DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

271G,]] [section 271H,] clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA] or [section 272B or] [sub- ITA Nos.7124 to 7129/Mum/2016 33 M/s Galaxy Premises Pvt. Ltd. section (1) [or sub-section (1A)] of section 272BB or] [sub-section (1) of section 272BBB or] clause

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

271G,]] [section 271H,] clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA] or [section 272B or] [sub- ITA Nos.7124 to 7129/Mum/2016 33 M/s Galaxy Premises Pvt. Ltd. section (1) [or sub-section (1A)] of section 272BB or] [sub-section (1) of section 272BBB or] clause

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

271G,]] [section 271H,] clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA] or [section 272B or] [sub- ITA Nos.7124 to 7129/Mum/2016 33 M/s Galaxy Premises Pvt. Ltd. section (1) [or sub-section (1A)] of section 272BB or] [sub-section (1) of section 272BBB or] clause

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

271G,]] [section 271H,] clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA] or [section 272B or] [sub- ITA Nos.7124 to 7129/Mum/2016 33 M/s Galaxy Premises Pvt. Ltd. section (1) [or sub-section (1A)] of section 272BB or] [sub-section (1) of section 272BBB or] clause

MAHARASHTRA STATE PHARMACY COUNCIL,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-NATIONAL FACELESS, DELHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

271G, section 271GA, section 271GB, section 271H, section 271-I, i[section 271Jd clause (c) or clause (c/) of sub-section (1) or sub- section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or section 272B or subsection (1) or sub-section (1A) of section 272BB or sub-section (1) of section 272BBB or clause

MAHARASHTRA STATE PHARMACY COUNCIL,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-NATIONAL FACELESS, DELHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

271G, section 271GA, section 271GB, section 271H, section 271-I, i[section 271Jd clause (c) or clause (c/) of sub-section (1) or sub- section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or section 272B or subsection (1) or sub-section (1A) of section 272BB or sub-section (1) of section 272BBB or clause

MAHARASHTRA STATE PHARMACY COUNCIL,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-NATIONAL FACELESS, DELHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

271G, section 271GA, section 271GB, section 271H, section 271-I, i[section 271Jd clause (c) or clause (c/) of sub-section (1) or sub- section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or section 272B or subsection (1) or sub-section (1A) of section 272BB or sub-section (1) of section 272BBB or clause

MAHARASHTRA STATE PHARMACY COUNCIL,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-NATIONAL FACELESS, DELHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

271G, section 271GA, section 271GB, section 271H, section 271-I, i[section 271Jd clause (c) or clause (c/) of sub-section (1) or sub- section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or section 272B or subsection (1) or sub-section (1A) of section 272BB or sub-section (1) of section 272BBB or clause

MAHARASHTRA STATE PHARMACY COUNCIL ,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-NATIONAL FACELESS, DELHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

271G, section 271GA, section 271GB, section 271H, section 271-I, i[section 271Jd clause (c) or clause (c/) of sub-section (1) or sub- section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or section 272B or subsection (1) or sub-section (1A) of section 272BB or sub-section (1) of section 272BBB or clause

ROHIT LALIT SANGHAVI,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG (3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2010-11

TDS had been deducted and paid in time. The Ld. AR relying on the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 0026 submitted that the impugned order is not in accordance with the law laid down by the 3 Assessment Year

ANAND RATHI SHARE AND STOCK BROKERS LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

271G,]] 19 19[section 271GA,] 20[section 271GB section 271GB,] 21[section 271GC,] 22 22[section 271H,] 23[section 271 section 271-I,] 24[section 271J,] clause (c) or ,] clause (c) or clause (d) of sub clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section (1) of section

ANAND RATHI SHARE AND STOCK BROKERS LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

271G,]] 19 19[section 271GA,] 20[section 271GB section 271GB,] 21[section 271GC,] 22 22[section 271H,] 23[section 271 section 271-I,] 24[section 271J,] clause (c) or ,] clause (c) or clause (d) of sub clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section (1) of section

ANAND RATHI SHARE AND STOCK BROKERS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

271G,]] 19 19[section 271GA,] 20[section 271GB section 271GB,] 21[section 271GC,] 22 22[section 271H,] 23[section 271 section 271-I,] 24[section 271J,] clause (c) or ,] clause (c) or clause (d) of sub clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section (1) of section

ANAND RATHI SHARE AND STOCK BROKERS LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

271G,]] 19 19[section 271GA,] 20[section 271GB section 271GB,] 21[section 271GC,] 22 22[section 271H,] 23[section 271 section 271-I,] 24[section 271J,] clause (c) or ,] clause (c) or clause (d) of sub clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section (1) of section

ACIT 10(1), MUMBAI vs. KODAK GRAPHIC COMMUNICATION ( I) P.LTD ( FORMERLY KODAK POLYCROME GRAFIC INDIA P.LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Amit Shukla

TDS on the entire payment @ 15.7% made to the AE, the detail of which were produced before the AO. On these facts, it cannot be held that ALP adjustment can be or should be taken at “Nil”. Ld. Counsel before us further stated that the observation and finding of the Tribunal in the quantum order (which has been reproduced

THOMAS COOK (INDIA) LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/ JT/ DY/CIT/ASSTT/ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Ble

271G of the Act for allegedly furnishing inaccurate particulars, concealing the taxable income and failure to maintain documents relating to alleged Transactions as per Section 92D of the Act The Assessee craves leave to add and submit such further facts, statements, documents and papers as may be considered necessary either before or during the hearing of the objections.” 15. After

SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (IT) 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, grounds No

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

TDS of Rs. 5.64 crores Ground no 6 to 11 TP grounds Ground no 12 Penalty u/s 271G Ground no 13 Levy of interest u/s 234B Ground no. 14 Initiation of penalty proceedings under Section

TATA INTERNATIONAL LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 7(3), MUMBAI

Section 14-A of the Act read with Rule 8-D made by them.\n5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A)\nhas erred in not granting the TDS credit as appearing in 26AS not granting credit for\ntax deducted at source actually deducted by payers of the income