LATE JAYESH THAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, WARD KALYAN, KALYAN

In the result, the appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated in the order

TDS as per Section 234E, the fee payable is provided but the mechanism provided was that if there was failure to furnish statements within the prescribed date, the penalty under Section 271H (1) and (2) could be imposed. However, under sub- section (3

LATE SHRI JAYEESH THAR ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD KALYAN , KALYAN

In the result, the appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated in the order

TDS as per Section 234E, the fee payable is provided but the mechanism provided was that if there was failure to furnish statements within the prescribed date, the penalty under Section 271H (1) and (2) could be imposed. However, under sub- section (3

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

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

section 194A(1) r.w.s.\n194A(3)(i) of the Act, tax is to be deducted on payment or credit of interest, other\nthan interest on securities over a specified amount, i.e., Rs.10,000/-. However,\nthe assessee failed to deduct TDS despite specific provisions to do so. The AO\nissued show cause notice, which is at pages 2

NATIONAL LAMINATE CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. CPC (TDS), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

TDS as per Section 234E, the fee payable is provided but the mechanism provided was that if there was failure to furnish statements within the prescribed date, the penalty under Section 271H (1) and (2) could be imposed. However, under sub-section (3

LAWMEN CONCEPTS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CPC-TDS , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated in the order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

TDS as per Section 234E, the fee payable is provided but the mechanism provided was that if there was failure to furnish statements within the prescribed date, the penalty under Section 271H (1) and (2) could be imposed. However, under sub- section (3

DCIT 10(2), MUMBAI vs. CAPAGEMINI CONSULTING INDIA P. LTD ( NOW KNOWN AS CAPGEMINI INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue stands dismissed and the cross-objection filed by the assessee also dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on 8.12.2008 assessing the total income at Rs.52,62,41,478/-. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened u/s 147 and notice u/s 148 was issued on 31.3.2010. The assessment already completed vide order dated 8.12.2008 was reopened by recording the following reasons: “The assessment u/s 143(3) was completed

CAPGEMINI CONSULTING INIDA P.LTD ( NOW KNOWN AS CAPGEMINI INDIA P.LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT 10(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue stands dismissed and the cross-objection filed by the assessee also dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on 8.12.2008 assessing the total income at Rs.52,62,41,478/-. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened u/s 147 and notice u/s 148 was issued on 31.3.2010. The assessment already completed vide order dated 8.12.2008 was reopened by recording the following reasons: “The assessment u/s 143(3) was completed

ITO (3) 2(2), MUMBAI vs. R.K. EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue stands dismissed and the cross-objection filed by the assessee also dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on 8.12.2008 assessing the total income at Rs.52,62,41,478/-. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened u/s 147 and notice u/s 148 was issued on 31.3.2010. The assessment already completed vide order dated 8.12.2008 was reopened by recording the following reasons: “The assessment u/s 143(3) was completed

ASHTVINAYAKA CONSTRUCTION,NAVI MUMBAI vs. JCIT CIR 22(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and that of revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

3 / M / 2 0 1 5 18. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material placed before us. The undisputed facts are that the assessee is a works contractor and it is a statutory requirement under the VAT Rules to deduct TDS on the said contract for the work carried out under the Sales Tax Act. The assessee

DCIT CIR 28(1), NAVI MUMBAI vs. ASHTAVINAYAKA CONSTRUCTION, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and that of revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

3 / M / 2 0 1 5 18. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material placed before us. The undisputed facts are that the assessee is a works contractor and it is a statutory requirement under the VAT Rules to deduct TDS on the said contract for the work carried out under the Sales Tax Act. The assessee

UTILITY SUPPLY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(4) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

3) or 147 / 263\netc. is seen and a copy of the relevant order is placed on file and\nensure that the total income assessed under section 153A of the\nI.T. Act is not less than the total income determined in\nproceedings prior to the order under section 153A of the Act.\nThe office note should also give finding that

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

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

TDS.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": [ "Section 194A(1)", "Section 194A(3)(i)(b)", "Section 194A(3)(v)", "Section 194A(3)(viia)(b)", "Section 201(1)", "Section 201(1A)", "Section 271C", "Section 80P(2

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

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

TDS.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": [ "Section 194A", "Section 250", "Section 201(1)", "Section 201(1A)", "Section 194A(3)(v)", "Section 194A(3)(i)(b)", "Section 194A(3)(viia)(b)", "Section 80P(2

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

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

TDS on interest payments exceeding Rs. 10,000/-.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": [ "Section 194A(1)", "Section 194A(3)(i)(b)", "Section 194A(3)(v)", "Section 194A(3)(viia)(b)", "Section 201(1)", "Section 201(1A)", "Section 80P(2

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

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

TDS on interest payments exceeding Rs. 10,000/-.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": ["194A(1)", "194A(3)(i)(b)", "194A(3)(v)", "194A(3)(viia)(b)", "201(1)", "201(1A)", "80P(2

UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT LTU (2), MUMBAI

TDS is not to be deducted. It is very\nrelevant to note that at the time of Acquisition Act was enacted,\nCentral Government had issued a Notification No. SO 710\ndated 16/02/1970 [1970] [Reported in 75 ITR (Stat) 106]\nwhich reads as under:-\nIncome-tax Act, 1961: Notification under sec. 194A(3)(iii)(f)\nNotification No. S. O. 710, dated

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

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

TDS on interest payments exceeding Rs. 10,000/-.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": [ "Section 194A(1)", "Section 194A(3)(i)(b)", "Section 194A(3)(v)", "Section 194A(3)(viia)(b)", "Section 201(1)", "Section 201(1A)", "Section 271C", "Section 80P(2

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - 2(1)(2), MUMBAI

TDS is not to be deducted. It is very\nrelevant to note that at the time of Acquisition Act was enacted,\nCentral Government had issued a Notification No. SO 710\ndated 16/02/1970 [1970] [Reported in 75 ITR (Stat) 106]\nwhich reads as under:-\nIncome-tax Act, 1961: Notification under sec. 194A(3)(iii)(f)\nNotification No. S. O. 710, dated