ITO (TDS) (OSD) 1(2), MUMBAI vs. ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK (INDIA) LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ito (Tds)(Osd) Entertainment Network (I) Ltd. 1(2) Trade Garden, Gr. Floor, Kamala बनाम/ R.No.811 K.G. Mill Compound, Senapati Bapat Vs. Mittal Hospital Marg, Lower Parel,(W) Bldg. Charni Rd Mumbai-400013 Mumbai-400002 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaace7796G Revenue By Shri Vishwas Mundhe (Dr) Respondent By Shri Mayur Kisnadwala (Ar) सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 15/12/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order: 11/01/2017

288 and ACIT v. T.V. Today Network Ltd. (ITA No.3943/Del/2006 15th July 2011). Reliance was also placed on the CBDT Circular No.5/2016 dated 29.02.2016 regarding applicability of TDS provisions on payments made by television channels to medial agencies. It was also submitted that in subsequent years TDS returns were processed by the AO wherein no such issue has been raised

ITO (TDS) (OSD) 1(2), MUMBAI vs. ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK (I) LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ito (Tds)(Osd) Entertainment Network (I) Ltd. 1(2) Trade Garden, Gr. Floor, Kamala बनाम/ R.No.811 K.G. Mill Compound, Senapati Bapat Vs. Mittal Hospital Marg, Lower Parel,(W) Bldg. Charni Rd Mumbai-400013 Mumbai-400002 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaace7796G Revenue By Shri Vishwas Mundhe (Dr) Respondent By Shri Mayur Kisnadwala (Ar) सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 15/12/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order: 11/01/2017

288 and ACIT v. T.V. Today Network Ltd. (ITA No.3943/Del/2006 15th July 2011). Reliance was also placed on the CBDT Circular No.5/2016 dated 29.02.2016 regarding applicability of TDS provisions on payments made by television channels to medial agencies. It was also submitted that in subsequent years TDS returns were processed by the AO wherein no such issue has been raised

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

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

Section 288 of the Act in this respect which is correct. 6. Ironically, in appeal proceedings the very first ground of appeal states that adequate opportunity has not been given. Other than the ground of appeal nothing has been said to substantiate the claim. It is further stressed that no case has been Made out before me that there were

ROYAL WESTERN INDIA TURF CLUB LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT TDS 3(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi: A.Y : 2012-13

TDS. 6. The next argument put-forth by the learned representative was that specific provisions prevail over general provisions. As per the learned representative, Section 194BB of the Act is a specific provision applicable in case of winnings from horse races. It is contended that a specific provision overrules a general provision, provided both the provisions operate in the same

TATA SKY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. A.C.I.T.(TDS) RG.3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed and the Revenue’s appeal stands

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

section 194 is not attracted. He submitted that book entries passed by the assessee are in 26. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in addition to the normal (primary) discount given to the distributors, the distributors are also given occasional (secondary) discounts like festival discount, quantity discount etc. to encourage them to sell higher quantities of products

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘Act') by the Addl./JCIT (A) – 10, Delhi, Office of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), dated 05.09.2025 [in short, ‘CIT(A)'] for the assessment years (AYs) 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20. Since the issues in these appeal are similar except variance in amounts, therefore, with

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘Act') by the Addl./JCIT (A) – 10, Delhi, Office of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), dated 05.09.2025 [in short, ‘CIT(A)'] for the assessment years (AYs) 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20. Since the issues in these appeal are similar except variance in amounts, therefore, with

CITIZEN CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD (KALINA BRANCH),MUMBAI vs. ITO (TDS)-1(1)(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘Act') by the Addl./JCIT (A) – 10, Delhi, Office of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), dated 05.09.2025 [in short, ‘CIT(A)'] for the assessment years (AYs) 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20. Since the issues in these appeal are similar except variance in amounts, therefore, with

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘Act') by the Addl./JCIT (A) – 10, Delhi, Office of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), dated 05.09.2025 [in short, ‘CIT(A)'] for the assessment years (AYs) 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20. Since the issues in these appeal are similar except variance in amounts, therefore, with

CITIZEN CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD (VIKHROLI BRANCH),MUMBAI vs. ITO (TDS)-1(1)(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'Act') by the Addl./JCIT (A) – 10, Delhi, Office of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), dated 05.09.2025 [in short, 'CIT(A)'] for the assessment years (AYs) 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20. Since the issues in these appeal are similar except variance in amounts, therefore, with

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘Act') by the Addl./JCIT (A) – 10, Delhi, Office of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), dated 05.09.2025 [in short, ‘CIT(A)'] for the assessment years (AYs) 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20. Since the issues in these appeal are similar except variance in amounts, therefore, with

CITIZEN CREDIT CO.OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. ITO (TDS)-1(1)(4),, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘Act') by the Addl./JCIT (A) – 10, Delhi, Office of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), dated 05.09.2025 [in short, ‘CIT(A)'] for the assessment years (AYs) 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20. Since the issues in these appeal are similar except variance in amounts, therefore, with

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘Act') by the Addl./JCIT (A) – 10, Delhi, Office of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), dated 05.09.2025 [in short, ‘CIT(A)'] for the assessment years (AYs) 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20. Since the issues in these appeal are similar except variance in amounts, therefore, with

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

288) and Interest of Rs.3,73,066/- (3,60,922 + 12,144) u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the I.T. Act, 1961, aggregating to Rs.8,11,969/- deserves to be deleted in toto. Your Appellant craves leave, to add, alter, modify or delete all or any of the grounds of the appeal." ITA No.6038/M/2025 (AY 2016-17): The facts

CITIZEN CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD (SAHAR BRANCH),MUMBAI vs. ITO (TDS)-1(1)(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘Act') by the Addl./JCIT (A) – 10, Delhi, Office of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), dated 05.09.2025 [in short, ‘CIT(A)'] for the assessment years (AYs) 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20. Since the issues in these appeal are similar except variance in amounts, therefore, with

CITIZEN CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO (TDS)-1(1)(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'Act') by the Addl./JCIT (A) – 10, Delhi, Office of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), dated 05.09.2025 [in short, 'CIT(A)'] for the assessment years (AYs) 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20. Since the issues in these appeal are similar except variance in amounts, therefore, with

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘Act') by the Addl./JCIT (A) – 10, Delhi, Office of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), dated 05.09.2025 [in short, ‘CIT(A)'] for the assessment years (AYs) 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20. Since the issues in these appeal are similar except variance in amounts, therefore, with

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘Act') by the Addl./JCIT (A) – 10, Delhi, Office of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), dated 05.09.2025 [in short, ‘CIT(A)'] for the assessment years (AYs) 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20. Since the issues in these appeal are similar except variance in amounts, therefore, with

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘Act') by the Addl./JCIT (A) – 10, Delhi, Office of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), dated 05.09.2025 [in short, ‘CIT(A)'] for the assessment years (AYs) 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20. Since the issues in these appeal are similar except variance in amounts, therefore, with