CORNERVIEW CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPEERS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (TDS) - CPC,, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm Ita No.3295/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) (Assessment Year: 2016-17)

268 (Bom). While deciding the issue, the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court not only upheld the validity of section 234E of the Act, but also observed that the delay in furnishing of TDS

CORNERVIEW CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (TDS) - CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm Ita No.3295/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) (Assessment Year: 2016-17)

268 (Bom). While deciding the issue, the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court not only upheld the validity of section 234E of the Act, but also observed that the delay in furnishing of TDS

CORNERVIEW CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (TDS) - CPC , GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Assessee are hereby ordered to be dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.3653 To 3667/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S. Cornerview बिधम/ Acit(Tds)-Cpc, Construction & Developers Ghaziabad. Vs. Pvt. Ltd. Building No. 10, 5Th Floor, Acme Group, Solitaire Park, Guru Hargovindji Road, Andheri (E), 400093.. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aafcc9548R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ravikant Pathak Revenue By: Shri Abi Rama Kartikiyen (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30/07/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/07/2019

268 (Bom). While deciding the issue, the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court not only upheld the validity of section 234E of the Act, but also observed that the delay in furnishing of TDS

CORNERVIEW CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (TDS) - CPC, GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

268 (Bom). While deciding the issue, the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court not only upheld the validity of section 234E of the Act, but also observed that the delay in furnishing of TDS

ACIT 16(1), MUMBAI vs. ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK (INDIA) LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.852/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ Entertainment Network Acit 16(1), Room No. 439, 4T H Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, (India) Ltd., M.K Road, 4T H Floor, A Wing, V. Mumbai- 400020 Matulya Centre, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan :Aaace7796G आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.812/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ Acit 16(1), Room No. 439, Entertainment Network 4T H Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, (India) Ltd., M.K Road, Mumbai 400020 4T H Floor, A Wing, V. Matulya Centre, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel(West), Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaace7796G (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

Section 194H of the 1961 Act will depend upon facts and circumstances of each case and hence it was held that there is a need to evaluate the factual matrix of each case before applying provisions of Section 194H of the 1961 Act to advertising agency commissions paid by Media/Broadcasting companies including evaluating commercial terms and conditions of the contract

ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK (INDIA) LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 11(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.852/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ Entertainment Network Acit 16(1), Room No. 439, 4T H Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, (India) Ltd., M.K Road, 4T H Floor, A Wing, V. Mumbai- 400020 Matulya Centre, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan :Aaace7796G आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.812/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ Acit 16(1), Room No. 439, Entertainment Network 4T H Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, (India) Ltd., M.K Road, Mumbai 400020 4T H Floor, A Wing, V. Matulya Centre, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel(West), Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaace7796G (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

Section 194H of the 1961 Act will depend upon facts and circumstances of each case and hence it was held that there is a need to evaluate the factual matrix of each case before applying provisions of Section 194H of the 1961 Act to advertising agency commissions paid by Media/Broadcasting companies including evaluating commercial terms and conditions of the contract

ACIT -25(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. GEPACH INTERNATIONAL, MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shris. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5943 & 5942/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15)

TDS under section 195 of the Act. 7.8 It is observed from the assessment order that the AO in his order has accepted the fact that "clause 6 of the said agreement mentions that "Pharmark will at all times take a confirmation in writing before confirming the rates and terms of payment for any order" and clause 7 mentions that

INCOME TAX OFFICER, KAUTILYA BHAWAN BKC KURLA vs. GODREJ AGROVET LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Girish Agrawalthe Income Tax Officer, Godrej Agrovet Limited, Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Godrej One, Bkc Kurla, 3Rd Floor Pirojshanagar, Mumbai-400051 E.E, Highway, Vikhroli So Mumbai, Mumbai-400079. [Pan: Aaacg0617Q] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Ar Date Of Hearing 18.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16.12.2025 O R D E R Per Suchitra Kamble:

Section 112(1). The Ld. DR further submitted that the direction given by the CIT(A) to the Assessing Officer to do the necessary verification in accordance with the provisions of law, and to re-compute these TDS raised demands in respect of eight remittances to the shareholders of Creamline Dairy Asst. Year : 2016-17 - 5– Products

VIJAY H JAISWAL,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 21(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 2617/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

268/- was paid on account of interest on delayed payment of TDS and it was submitted that since the amount was paid as interest on the delayed payment of TDS therefore the same is allowable as per provisions of section

UNITED HOME ENTERTAINMENT P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 4 (3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals are allowed, as above

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ravish Soodita Nos.1290 To 1302 & 1303 To 1308/Mum/2016 (Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16)

TDS United Home Entertainment Private Limited,& Disney Broadcasting (India) Limited. under section 195 of the Act. It was a common point between the parties that the said issue was also before the Tribunal in the past, and vide order dated 25/10/2016(supra), the same has been sent back to the file of Assessing Officer to decide in the light

DISNEY BROADCASTING (INDIA) LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 4(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals are allowed, as above

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ravish Soodita Nos.1290 To 1302 & 1303 To 1308/Mum/2016 (Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16)

TDS United Home Entertainment Private Limited,& Disney Broadcasting (India) Limited. under section 195 of the Act. It was a common point between the parties that the said issue was also before the Tribunal in the past, and vide order dated 25/10/2016(supra), the same has been sent back to the file of Assessing Officer to decide in the light

MOHD. NAYEEM SIDDIQUI AKASH TIMBER TRADERS,THANE vs. DCIT (CPC), GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

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

268). Aggrieved, the assessee is under appeal before us. 3 Assessment Year:2013-14 Mohd. Nayeem Siddiqui 2.1 Upon careful consideration, we find that the provisions of Section 234E, as inserted by Finance Act 2012 w.e.f. 01/07/2012, envisages levy of fees @Rs.200/- for every day of default on the part of the assessee to deliver the statement of TDS

CREATIVE GLOBAL STOCK BROKING P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar

TDS on such payments would, therefore, be deductible under Section 194J of the Act.” 3. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, no disallowance is attracted in relation to the transaction charges paid to the stock exchange. The issue is thus covered in favour of the assessee on merits by the decision

ITO (TDS) RG 2(2), MUMBAI vs. KAMDHENU BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals filed by the department are dismissed

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Amit Shukla

268 Total Rs. 24,12,30,536 The AO held that, such a payment of lease premium falls under the nature of “rent”, as defined under section 194I and, therefore, assessee should have deducted TDS

ITO (TDS) RG 2(2), MUMBAI vs. KAMDHENU BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals filed by the department are dismissed

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Amit Shukla

268 Total Rs. 24,12,30,536 The AO held that, such a payment of lease premium falls under the nature of “rent”, as defined under section 194I and, therefore, assessee should have deducted TDS

DCIT 3(2), MUMBAI vs. IDEA CELLULAR LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

TDS) Pune vs Vodafone Cellular Ltd (assessee‟s own case) in Income Tax Appeal Nos. 1152 , 1274, 1995, of 2017 & Income Tax Appeal Nos. 571, 1266 of 2018 dated 27/01/2020 had also taken an identical view in respect of identical issue. 2.8.6. The ld.DR before us placed heavy reliance on the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case

IDEA CELLULAR LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 3(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

TDS) Pune vs Vodafone Cellular Ltd (assessee‟s own case) in Income Tax Appeal Nos. 1152 , 1274, 1995, of 2017 & Income Tax Appeal Nos. 571, 1266 of 2018 dated 27/01/2020 had also taken an identical view in respect of identical issue. 2.8.6. The ld.DR before us placed heavy reliance on the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case

DCIT 5(2), MUMBAI vs. JNJ HOLDINGS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Ashwani Taneja (Acountant Member)

section 147. Law in this respect is settled on the basis of various judgements coming from various courts all over the country. The ld.counsel of the assessee placed reliance before us on the following judgements: 1. Hindustan Lever Ltd vs. R.B. Wadkar, A.C.IT.268 ITR 332 (Bom) 2. Allanasons Ltd. v DC IT 369 ITR 648 (Bom) 3. Business India