BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

264 results for “TDS”+ Section 272clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi331Mumbai264Karnataka105Bangalore88Kolkata51Raipur45Chennai35Ahmedabad25Pune25Hyderabad24Jaipur17Visakhapatnam13Indore10Chandigarh9Nagpur6Jodhpur4Rajkot4Surat3Telangana3Cuttack2Lucknow2Guwahati2Allahabad2Kerala2Patna1Cochin1Agra1

Key Topics

Section 14A170Disallowance67Addition to Income54Section 143(3)49Deduction39Section 26334Section 115J29Section 69C28Section 153A28TDS

THE BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (TDS) 2, MUMBAI

In the result , the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 1999/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1999/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12) बिाम/ The Board Of Control For Acit (Tds) 2 Cricket In India, R.No. 701, 7 Th Floor, Wankhede Stadium, Smt. K.G. Mittal V. “D” Road, Churchgate, Ayurvedic Hospital Mumbai 400020 Bldg., Charni Road, Mumbai-400002 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaatb0186A (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Nitesh Joshi Shri. Anil Sathe Revenue By : Shri. D.G Pansari , Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.10.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 1999/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Date 10.01.2017 Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-60, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2011-12, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Penalty Order Dated 16.12.2011 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 272A(2)(K) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2011-12. I.T.A. No.1999/Mum/2017

For Appellant: Shri. Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri. D.G Pansari , DR
Section 200(3)Section 206Section 272Section 272A(2)

Showing 1–20 of 264 · Page 1 of 14

...
23
Survey u/s 133A17
Section 69A16
Section 272A(2)(k)
Section 273B

TDS returns in terms of section 273B and the penalty under section 272(A)(K) is hereby deleted.” The Hon’ble Lucknow

BAKHTAWAR CONSTRUCTION CO. P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT (TDS) RG 1, MUMBAI

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

ITA 6943/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6943/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ Bakhtawar Construction Co. Addl. Cit (Tds) Rg 1 P. Ltd, Meher House, 10T H Floor, K.G. Mittal 1St Floor, Casasji Patel Street Ayurvedic Hosptial Bldg, V. Fort, Bombay 400001 Charni Road(W) Mumbai 400002 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacb4942P (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri. Amogh M. GhaisasFor Respondent: Shri. Suman Kumar (DR)
Section 194CSection 272A(2)(k)

Section 272(A)(2k) contemplates that an offence is committed on the non-filing of TDS return on time, and is totally

M/S PODDAR FININ CONSULTANCY P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-7(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 1860/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1860/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Poddar Finin Consultancy बिधम/ Ito Ward Pvt. Ltd. Maharashtra-410206. Vs. 4A/B, Ground Floor, Tk Industries Estate, Sitaram Palturam Murai Marg, Mumbai- 400015. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagcp3938D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri R. A. Dhyani (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 06.08.2020 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Thane [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1) The Assessment Order Passed By The Id. Assessing Officer (Ao) Is Invalid & Bad In Law. 2) (A) The Id. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)] Erred In Law & Facts In Confirming The Action Of The Ld. Assessing Officer

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani (Sr. AR)
Section 143(2)Section 35DSection 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

TDS is to be made on the 'rent'. The expression 'rent' is given much wider meaning under this provision than what is normally known in common parlance. In the first instance, it means any payment which is made under any lease, sub- lease, tenancy. Once the payment is made under lease, sub-lease or tenancy, the nomenclature which is given

AFCONS SIBMOST JOINT VENT VENTURE,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 24 (1) (1) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 3168/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala & M.M
Section 143(1)Section 194CSection 199

section 143(1) of the Act determining the refund of the assessee as Rs. 28,93,713/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and the AO accepted the income returned by the assessee in the revised return but the AO thereby did not grant credit for TDS of Rs.2,76,47,272

LOTUS ENERGY (I) LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT RG 8, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4355/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4355/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) M/S Lotus Energy (India) Commissioner Of Income बनाम/ Ltd., Tax- Range 8, V. 409, Laxmi Plaza, 2 Nd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Laxmi Industrial Estate, M.K. Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai. Mumbai -400053. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aabcl6119K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32Section 40

272/- and on this interest TDS has been deducted @ 10.20% whereas the actual TDS should have been deducted @ 22.44%. Thus on the pro-rata basis the payment of interest of Rs. 4,19,636/- was allowable and balance payment of interest amounting to Rs. 4,19,636/- was disallowable u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act .As such disallowance

MUNICIAPL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (TDS) 1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, impugned order is set aside and the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1030/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Rajesh Kumarआअसं.1024 से 1031/मुं/2019 ("न. व. 2011-12 & 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Jaiswal /
Section 154Section 194CSection 2Section 200ASection 201

section 154 of the Act. The assessee had filed rectification petition seeking correction in the date of tendering/deposit of challans along with cheque. The prayer of the assessee was to consider date of tendering/deposit of cheque in the bank as deemed date of payment of TDS amount instead of date of realization of the cheque. Reference was made to CBDT

M/S MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, impugned order is set aside and the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1027/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Rajesh Kumarआअसं.1024 से 1031/मुं/2019 ("न. व. 2011-12 & 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Jaiswal
Section 154Section 194CSection 2Section 200ASection 201

section 154 of the Act. The assessee had filed rectification petition seeking correction in the date of tendering/deposit of challans along with cheque. The prayer of the assessee was to consider date of tendering/deposit of cheque in the bank as deemed date of payment of TDS amount instead of date of realization of the cheque. Reference was made to CBDT

MUNICIAPL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (TDS) 1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, impugned order is set aside and the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1028/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Rajesh Kumarआअसं.1024 से 1031/मुं/2019 ("न. व. 2011-12 & 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Jaiswal
Section 154Section 194CSection 2Section 200ASection 201

section 154 of the Act. The assessee had filed rectification petition seeking correction in the date of tendering/deposit of challans along with cheque. The prayer of the assessee was to consider date of tendering/deposit of cheque in the bank as deemed date of payment of TDS amount instead of date of realization of the cheque. Reference was made to CBDT

M/S MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, impugned order is set aside and the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1024/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Rajesh Kumarआअसं.1024 से 1031/मुं/2019 ("न. व. 2011-12 & 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Jaiswal /
Section 154Section 194CSection 2Section 200ASection 201

section 154 of the Act. The assessee had filed rectification petition seeking correction in the date of tendering/deposit of challans along with cheque. The prayer of the assessee was to consider date of tendering/deposit of cheque in the bank as deemed date of payment of TDS amount instead of date of realization of the cheque. Reference was made to CBDT

M/S MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, impugned order is set aside and the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1025/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Rajesh Kumarआअसं.1024 से 1031/मुं/2019 ("न. व. 2011-12 & 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Jaiswal /
Section 154Section 194CSection 2Section 200ASection 201

section 154 of the Act. The assessee had filed rectification petition seeking correction in the date of tendering/deposit of challans along with cheque. The prayer of the assessee was to consider date of tendering/deposit of cheque in the bank as deemed date of payment of TDS amount instead of date of realization of the cheque. Reference was made to CBDT

M/S MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, impugned order is set aside and the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1026/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Rajesh Kumarआअसं.1024 से 1031/मुं/2019 ("न. व. 2011-12 & 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Jaiswal
Section 154Section 194CSection 2Section 200ASection 201

section 154 of the Act. The assessee had filed rectification petition seeking correction in the date of tendering/deposit of challans along with cheque. The prayer of the assessee was to consider date of tendering/deposit of cheque in the bank as deemed date of payment of TDS amount instead of date of realization of the cheque. Reference was made to CBDT

MUNICIAPL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (TDS) 1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, impugned order is set aside and the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1031/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Rajesh Kumarआअसं.1024 से 1031/मुं/2019 ("न. व. 2011-12 & 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Jaiswal /
Section 154Section 194CSection 2Section 200ASection 201

section 154 of the Act. The assessee had filed rectification petition seeking correction in the date of tendering/deposit of challans along with cheque. The prayer of the assessee was to consider date of tendering/deposit of cheque in the bank as deemed date of payment of TDS amount instead of date of realization of the cheque. Reference was made to CBDT

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

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

ITA 5252/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2016AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Ms. Rutuja N. PawarFor Respondent: Shri. Nitin Waghmode
Section 206Section 271Section 271ASection 271BSection 271CSection 271DSection 271ESection 271FSection 271GSection 271H

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

MR. SABLE YASHWANT LAXMAN,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. CIT, TDS RG, THANE

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

ITA 4240/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mr. Sable Yashwant Laxman, Addl. Cit- Tds Range, Sable Appartments, Shantinagar, Vs. Thane. Next To Hotel Maharaja, Old Mumbai, Khopoli-410 203. Pan No. Pnes 09546 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Viraj Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Yashwant Bhaskar, Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/11/2021

For Appellant: Mr. Viraj Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Yashwant Bhaskar, DR
Section 143(3)Section 200(3)Section 272A(2)(k)

TDS return -Reasonable cause -Levy of penalty was held to be not justified. [S. 272(2) (k), 273B] Allowing the appeal of the assesse, the Tribunal held that, delay in filing quarterly return was duetonon-avilablity of expert staff, who were aware of intricacies of filing e-returns. Tribunal also heldthat provisions of section

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

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

ITA 5943/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2020AY 2013-14

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)

For Appellant: Ms. Samatha, DR byFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta, AR
Section 143(2)Section 195Section 40Section 9

TDS and the said question pertains to raising of combined invoice for providing services as well as reimbursement of expenses without specifically stating separate amounts on the bill. Further the CBDT subsequently in 2014 accepting the Supreme Court decision in case of GE India Technology Private Limited Vs. CIT 327 (ITR) 456 and issued instructions No. 02/2014, dated

KALPANA KUTTY,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 11(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3586/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am Ms. Kalpana Kutty Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax Flat No.1, Sunder House, Ground 11-1 Aayakar Bhavan, K.K. Floor, Shivaji Park, Keluskar Vs. Road, New Marine Lines, Road, Dadar(W), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400028 Pan No.Agipk4160H Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By .. Shri Sc Tiwari, Ar & Ms. Rutuja Pawar, Ar Revenue By .. Shri. Mv Rajguru, Dr Date Of Hearing .. 16-09-2016 Date Of Pronouncement .. 16-09-2016 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 201Section 210Section 40Section 40a

Section 40(a)(ia). 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant’s case and in law, learned Commissioner of Income-tax has erred in not allowing deduction of expenditure where the payee have paid their taxes.” 3. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee is engaged in the business of production of television commercials

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

In the result, the appeals are allowed, as above

ITA 1289/MUM/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2018AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agarwal/For Respondent: Shri M.V.Rajguru
Section 195Section 195(2)

272&273/MUM/2017 pertains to four different assessment years namely, assessment years 2013-14 to 2016-17 and the grievance is against the similarly worded multiple orders of the CIT(A), which in turn arise from the separate orders passed by the Assessing Officer under section 195(2) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (‘ the Act’) of different dates

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

In the result, the appeals are allowed, as above

ITA 262/MUM/2017[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2018AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agarwal/For Respondent: Shri M.V.Rajguru
Section 195Section 195(2)

272&273/MUM/2017 pertains to four different assessment years namely, assessment years 2013-14 to 2016-17 and the grievance is against the similarly worded multiple orders of the CIT(A), which in turn arise from the separate orders passed by the Assessing Officer under section 195(2) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (‘ the Act’) of different dates

ADDL CIT 7(2), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE NATURAL RESOURCES LTD, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6711/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ravish Soodthe Dcit -7(2), Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... Appellant Vs. M/S. Reliance Natural Resources Ltd. H-Block, 1St Floor, Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge City, Thane-Belapur Road, Koperkhairane, Navi Mumbai 400 710 Pan:Aabcr 7656P .... Respondent [ M/S. Reliance Natural Resources Ltd. H-Block, 1St Floor, Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge City, Thane-Belapur Road, Koperkhairane, Navi Mumbai 400 710 Pan:Aabcr 7656P ... Appellant Vs. The Addl.Cit -7(2), Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 .... Respondent Revenue By : Shri Jasbir Chouhan Assessee By : S/Shri Jitendra Sanghavi/ Deepak Jain Date Of Hearing : 17/8/2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 24/08/2016 (Assessment Year : 2008-09) Order Per G.S.Pannu,A.M:

For Appellant: S/Shri Jitendra Sanghavi/ Deepak JainFor Respondent: Shri Jasbir Chouhan
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 37(1)Section 40

TDS under section 195 of the Act on the said payments did not arise. 13.2 The learned D.R. placed reliance on the decision of the AO on this issue. (Assessment Year : 2008-09) 13.3 The learned A.R. for the assessee reiterated the submissions put forth before the learned CIT(A). According to the learned A.R. for the assessee, the said

RELIANCE NATURAL RESOURCES LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 7(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6843/MUM/2012[208-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2016

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ravish Soodthe Dcit -7(2), Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... Appellant Vs. M/S. Reliance Natural Resources Ltd. H-Block, 1St Floor, Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge City, Thane-Belapur Road, Koperkhairane, Navi Mumbai 400 710 Pan:Aabcr 7656P .... Respondent [ M/S. Reliance Natural Resources Ltd. H-Block, 1St Floor, Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge City, Thane-Belapur Road, Koperkhairane, Navi Mumbai 400 710 Pan:Aabcr 7656P ... Appellant Vs. The Addl.Cit -7(2), Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 .... Respondent Revenue By : Shri Jasbir Chouhan Assessee By : S/Shri Jitendra Sanghavi/ Deepak Jain Date Of Hearing : 17/8/2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 24/08/2016 (Assessment Year : 2008-09) Order Per G.S.Pannu,A.M:

For Appellant: S/Shri Jitendra Sanghavi/ Deepak JainFor Respondent: Shri Jasbir Chouhan
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 37(1)Section 40

TDS under section 195 of the Act on the said payments did not arise. 13.2 The learned D.R. placed reliance on the decision of the AO on this issue. (Assessment Year : 2008-09) 13.3 The learned A.R. for the assessee reiterated the submissions put forth before the learned CIT(A). According to the learned A.R. for the assessee, the said