DCIT CC 5-1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED , MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED, MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

DCIT 9(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. FUTURA VALUE RETAIL LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6705/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिाम/ Acit-9(3)(2), M/S. Future Value 418, 4Th Floor, Retail Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Knowledge House, V. Mumbai-400020 Shyam Nagar, Off Jogeshwari Vikhroli Link Road, Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai-400060 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaecp3041P (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri. Sushil Kumar Poddar (Dr) Assessee By: Ms. Dinkle Hariya सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 12.06.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.07.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 6705/Mum/2016, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 23.08.2016, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16,Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”) In Ita No. Cit(A)/ I.T.305/Dcit-9(3)(2)/2015-16, For Assessment Year 2012-13, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 29.03.2015 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2012-13. I.T.A. No.6705/Mum/2016

282 ITR 7/150 Taxman 30 wherein it held:— "No doubt, payment of commission or brokerage in relation to sale or purchase of goods also would attract deduction of tax at source under section 194H of the Act. However, such situation arises only when there is involvement of services of a third party on payment other than the seller

DCIT CC 5 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LTD, MUMBAI

282(2) of the Act for service of notice,\nsummons, requisition order and other communications. The\nld. Departmental Representative has pointed that since the\nassessment order communicated to the assessee originated\nfrom the designated E-mail ID of the Assessing Officer,\ntherefore, in terms of Rule 127A, the said document shall be\ndeemed to be authenticated. The said argument

NAV-ALKA CO-OP. HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CELL,, GHAZIBAD

In the result, both appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act), amounting to Rs.39,400/- for the fourth quarter relating to TDS Form No.26Q (Assessment Year 2014-15) and Rs.7,282

NAV-ALKA CO-OP. HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CELL,, GHAZIBAD

In the result, both appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act), amounting to Rs.39,400/- for the fourth quarter relating to TDS Form No.26Q (Assessment Year 2014-15) and Rs.7,282

DCIT CIR 6(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. CORSA HOLDINGS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the Cross

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2012-2013 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Corsa Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Tax, Circle 6(2)(1), Plot No. 435, Baburao Parulekar R. No. 563, Aayakar Bhavan, Marg, Near Shardashram, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Vs. Dadar (West), Mumbai - 20 Mumbai - 400028 Pan: Aabcv1747M (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 218/Mum/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 1568/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2012-2013 M/S Corsa Holdings Pvt. Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Plot No. 435, Baburao Parulekar Tax, Circle 6(2)(1), Marg, Near Shardashram, Room No. 563, 5Th Floor, Dadar (West), Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai - 400028 M.K. Road, Churchgate, Pan: Aabcv1747M Mumbai - 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Abi Rama Kartikiyen (Dr) Assessee By : Shri Sanjay R. Parikh (Ar) Date Of Hearing: 09/01/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 29/01/2019

Section 14A (2) of the Act empowers the AO to determine the amount of expenditure incurred in relation to the income which does not form part of the total income under the Act in accordance with the method prescribed under rule 8D of the rules, in case he is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee

CITIZENCREDIT CO OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED ( BORIVILI BRANCH),MUMBAI vs. ITO (TDS)1(1)(4), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

282 was paid by the Appellant to other co-operative societies (not being members of the Appellant) and hence, no tax was required to be deducted at source on the same u/s. 194A(3)(v) of the I. T. Act, 1961. P a g e | 3 ITA No. 2374, 2375, 2376, 2377, 2378, 2379, 2380, 2381/Mum/2025 A.Y. 2016-17 Citizen

RAVI DEVELOPMENTS,MUMBAI vs. PCIT(CENTRAL),PUNE, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

282, the revision proceedings under section 263 of the Act on this issue cannot be upheld. Further, as noted above, during the assessment proceedings, the AO called for details regarding the opening and closing stock, which was duly provided by the assessee and therefore it cannot be said that there was no enquiry by the AO on this issue. Accordingly

SOLVAY SPECIALITIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 16(2) / ASSESSMENT UNIT, NFAC, MUMBAI

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

Bench: MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member), SHRI. GIRISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 37(1) of the Act 4.3 The Appellant prays that the interest on delayed payment of TDS of INR 8,55,423 be allowed. 5. No variation can be made while passing the final assessment order from the additions and disallowance made in the draft assessment order 5.1. On the facts and circumstance of the case

CITIZENCREDIT CO OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED (VAKOLA BRANCH),MUMBAI vs. ITO (TDS)1(1)4, MUMBAI

In the results, all the appeals of the assessee are\ndismissed

282 was paid by the Appellant to other co-operative\nsocieties (not being members of the Appellant) and hence, no tax was\nrequired to be deducted at source on the same u/s.194A(3)(v) of the I.\nT. Act, 1961.\nPage 3\nITA No. 2374, 2375, 2376, 2377, 2378, 2379, 2380, 2381/Mum/2025\nΑ.Υ. 2016-17\nCitizen Credit Cooperative Bank

CITIZENCREDIT CO OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED (SANTACRUZ BRANCH),MUMBAI vs. ITO (TDS) 1 (1)(4), MUMBAI

In the results, all the appeals of the assessee are\ndismissed

282 was paid by the Appellant to other co-operative\nsocieties (not being members of the Appellant) and hence, no tax was\nrequired to be deducted at source on the same u/s.194A(3)(v) of the I.\nT. Act, 1961.\n\nPage | 3\nITA No. 2374, 2375, 2376, 2377, 2378, 2379, 2380, 2381/Mum/2025\nΑ.Υ. 2016-17\nCitizen Credit Cooperative

CITIZENCREDIT CO OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED ( MULUND BRANCH),MUMBAI vs. ITO (TDS)-1(1)(4) , MUMBAI

In the results, all the appeals of the assessee are\ndismissed

282 was paid by the Appellant to other co-operative\nsocieties (not being members of the Appellant) and hence, no tax was\nrequired to be deducted at source on the same u/s.194A(3)(v) of the I.\nT. Act, 1961.\n(b) the Appellant was a co-operative society u/s.2(19) of I. T. Act, 1961 and\nhence, the Appellant

CITIZENCREDIT CO OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED ( KURLA BRANCH),MUMBAI vs. ITO (TDS)1(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the results, all the appeals of the assessee are\ndismissed

282 was paid by the Appellant to other co-operative\nsocieties (not being members of the Appellant) and hence, no tax was\nrequired to be deducted at source on the same u/s.194A(3)(v) of the I.\nT. Act, 1961.\nPage | 3\nITA No. 2374, 2375, 2376, 2377, 2378, 2379, 2380, 2381/Mum/2025\nΑ.Υ. 2016-17\nCitizen Credit Cooperative Bank

CITIZENCREDIT CO OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED (MALAD BRANCH),MUMBAI vs. ITO (TDS)1(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the results, all the appeals of the assessee are\ndismissed

282 was paid by the Appellant to other co-operative\nsocieties (not being members of the Appellant) and hence, no tax was\nrequired to be deducted at source on the same u/s.194A(3)(v) of the I.\nT. Act, 1961.\nPage | 3\nITA No. 2374, 2375, 2376, 2377, 2378, 2379, 2380, 2381/Mum/2025\nΑ.Υ. 2016-17\nCitizen Credit Cooperative Bank

CITIZENCREDIT CO OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED (TURNER ROAD BRANCH),MUMBAI vs. ITO (TDS)1(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the results, all the appeals of the assessee are\ndismissed

282 was paid by the Appellant to other co-operative\nsocieties (not being members of the Appellant) and hence, no tax was\nrequired to be deducted at source on the same u/s.194A(3)(v) of the I.\nT. Act, 1961.\nPage 3\nITA No. 2374, 2375, 2376, 2377, 2378, 2379, 2380, 2381/Mum/2025\nΑ.Υ. 2016-17\nCitizen Credit Cooperative Bank

DCIT 8(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. VOLTAS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal Revenue is dismissed

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

TDS for a sum of ₹ 1,78,81,510/-. But the AO did not grant interest on refund of ₹ 4,66,63,682/- arising out of self-assessment tax paid by assessee company amounting to ₹ 20 crores. The AO’s observation was that interest under section 244A(1)(b) of the Act is not applicable as the refund amount