ING VYSYA BANK LTD.),MUMBAI vs. A.C.I.T. CIR. - 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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, and in a case

OWENS CORNING INSULATING SYSTEMS CANADA LP,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) CIRCLE 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

254 r/w section 144C(13) of the Act, which in our consideration is beyond the Owens Corning Insulating Systems Canada LP ITA no.461/Mum./2022 direction of the Tribunal and therefore is bad in law and is accordingly set aside. 10. On the issue of characterisation of the receipt of reimbursement of expenses as fees for technical services/fees for included services

TAMIL NADU HANDLOOM WEAVERS CO -= OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO (TDS) - 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

TDS)-2(3)(2), Co-operative Society Ltd., Mumbai. 204, Udyog Mandir No.2, 7-C, Pitamber Lane, Mahim (W), Vs. Mumbai-400016 PAN: AAAAH2788P Appellant Respondent : None Appellant by Revenue by : Shri Amit Pratap Singh (DR) Date of Hearing : 01.10.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 22.10.2020 ORDER UNDER SECTION 254

IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO SPICE COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. DY. CIT, CIRCLE- 3(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Is Interconnected With Ground No.Ii. Hence, They Are Taken Up Together For Disposal.

TDS was not deductible. He finds that though an appeal was preferred against the aforesaid decision the same has been rejected by this court for non-removal of the office objections under rule 986. Be that as it may, for section 194H to be attracted, the income being paid out by the assessee must be in the nature of commission

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI CITY vs. ITO (TDS)-2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, in the present batch of appeals for the assessment years

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

TDS under section 194A of the Act is not sustainable. Accordingly, grounds no.1, 2, and 4 raised in Revenue’s appeal are dismissed. 18. Before analysing whether the assessee was under an obligation to deduct tax at source under section 194H or section 194J of the Act, it is necessary to reiterate that both the assessee and the Revenue

DCIT (TDS), CIRCLE-2(2), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, in the present batch of appeals for the assessment years

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

TDS under section 194A of the Act is not sustainable. Accordingly, grounds no.1, 2, and 4 raised in Revenue’s appeal are dismissed. 18. Before analysing whether the assessee was under an obligation to deduct tax at source under section 194H or section 194J of the Act, it is necessary to reiterate that both the assessee and the Revenue

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI CITY vs. ITO (TDS)-2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, in the present batch of appeals for the assessment years

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

TDS under section 194A of the Act is not sustainable. Accordingly, grounds no.1, 2, and 4 raised in Revenue’s appeal are dismissed. 18. Before analysing whether the assessee was under an obligation to deduct tax at source under section 194H or section 194J of the Act, it is necessary to reiterate that both the assessee and the Revenue

DCIT (TDS), CIRCLE-2(2), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, in the present batch of appeals for the assessment years

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

TDS under section 194A of the Act is not sustainable. Accordingly, grounds no.1, 2, and 4 raised in Revenue’s appeal are dismissed. 18. Before analysing whether the assessee was under an obligation to deduct tax at source under section 194H or section 194J of the Act, it is necessary to reiterate that both the assessee and the Revenue

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO (TDS)-2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, in the present batch of appeals for the assessment years

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

TDS under section 194A of the Act is not sustainable. Accordingly, grounds no.1, 2, and 4 raised in Revenue’s appeal are dismissed. 18. Before analysing whether the assessee was under an obligation to deduct tax at source under section 194H or section 194J of the Act, it is necessary to reiterate that both the assessee and the Revenue

DCIT (TDS), CIRCLE-2(2), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, in the present batch of appeals for the assessment years

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

TDS under section 194A of the Act is not sustainable. Accordingly, grounds no.1, 2, and 4 raised in Revenue’s appeal are dismissed. 18. Before analysing whether the assessee was under an obligation to deduct tax at source under section 194H or section 194J of the Act, it is necessary to reiterate that both the assessee and the Revenue

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO (TDS)-2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, in the present batch of appeals for the assessment years

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

TDS under section 194A of the Act is not sustainable. Accordingly, grounds no.1, 2, and 4 raised in Revenue’s appeal are dismissed. 18. Before analysing whether the assessee was under an obligation to deduct tax at source under section 194H or section 194J of the Act, it is necessary to reiterate that both the assessee and the Revenue

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO (TDS)-2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, in the present batch of appeals for the

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailstate Bank Of India Appellant 3Rd Floor, State Bank Bhawan, Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan – Aaacs8577K Dcit(Tds), Circle-2(2), Room No.311, 3Rd Floor, Mtnl Building, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai-400026. Respondent V/S State Bank Of India

TDS under section 194A of the Act is not sustainable. Accordingly, grounds no.1, 2, and 4 raised in Revenue's appeal are dismissed. Before analysing whether the assessee was under an obligation to deduct tax at source under section 194H or section 194) of the Act, it is necessary to reiterate that both the assessee and the Revenue are aggrieved

CANARA BANK (E-SYNDICATE) BANDRA WEST II BRANCH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS , MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeal under consideration are allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Ms. Renu Jauhri

254/- under section 201(1) of the IT Act and Rs. 74,60,489/- under section 201(1A) of the IT Act as per above table. Therefore, the total demand of Rs. 1,59,09,743/- is determined as payable u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the IT Act. In case of further delay of payment, the Assesse Company

CANARA BANK (E-SYNDICATE) BANDRA WEST II BRANCH, MUMBAI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS , MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeal under consideration are allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Ms. Renu Jauhri

254/- under section 201(1) of the IT Act and Rs. 74,60,489/- under section 201(1A) of the IT Act as per above table. Therefore, the total demand of Rs. 1,59,09,743/- is determined as payable u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the IT Act. In case of further delay of payment, the Assesse Company