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

38,96,00,000 450,702,965 on 154 of the 15,773,187/– on which TDS which tax income tax on which TDS default under deducted at act by the default under section

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

38,96,00,000 450,702,965 on 154 of the 15,773,187/– on which TDS which tax income tax on which TDS default under deducted at act by the default under section

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

38,96,00,000 450,702,965 on 154 of the 15,773,187/– on which TDS which tax income tax on which TDS default under deducted at act by the default under section

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

38,96,00,000 450,702,965 on 154 of the 15,773,187/– on which TDS which tax income tax on which TDS default under deducted at act by the default under section

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

38,96,00,000 450,702,965 on 154 of the 15,773,187/– on which TDS which tax income tax on which TDS default under deducted at act by the default under section

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

38,96,00,000 450,702,965 on 154 of the 15,773,187/– on which TDS which tax income tax on which TDS default under deducted at act by the default under section

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

38,96,00,000 450,702,965 on 154 of the 15,773,187/– on which TDS which tax income tax on which TDS default under deducted at act by the default under section

STRIDES PHARMA SCIENCE LTD.,NAVI MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -5(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result ITA number 1004/M/2021 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2016 – 17 is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Strides Pharma Science Ltd. Dcit 15(1)(2) 201, Devavrata, Sector-17, Aayakar Bhavan, M K Road, Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai, 400703 Mumbai 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcs8104P

TDS" and "Advance Tax in Form 26AS of AY 2016-17. ITA NO. 1004/MUM/2021 AY 16-17 Strides Pharma Science Ltd. 9. Erroneous levy of interest under Section 2348 of the Act amounting to INR 3,46,58,553 [Refer Income tax computation Form along with Final Assessment Order] The learned AO erred in levying interest under Section

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 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘Act') by the Addl./JCIT\n(A) – 10, Delhi, Office of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), dated\n05.09.2025 [in short, ‘CIT(A)'] for the assessment years (AYs) 2016-17, 2017-18,\n2018-19 and 2019-20. Since the issues in these appeal are similar except variance\nin amounts, therefore

DADIBA KALI PUNDOLE ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMEM TAX -17(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

section 143(a) of the Act in which the credit for TDS was allowed for an amount of Rs.76,38

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\nare allowed

section 194A of the IT Act.\nBeing aggrieved by the said order, the assessee filed\nappeal before Ld. CIT(A), however, the same was decided\nagainst the assesse.\nAggrieved with the above order, the assessee preferred\nappeal before us and the only ground raised by the\nassessee is with regard to challenging the order of Ld.\nCIT(A) in upholding

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\nare allowed

section 194A of the IT Act.\n6. Being aggrieved by the said order, the assessee filed\nappeal before Ld. CIT(A), however, the same was decided\nagainst the assesse.\n7.\nAggrieved with the above order, the assessee preferred\nappeal before us and the only ground raised by the\nassessee is with regard to challenging the order of Ld.\nCIT

BENNETT PROPERTY HOLDINGS COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDITIONAL -JOINT -DEPUTY-ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- ITO, DELHI

38)", "Section 234B"], "issues": "1. Whether the disallowance under Section 14A and Rule 8D was correctly applied by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A). 2. Whether the Assessee is entitled to set off accumulated loss and unabsorbed depreciation of a demerged undertaking. 3. Whether the computation of book profits under Section 115JB is correct. 4. Whether

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

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘Act') by the Addl./JCIT\n(A) – 10, Delhi, Office of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), dated\n05.09.2025 [in short, ‘CIT(A)'] for the assessment years (AYs) 2016-17, 2017-18,\n2018-19 and 2019-20. Since the issues in these appeal are similar except variance\nin amounts, therefore

ACIT 16(1), MUMBAI vs. HINDUSTAN THOMPSON ASSOAICATES P. LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1206 /Mum/2018 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिाम/ Assistant Commissioner Of Hindustan Thompson Income-Tax, Circle 16(1) Associates Private Room No. 439, 4 Th Floor, Limited V. Aayakar Bhawan 4Th Floor, M.K.Marg , Churchgate Peninsula Chambers, Mumbai-400 020 Ganpat Rao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel(W), Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaach1463M (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri. B. Srinivas (Cit-Dr) Assessee By: Smt. Aarti Vissanji &, Shri. Ajit C. Shah & Ms. Aastha Shah सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.05.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 1206/Mum/2018, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 12.12.2017, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year(Ay) 2012-13, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 23.03.2016 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(3) Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2012-13. I.T.A. No.1206 /Mum/2018

TDS provisions, it is proposed to extend the provisions of section 40(a)(i) to payments of interest, commission or brokerage, fees for professional services or fees for technical services to residents, and payments to a resident contractor or sub-contractor for carrying out any work (including supply of labour for carrying out any -work), on which

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

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

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘Act') by the Addl./JCIT\n(A) – 10, Delhi, Office of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), dated\n05.09.2025 [in short, ‘CIT(A)'] for the assessment years (AYs) 2016-17, 2017-18,\n2018-19 and 2019-20. Since the issues in these appeal are similar except variance\nin amounts, therefore

ACIT-1(1)(1), MUMBAI., MUMBAI vs. BENNETT PROPERTY HOLDINGS COMPANY LIMITED, MUMBAI

38,05,371/-\nunder Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the IT Rules. The\naforesaid action of the Assessing Officer was confirmed by the CIT(A)\nin appeal preferred by the Assessee. Being aggrieved, the Assessee\nhas carried the issue in the present appeal before the Tribunal.\n9.3.\nThe Learned Authorised Representative for the Assessee appearing\nbefore

UDAYAN GROVER,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE(NFAC), DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleudayan Grover V. National Faceless Appeal Centre Panch Mahal Delhi Panch Sristhi Complex {Acit – 26(3), Bkc, Mumbai} Powai, Mumbai - 400072 Pan: Aclpg0572G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vimal Punmiya Department Represented By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik

Section 10(38), in a pre-planned manner to evade taxes. The AO extensively relied upon the search and survey operations conducted by the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department in Kolkata, Delhi, Mumbai and Ahmedabad on penny stocks, which sets out the modus operandi adopted in the business of providing entries of bogus LTCG. However, the reliance placed