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

TDS returns. In the absence of enabling provisions, levy of fees could not be effected in the course of intimation issued under section 200A of the Act prior to 01.06.2015. 25. The Amritsar Bench of Tribunal in Sibia Healthcare (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2015) 121 DTR 81 (Asr) (Trib) had held that the adjustment in section 200A

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

TDS returns. In the absence of enabling provisions, levy of fees could not be effected in the course of intimation issued under section 200A of the Act prior to 01.06.2015. 25. The Amritsar Bench of Tribunal in Sibia Healthcare (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2015) 121 DTR 81 (Asr) (Trib) had held that the adjustment in respect of levy of fees

LAWMEN CONCEPTS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CPC-TDS , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated in the order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

TDS deducted for the respective assessment year prior to 1.6.2015. Hence, the demand notices under Section 200A by the respondent-authority for intimation for payment of fee under Section 234E can be said as without any authority of law and the same are quashed and set aside to that extent. 25. As such, as recorded earlier, it is on account

DY CIT-1(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

26,284 of lease rental receipts. Thus, the TDS amount is the TDS amount is being part of the gross receipt shown by the gross receipt shown by the assessee assessee and the M/s The Maharashtra State Co-op. Bank Ltd. M/s The Maharashtra State Co ITA Nos. 3878 & 3916/Mum/2019 assessee has adjusted against its share of Rs.14

M/S THE MAHARASHTRA STATE CO. OP BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO-1(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

26,284 of lease rental receipts. Thus, the TDS amount is the TDS amount is being part of the gross receipt shown by the gross receipt shown by the assessee assessee and the M/s The Maharashtra State Co-op. Bank Ltd. M/s The Maharashtra State Co ITA Nos. 3878 & 3916/Mum/2019 assessee has adjusted against its share of Rs.14

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\nare allowed

section\n195 of the Act.\n5. JDIT (Int.Tax) Vs. KRUPP UHDE_GmbH [2009] 26 DTR\n(Trib) 289 (Mum): [2010]1 ITR 614 (Mum)\nIt was, inter alia, held in this case that amounts received\nby the assessee towards reimbursement of expenses were\nnot liable to tax as fees for technical services.\n6. NathpaJhakri Joint Venture Vs ACIT

NATIONAL LAMINATE CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. CPC (TDS), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

TDS deducted for the respective assessment year prior to 1.6.2015. Hence, the demand notices under Section 200A by the respondent- authority for intimation for payment of fee under Section 234E can be said as without any authority of law and the same are quashed and set aside to that extent. 25. As such, as recorded earlier, it is on account

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\nare allowed

section\n195 of the Act.\n5. JDIT (Int.Tax) Vs. KRUPP UHDE GmbH [2009] 26 DTR\n(Trib) 289 (Mum): [2010]1 ITR 614 (Mum)\nIt was, inter alia, held in this case that amounts received\nby the assessee towards reimbursement of expenses were\nnot liable to tax as fees for technical services.\n6. NathpaJhakri Joint Venture Vs ACIT

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 195 of the Act. 5. JDIT (Int.Tax) Vs. KRUPP UHDE GmbH [2009] 26 DTR (Trib) 289 (Mum): [2010]1 ITR 614 (Mum) It was, inter alia, held in this case that amounts received by the assessee towards reimbursement of expenses were not liable to tax as fees for technical services. 6. NathpaJhakri Joint Venture Vs ACIT

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 195 of the Act. 5. JDIT (Int.Tax) Vs. KRUPP UHDE GmbH [2009] 26 DTR (Trib) 289 (Mum): [2010]1 ITR 614 (Mum) It was, inter alia, held in this case that amounts received by the assessee towards reimbursement of expenses were not liable to tax as fees for technical services. 6. NathpaJhakri Joint Venture Vs ACIT

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\nare allowed

section\n195 of the Act.\n\n5. JDIT (Int.Tax) Vs. KRUPP UHDE_GmbH [2009] 26 DTR\n(Trib) 289 (Mum): [2010]1 ITR 614 (Mum)\n\nIt was, inter alia, held in this case that amounts received\nby the assessee towards reimbursement of expenses were\nnot liable to tax as fees for technical services.\n\n6. NathpaJhakri Joint Venture

DCIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI vs. M.R. CONSTRUCTION, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

TDS Section 194A – Interest on loans 4,12,416 Nil 10,686 Section 194C Contractor 78,06,579 Nil 78,06,579 Section 194J – Supervision Charges 2,55,100 Nil 2,55,100 Section 194H – Brokerage Expenses/ 2,50,000 Nil 2,50,000 commission Section 194J – professional charges 50,000 Nil 50,000 4. Adhoc Disallowance for direct Expenses

DCIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI vs. M.R. CONSTRUCTION, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

TDS Section 194A – Interest on loans 4,12,416 Nil 10,686 Section 194C Contractor 78,06,579 Nil 78,06,579 Section 194J – Supervision Charges 2,55,100 Nil 2,55,100 Section 194H – Brokerage Expenses/ 2,50,000 Nil 2,50,000 commission Section 194J – professional charges 50,000 Nil 50,000 4. Adhoc Disallowance for direct Expenses

ACIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI vs. M.R. CONSTRUCTION, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

TDS Section 194A – Interest on loans 4,12,416 Nil 10,686 Section 194C Contractor 78,06,579 Nil 78,06,579 Section 194J – Supervision Charges 2,55,100 Nil 2,55,100 Section 194H – Brokerage Expenses/ 2,50,000 Nil 2,50,000 commission Section 194J – professional charges 50,000 Nil 50,000 4. Adhoc Disallowance for direct Expenses

JAWAHAR B. PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22XC, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

TDS Section 194A – Interest on loans 4,12,416 Nil 10,686 Section 194C Contractor 78,06,579 Nil 78,06,579 Section 194J – Supervision Charges 2,55,100 Nil 2,55,100 Section 194H – Brokerage Expenses/ 2,50,000 Nil 2,50,000 commission Section 194J – professional charges 50,000 Nil 50,000 4. Adhoc Disallowance for direct Expenses

JAWAHAR B. PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22XC, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

TDS Section 194A – Interest on loans 4,12,416 Nil 10,686 Section 194C Contractor 78,06,579 Nil 78,06,579 Section 194J – Supervision Charges 2,55,100 Nil 2,55,100 Section 194H – Brokerage Expenses/ 2,50,000 Nil 2,50,000 commission Section 194J – professional charges 50,000 Nil 50,000 4. Adhoc Disallowance for direct Expenses

JAWAHAR B. PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22XC, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

TDS Section 194A – Interest on loans 4,12,416 Nil 10,686 Section 194C Contractor 78,06,579 Nil 78,06,579 Section 194J – Supervision Charges 2,55,100 Nil 2,55,100 Section 194H – Brokerage Expenses/ 2,50,000 Nil 2,50,000 commission Section 194J – professional charges 50,000 Nil 50,000 4. Adhoc Disallowance for direct Expenses

JAWAHAR B. PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22XC, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

TDS Section 194A – Interest on loans 4,12,416 Nil 10,686 Section 194C Contractor 78,06,579 Nil 78,06,579 Section 194J – Supervision Charges 2,55,100 Nil 2,55,100 Section 194H – Brokerage Expenses/ 2,50,000 Nil 2,50,000 commission Section 194J – professional charges 50,000 Nil 50,000 4. Adhoc Disallowance for direct Expenses