K D LITE DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE 1(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

TDS under section M/s. K D LITE DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED 194A - Held, yes [Para 12] [In favour of assessee] HIGH COURT OF Section 4 read with sections 2(28A) and BOMBAY 194A, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - RupeshRashmi Income - Chargeable as (Interest on Kant Shah compensation) - Whether interest v. awarded on compensation in motor Union of India* accident claim

K D LITE DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE 1(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

TDS under section M/s. K D LITE DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED 194A - Held, yes [Para 12] [In favour of assessee] HIGH COURT OF Section 4 read with sections 2(28A) and BOMBAY 194A, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - RupeshRashmi Income - Chargeable as (Interest on Kant Shah compensation) - Whether interest v. awarded on compensation in motor Union of India* accident claim

K D LITE DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE 1(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

TDS under section 194A Held, yes [Para 12] [In favour of assessee] HIGH COURT OF | Section 4 read with sections 2(28A) and BOMBAY 194A, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 RupeshRashmi | Income Chargeable as (Interest on Kant Shah compensation) Whether interest υ. awarded on compensation in motor Union of India* accident claim cases from date of Claim WRIT PETITION

K D LITE DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE 1(3),, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

TDS under section 20 194A Held, yes [Para 12] [In favour of assessee] HIGH COURT OF | Section 4 read with sections 2(28A) and BOMBAY RupeshRashmi Kant Shah v. Union of India* WRIT PETITION NO.2902 2016 OF 194A, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Income Chargeable as (Interest on compensation) Whether interest awarded on compensation in motor accident claim cases

K D LITE DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE 1(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

TDS under section 194A Held, yes [Para 12] [In favour of assessee] HIGH COURT OF | Section 4 read with sections 2(28A) and BOMBAY 194A, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 RupeshRashmi Income Chargeable as (Interest on Kant Shah compensation) Whether interest υ. Union of India* WRIT PETITION | awarded on compensation in motor NO.2902 OF | accident claim cases from date

ITO (TDS) 3(5), MUMBAI vs. WIRE & WIRELESS (INDIA) LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2006-07 & Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito (Tds) 3(5), Wire & Wireless (India) Ltd. R.No.1008, 10Th Floor, Madhu Industrial Estate, 4Th बनाम/ Smt. K.G. Mittal Floor, Pandurang Budhkar Vs. Ayurvedic Hospital Marg, Worli Bldg, Charni Rd, (W) Mumbai-400018 Mumbai-400002 (Revenue) (Respondent) P.A. No.Mumv15600E Revenue By Shri Awungshi Gimsen & Shri Nitin Waghmode (Dr) Respondent By Shri Vijay Mehta (Ar) सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 20/01/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order: 24/02/2016

section 194C, “work includes broadcasting and telecasting including production of programmes”. We are also helped by the order of the coordinate Bench of ITAT Mumbai in the case of ACIT(TDS) vs UTV Entertainment Television Ltd., ITA No. 2699/Mum/2012, wherein the ITAT held that while making the payment of carriage fee to cable operators, TDS has to be deducted

ITO (TDS) 3(5), MUMBAI vs. WIRE & WIRELESS (INDIA) LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2006-07 & Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito (Tds) 3(5), Wire & Wireless (India) Ltd. R.No.1008, 10Th Floor, Madhu Industrial Estate, 4Th बनाम/ Smt. K.G. Mittal Floor, Pandurang Budhkar Vs. Ayurvedic Hospital Marg, Worli Bldg, Charni Rd, (W) Mumbai-400018 Mumbai-400002 (Revenue) (Respondent) P.A. No.Mumv15600E Revenue By Shri Awungshi Gimsen & Shri Nitin Waghmode (Dr) Respondent By Shri Vijay Mehta (Ar) सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 20/01/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order: 24/02/2016

section 194C, “work includes broadcasting and telecasting including production of programmes”. We are also helped by the order of the coordinate Bench of ITAT Mumbai in the case of ACIT(TDS) vs UTV Entertainment Television Ltd., ITA No. 2699/Mum/2012, wherein the ITAT held that while making the payment of carriage fee to cable operators, TDS has to be deducted

CRESCENT CONSTRUCTION CO.,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 22(3), NAVI MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06

285 were made. 2.24. Under the new provisions of section 147, an assessment can be reopened if the Assessing Officer has "reason to believe" that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment; but if he wants to do so after a period of four years from the end of the assessment year, he can do so only if the assessee

ITO 22(3)(1), NAVI MUMBAI vs. CRESCENT CONSTRUCTION, NAVI MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06

285 were made. 2.24. Under the new provisions of section 147, an assessment can be reopened if the Assessing Officer has "reason to believe" that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment; but if he wants to do so after a period of four years from the end of the assessment year, he can do so only if the assessee

ROSE ROCK REAL ESTATE INDIA PVT.,MUMBAI vs. ITO (TDS) 2(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, these appeals are allowed

TDS quarterly statement cannot be recovered by way of processing under section sec 200A. Therefore demand notice cannot be issued under this section, but if issued, then it is illegal. Hence liable to be cancelled. 3. That the Provisions of Sec. 204 of the Act has made the person responsible for Sec. 190 to Sec. 203AA and Sec. 285

PROCTER AND GAMBLE HEALTH PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -8 , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

285\n26,843,136 TDS on Contracts\nSales promotion\nVarious Partics\n10\nNot Pard\n3,197,864\n959,359 TDS on Contracts\nWarehousing\nVarious Parties\n11\nNot Paid\n5,000,000\n1,500,000 TDS on Contracts\nDismantling costs\nVarious Parties\n12\nNot Paid\n882,738\n264,821 TDS on Rent\nRent\nVarious Parties\n13\nNot Paid

ROTEX MANUFACTURERS AND ENGINEERS PVT LTD,RABALE, NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT, TDS CIRCLE, THANE, THANE WEST

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Girish Agrawal & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

TDS done against the two TANs of the assessee and the respective compliance made thereon after which necessary relief be given to assessee. 12. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. We have given our thoughtful consideration on the application Rotex Manufacturers and Engineers Pvt. Ltd., AY 2014-15 of the relevant provisions

ROTEX MANUFACTURERS AND ENGINEERS PVT LTD,RABALE, NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT, TDS CIRCLE, THANE, THANE WEST

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Girish Agrawal & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

TDS done against the two TANs of the assessee and the respective compliance made thereon after which necessary relief be given to assessee. 12. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. We have given our thoughtful consideration on the application Rotex Manufacturers and Engineers Pvt. Ltd., AY 2014-15 of the relevant provisions

ROTEX MANUFACTURERS AND ENGINEERS PVT LTD,RABALE, NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT, TDS CIRCLE, THANE, THANE WEST

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Girish Agrawal & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

TDS done against the two TANs of the assessee and the respective compliance made thereon after which necessary relief be given to assessee. 12. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. We have given our thoughtful consideration on the application Rotex Manufacturers and Engineers Pvt. Ltd., AY 2014-15 of the relevant provisions

DCIT (TDS)(OSD)-2(3), MUMBAI vs. UBER INDIA SYSTEMS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

TDS Assessing Officer take a divergent view on the same issue by changing the nature of business carried out by the assessee. 3.5.11. We further find that the legislature in its wisdom had duly provided for the relevant provisions in the Act by specifically mentioning mere remitter of money to deduct tax at source as is provided in section

ACIT 26(1), MUMBAI vs. DEVESH JANI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Devesh N Jani Vs. Acit 21(2) 372/8 Vasant Chs Ltd., Bhaudaji Mumbai Road, Matunga Mumbai – 400019 Pan No. Aepj2009J Assessment Year: 2011-12 Acit 21(2) Vs. Shri Devesh N Jani R. No. 508, C-10, 5Th Floor, 372/8, Vasant Chs Ltd., Bkc ,Bandra (E), Bhaudaji Road, Matunga, Mumbai – 400051 Mumbai – 400019 Pan No. Aeipj2009J (Appellant) (Respondent)

285, it has been held that the license fee charged by a Municipal Corporation from the assessee for granting license to the assessee to construct a hotel on a plot of land is of the nature of land revenue and as such it would be out of purview of section 43B as it is clearly arising out of a contractual

DEVESH N JANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 21(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Devesh N Jani Vs. Acit 21(2) 372/8 Vasant Chs Ltd., Bhaudaji Mumbai Road, Matunga Mumbai – 400019 Pan No. Aepj2009J Assessment Year: 2011-12 Acit 21(2) Vs. Shri Devesh N Jani R. No. 508, C-10, 5Th Floor, 372/8, Vasant Chs Ltd., Bkc ,Bandra (E), Bhaudaji Road, Matunga, Mumbai – 400051 Mumbai – 400019 Pan No. Aeipj2009J (Appellant) (Respondent)

285, it has been held that the license fee charged by a Municipal Corporation from the assessee for granting license to the assessee to construct a hotel on a plot of land is of the nature of land revenue and as such it would be out of purview of section 43B as it is clearly arising out of a contractual

UTI MUTUAL FUND,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRALISED PROCESSING CELL-TDS, TRACES, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2295/Mum/2018 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) बिाम/ Uti Mutual Fund, Dcit, Centralised Gn Block, Uti Tower, Processing Cell-Tds, Bandra Complex, Traces, V. Bandra (E), Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai-400051 Sector-3, Vaishali, Ghaziabad, Up- 201010 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaatu1088L (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Krupa Gandhi Revenue By: Shri. Rajeev Gubgotra (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 13.06.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01.07.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being

285 (Allahabad) c)E.I.DuPont India Private Ltd v. Dy. CIT. CPC - TDS , ITA No. 386 & 387/ Del 2016) (Delhi Tribunal) d)Oil & Natural Gas Commission v. ACIT (TDS) (ITA No. 1955 to 1965 Ahd/2015) (Ahmedabad SMC Bench) e)Navayuga Quazigund Expressway (P) Ltd., v. DCIT (ITA no. 1651/Hyd/14) (Hyderabad) f) Bank of Baroda v. DCIT, CPC, TDS [(2017) 88 taxmann.com

ADIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI vs. TAJ TV LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sri Amit Shukla,Jm & Sri Ashwani Taneja,Am

TDS at the time of making the payments. Accordingly, disallowance under section 40(a)(i) could not have been made by the AO and the order of the CIT(A) is affirmed. Ground No.2(a) & (b) raised by the revenue are dismissed. 21. So f ar as ground No.3 is concerned, that th e distribution of income should be taxable