DISHA DISTRIBUTORS,MUMBAI 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 Garg

28. The perusal of Memo explaining the provision relating to insertion of clause (c) to section 200A of the Act clarifies the intention of Legislature in inserting the said provision. The provisions of section 234E of the Act were inserted by the Finance Act, 2012, under which the provision was made for levy of fees for late furnishing TDS

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

28. The perusal of Memo explaining the provision relating to insertion of clause (c) to section 200A of the Act clarifies the intention of Legislature in inserting the said provision. The provisions of section 234E of the Act were inserted by the Finance Act, 2012, under which the provision was made for levy of fees for late furnishing TDS

ACIT CENT. CIR5(4) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. INFINITE BUILDCON PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

section 28(iv) of the Act. Since the AO had assessed Rs.49,79,533/- u/s 41(1) of the Act, he assessed the difference amount of Rs.2,15,21,467/- (Rs.2,65,00,000/- (less) Rs.49,78,533/-) u/s 28(iv) of the Act. 8. During the appellate proceedings, the Ld CIT(A) noticed that the amount

ASST CIT 19(3), MUMBAI vs. PAHILAJRAI JAIKISHIN, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1562/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

28(v) of the Act read with Section 2(24)(ve) of the Act after including the afore-said interest income in the hands of the partners. Further, the AO has computed disallowance of Rs. 20,357/- under Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D(2)(i) of Income Tax Rules, 1962 being direct expenses incurred

PAHILAJRAI JAIKISHAN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1562/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

28(v) of the Act read with Section 2(24)(ve) of the Act after including the afore-said interest income in the hands of the partners. Further, the AO has computed disallowance of Rs. 20,357/- under Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D(2)(i) of Income Tax Rules, 1962 being direct expenses incurred

DCIT (OSD)(TDS)-2(3), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL ENERGIES MARKETINGS INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

TDS default under deducted at act by the default under section 201 source default order of the section 201 (1) is of ₹ under section ITA Nos. 127 to 133/Mum/2023 Total Energies Marketing India Pvt. Ltd.; A.Ys. 2013-14 to 19-20 learned (1) is of ₹ 19,480,000 201 (1) is of ₹ assessing 4,731,956 and interest 28

DCIT (OSD)(TDS)-2(3) , MUMBAI vs. TOTAL ENERGIES MARKETING INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

TDS default under deducted at act by the default under section 201 source default order of the section 201 (1) is of ₹ under section ITA Nos. 127 to 133/Mum/2023 Total Energies Marketing India Pvt. Ltd.; A.Ys. 2013-14 to 19-20 learned (1) is of ₹ 19,480,000 201 (1) is of ₹ assessing 4,731,956 and interest 28

DCIT (OSD)(TDS)-2(3), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL ENERGIES MARKETING INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

TDS default under deducted at act by the default under section 201 source default order of the section 201 (1) is of ₹ under section ITA Nos. 127 to 133/Mum/2023 Total Energies Marketing India Pvt. Ltd.; A.Ys. 2013-14 to 19-20 learned (1) is of ₹ 19,480,000 201 (1) is of ₹ assessing 4,731,956 and interest 28

DCIT (OSD)(TDS)-2(3), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL ENERGIES MARKETING INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

TDS default under deducted at act by the default under section 201 source default order of the section 201 (1) is of ₹ under section ITA Nos. 127 to 133/Mum/2023 Total Energies Marketing India Pvt. Ltd.; A.Ys. 2013-14 to 19-20 learned (1) is of ₹ 19,480,000 201 (1) is of ₹ assessing 4,731,956 and interest 28

DCIT (OSD)(TDS)-2(3), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL ENERGIES MARKETING INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

TDS default under deducted at act by the default under section 201 source default order of the section 201 (1) is of ₹ under section ITA Nos. 127 to 133/Mum/2023 Total Energies Marketing India Pvt. Ltd.; A.Ys. 2013-14 to 19-20 learned (1) is of ₹ 19,480,000 201 (1) is of ₹ assessing 4,731,956 and interest 28

DCIT (OSD)(TDS)-2(3), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL ENERGIES MARKETING INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

TDS default under deducted at act by the default under section 201 source default order of the section 201 (1) is of ₹ under section ITA Nos. 127 to 133/Mum/2023 Total Energies Marketing India Pvt. Ltd.; A.Ys. 2013-14 to 19-20 learned (1) is of ₹ 19,480,000 201 (1) is of ₹ assessing 4,731,956 and interest 28

DCIT (OSD)(TDS)-2(3) , MUMBAI vs. TOTAL ENERGIES MARKETING INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

TDS default under deducted at act by the default under section 201 source default order of the section 201 (1) is of ₹ under section ITA Nos. 127 to 133/Mum/2023 Total Energies Marketing India Pvt. Ltd.; A.Ys. 2013-14 to 19-20 learned (1) is of ₹ 19,480,000 201 (1) is of ₹ assessing 4,731,956 and interest 28

DCIT-3(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S IDBI BANK LTD , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit- 3(4) V. M/S. Idbi Bank Ltd 29Th Floor, Center-1 Central Processing Unit (Tds) World Trade Center, Cuffe Parade Plot No. 82/83, Elemach Bldg Mumbai- 400005 Road No. 7, Street No. 15 Midc, Andheri (E) Mumbai- 400093 Pan: Aabci8842G (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Idbi Bank Ltd V. Acit/Dcit-Ltu 22Nd Floor, Idbi Tower 29Th Floor, Centre No. 1 Wtc Complex, Cuffe Parade World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Mumbai- 400005 Mumbai- 400005 Pan: Aabci8842G (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS) World Trade Center, Cuffe Parade Plot No. 82/83, Elemach Bldg Mumbai- 400005 Road No. 7, Street No. 15 MIDC, Andheri (E) Mumbai- 400093 PAN: AABCI8842G (Appellant) (Respondent) M/s. IDBI Bank Ltd v. ACIT/DCIT-LTU 22nd Floor, IDBI Tower 29th floor, Centre No. 1 WTC Complex, Cuffe Parade World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Mumbai- 400005 Mumbai- 400005 PAN: AABCI8842G (Appellant) (Respondent

OCEANEERING INTERNATIONAL GMBH,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IT) 3(2)(2), AIR INDIA BUILDING, MUMBAI

In the result, ground no. 2 of the assessee's appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

28 to 43. The deemed income has to be computed on specified amounts only and nothing more can be added which is not within the scope of Section 44B of the Act because Section 44B provides that non-resident is engaged in the business of operation of ships, then sum equal to 7.5% of the amounts referred to Sub-section

IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘I’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

Section 2(19AA) has been violated by the assessee having failed to compensate preference share holders, we have already noted that assessee had not compensated preference share holders by issuing share of the assessee. However, the preference shareholders were Vodafone Idea Limited (Formerly Idea Cellular Limited) compensated as per the terms of the scheme which we have already discussed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-14(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED, MUMBAI

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

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

Section 2(19AA) has been violated by the assessee having failed to compensate preference share holders, we have already noted that assessee had not compensated preference share holders by issuing share of the assessee. However, the preference shareholders were Vodafone Idea Limited (Formerly Idea Cellular Limited) compensated as per the terms of the scheme which we have already discussed

ITO(TDS)-2(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. N ROSE DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri B R Baskaranshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.6328/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year : 2018-19) (Assessment Year : 2019-20) Ito (Tds)-2(3)(1), Room No.909, 9Th Floor, Mtnl Building, Cumbala Hill, Peddar Road, Mumbai - 400026 ............... Appellant V/S N Rose Developers Private Limited, C-1 Building No.3, Sumer Nagar Chs Ltd. ……………… Respondent S.V. Road, Borivali (West), Mumbai -400092 Pan : Aaccn5680J Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Agrawal Revenue By : Ms. Monika H. Pande, Sr.Dr

28,88,500/- under the head ‘Rent to Tenant SRA’ in its profit and loss account for the year under consideration. During the survey proceedings, the assessee was asked whether TDS has been deducted on rent paid to tenant. In response, the assessee submitted that it has not deducted TDS on rent paid to the tenant. Accordingly, notice under section

ITO(TDS)-2(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. N ROSE DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri B R Baskaranshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.6328/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year : 2018-19) (Assessment Year : 2019-20) Ito (Tds)-2(3)(1), Room No.909, 9Th Floor, Mtnl Building, Cumbala Hill, Peddar Road, Mumbai - 400026 ............... Appellant V/S N Rose Developers Private Limited, C-1 Building No.3, Sumer Nagar Chs Ltd. ……………… Respondent S.V. Road, Borivali (West), Mumbai -400092 Pan : Aaccn5680J Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Agrawal Revenue By : Ms. Monika H. Pande, Sr.Dr

28,88,500/- under the head ‘Rent to Tenant SRA’ in its profit and loss account for the year under consideration. During the survey proceedings, the assessee was asked whether TDS has been deducted on rent paid to tenant. In response, the assessee submitted that it has not deducted TDS on rent paid to the tenant. Accordingly, notice under section