PEOPLE INERACTIVE (I) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 7, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

TDS under law, such disallowance would ultimately increase assessee's profits from business of developing housing project. The ultimate profits of assessee after adjusting disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act would qualify for deduction under section 80-IB of the Act. This view was taken by the courts in the following cases: • Income-tax Officer - Ward

PEOPLE INERACTIVE (I) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 7, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

TDS under law, such disallowance would ultimately increase assessee's profits from business of developing housing project. The ultimate profits of assessee after adjusting disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act would qualify for deduction under section 80-IB of the Act. This view was taken by the courts in the following cases: • Income-tax Officer - Ward

THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

TDS of Rs.33,83,093 as against Rs.43,83,437 (as per\nForm 26AS) claimed by the Appellant, thereby there is a short tax credit of\nTDS of Rs.10,00,344.\n14. Ground 14A - Penalty proceedings\nOn the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned DCIT\nerred in initiating penalty proceedings under section

ASIAN PIPES & PROFILES P. LTD,AMBERNATH vs. A.O. TDS WD KALYAN, MUMBAI

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

TDS returns / statements prior to 01.06.2015. 32. We further find that in recent judgment dated 26.08.2016, the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Writ Appeal Nos.2663- 2674/2015(T-IT) & Ors in Sri Fatheraj Singhvi & Ors Vs. Union of India & Ors has quashed the intimation issued under section

ASIAN PIPES & PROFILES P. LTD,AMBERNATH vs. A.O. TDS WD KALYAN, MUMBAI

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

TDS returns / statements prior to 01.06.2015. 32. We further find that in recent judgment dated 26.08.2016, the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Writ Appeal Nos.2663- 2674/2015(T-IT) & Ors in Sri Fatheraj Singhvi & Ors Vs. Union of India & Ors has quashed the intimation issued under section

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

TDS returns / statements prior to 01.06.2015. 32. We further find that in recent judgment dated 26.08.2016, the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Writ Appeal Nos.2663- 2674/2015(T-IT) & Ors in Sri Fatheraj Singhvi & Ors Vs. Union of India & Ors has quashed the intimation issued under section

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

TDS returns / statements prior to 01.06.2015. 32. We further find that in recent judgment dated 26.08.2016, the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Writ Appeal Nos.2663- 2674/2015(T-IT) & Ors in Sri Fatheraj Singhvi & Ors Vs. Union of India & Ors has quashed the intimation issued under section

CORNERVIEW CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 9TDS) - CPC, GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

TDS statements should be computed in respect of one challan– cum–statement only and should not be computed separately in respect of each of the challan–cum–statement. Without prejudice, it was submitted that the provision of section 194IA of the Act is not 7 Cornerview Construction & applicable, hence, there cannot be any levy of fee under section 234E

IDEA CELLULAR LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT 14, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am Idea Cellular Limited Principal Commissioner Of 10Th Floor, Birla Centurion, Income Tax-14, Century Mills Compound, 469, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Vs. Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400 030 Mumbai-400 020 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aaacb2100P

32,60,976/- under the normal provisions of the Act and Rs. 7,94,64,25,489/-income under section 115JB of the Act and claiming TDS

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

section 40 (i) (ia) without appreciating the fact that the provisions have been made by the assessee company after taking into account the quantum of work done by them for the company and consequent liability arising on the company to pay for such work. 07. Brief facts of the case shows that assessee deals in business segment like lubricants

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

section 40 (i) (ia) without appreciating the fact that the provisions have been made by the assessee company after taking into account the quantum of work done by them for the company and consequent liability arising on the company to pay for such work. 07. Brief facts of the case shows that assessee deals in business segment like lubricants

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

section 40 (i) (ia) without appreciating the fact that the provisions have been made by the assessee company after taking into account the quantum of work done by them for the company and consequent liability arising on the company to pay for such work. 07. Brief facts of the case shows that assessee deals in business segment like lubricants

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

section 40 (i) (ia) without appreciating the fact that the provisions have been made by the assessee company after taking into account the quantum of work done by them for the company and consequent liability arising on the company to pay for such work. 07. Brief facts of the case shows that assessee deals in business segment like lubricants

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

section 40 (i) (ia) without appreciating the fact that the provisions have been made by the assessee company after taking into account the quantum of work done by them for the company and consequent liability arising on the company to pay for such work. 07. Brief facts of the case shows that assessee deals in business segment like lubricants

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

section 40 (i) (ia) without appreciating the fact that the provisions have been made by the assessee company after taking into account the quantum of work done by them for the company and consequent liability arising on the company to pay for such work. 07. Brief facts of the case shows that assessee deals in business segment like lubricants

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

section 40 (i) (ia) without appreciating the fact that the provisions have been made by the assessee company after taking into account the quantum of work done by them for the company and consequent liability arising on the company to pay for such work. 07. Brief facts of the case shows that assessee deals in business segment like lubricants

GOLDMAN SACHS (INDIA) FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI

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

TDS credit of INR\n12,14,349, which was rightly claimed by the appellant while filing return of\nincome.\n7. Ground No. 7: Incorrect levy of interest under section 234A of the\nAct\nThe learned AO, erred in law and facts, in levying consequential interest under\nsection 234A amounting to INR 1,23,32

THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

32(1) r.w.s. 2(11) of the IT Act.\n2.5 Without prejudice to para 2.2 and 2.3 above, the learned DCIT and Hon'ble\nDRP erred in not considering the value of supply contracts as Goodwill acquired\nfrom GSK, which is an intangible asset eligible for depreciation under section\n32(1) r.w.s. 2(11) of the IT Act.\n3. Ground