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

Section 40(a)(ia) is to ensure that TDS is deducted and paid. The object of introduction of Section 40

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

Section 40(a)(ia) is to ensure that TDS is deducted and paid. The object of introduction of Section 40

THE MAHARASHTRA STATE CO OP MARKETING FEDERATION LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 13(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed,

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Maharashtra State Co-Op. Addl. Cit Range-13(3), Marketing Federation Limited 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Kanmoor House, Narsi Natha Mumbai-400020. Street, Masjid, Mumbai-400 009 Pan No. Aaaat 6218 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Maharashtra State Co-Op. Jt. Cit Range-13(3), Marketing Federation Limited 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Kanmoor House, Narsi Natha Mumbai-400020. Street, Masjid, Mumbai-400 009 Pan No. Aaaat 6218 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Maharashtra State Co-Op. Asst. Cit-17(3), Marketing Federation Limited Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Kanmoor House, Narsi Natha Vs. Mumbai-400020. Street, Masjid, Mumbai-400 009 Pan No. Aaaat 6218 L Appellant Respondent

section (40)(a) Nature of Expenses Nature of Expenses Amt on which TDS Not Remark Remark Deducted Prof. Fees 2,05,000/- TDS

TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT LTU 1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () It(Tp)A No. 3262/Mum/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08

section 195 of the Act to disallow the payment made by the appellant to various non-resident vendors towards import of software as a reseller by treating such payment as “royalty”. 3.3 Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. CIT(A) in circumstances of the case failed to consider the expenses incurred towards purchase of software for trading purposes amounting

ASST CIT (LTU) 1, MUMBAI vs. TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () It(Tp)A No. 3262/Mum/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08

section 195 of the Act to disallow the payment made by the appellant to various non-resident vendors towards import of software as a reseller by treating such payment as “royalty”. 3.3 Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. CIT(A) in circumstances of the case failed to consider the expenses incurred towards purchase of software for trading purposes amounting

ITO 3(3)2, MUMBAI vs. SHAMROCK PHARMACHEMI P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1774/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बिाम/ Ito 3(3)2, M/S. Shamrock R.No. 602, Pharmachemi Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 83E,Hansraj Pragi Bldg., V. M.K Road, Opp. Dr. E Moses Road, Mumbai 400020 Worli, Mumbai-400018 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacs6290H (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri. Ashim Kumar Modi (Cit- Dr), Shri V. Justin & Ms. Chaitna Ajaria Shri. Bharat L. Gandhi Assessee By: सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 01.03.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 1774/Mum/2013, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 29.10.2012, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called ―The Cit(A)‖) In Appeal Number Cit(A)-7/Ito-3(3)(2)/It-166/11-12, For Assessment Year 2009-10, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 29.12.2011 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called ―The Ao‖) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ―The Act‖) For Ay 2009-10. I.T.A. No.1774/Mum/2013

TDS, failure of which would entail disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act. 22. The appeal was admitted

ACIT CC 4 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MAERSK LINE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 40(a)(i) (payments to non-residents without TDS); and 30% of the provisions under Section 40(a)(ia) (residents

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD ( CORPORATE FINANCE DIVISION),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 6(3), MUMBAI

Bench: the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal preferred by the Assessee vide order, dated 18/05/2009. 4. Not being satisfied with the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A), the Assessee has preferred appeal before this Tribunal. The Revenue has also filed cross-appeal challenging the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A).

TDS & TCS in respect of income and expenses included in the previous year's income for which the appellant could not file the claim due to non receipt of the requisite certificates from the issuer.” 11.1. During the course of hearing it was pointed out that vide order dated 15/04/2010 passed under Section 154 of the Act, the grievance

CHEMOX EXPORTS IMPORTS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, ASSESSMENT UNIT, DELHI

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon'Bleι.Τ.Α. No. 3954/Mum/2024

Section 1941A) TDS TDS-194H Statement Commission or brokerage services (India) private Amount paid or credited 40 (Section 194H) Blue

CELLTICK MOBILE MEDIA (INDIA) P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT-9(2)(1),, MUMBAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P. P. Bhatt & Hon’Ble Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1673/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

TDS for the reason that the income of the payee is not taxable in India as the transaction of the payee comes under article 7 of the Indo Israel Treaty. We notice that assessing officer disallowed the above said payments invoking the provisions of section 195 and 40

JAWAHAR B. PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22XC, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

TDS Interest on Loan – Jawahar Purohit 11,50,309 11,50,309 Nil Section 194C – Transport 52,136 52,136 Nil Section 194J – Professional Charges 1,17,125 Nil 1,17,125 Interest on Loan –Asahi Infrastructure & 10,686 Nil 10,686 Projects Ltd. Disallowance under section 40

M.R. CONSTRUCTION,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 22,

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

TDS Interest on Loan – Jawahar Purohit 11,50,309 11,50,309 Nil Section 194C – Transport 52,136 52,136 Nil Section 194J – Professional Charges 1,17,125 Nil 1,17,125 Interest on Loan –Asahi Infrastructure & 10,686 Nil 10,686 Projects Ltd. Disallowance under section 40

JAWAHAR B. PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22XC, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

TDS Interest on Loan – Jawahar Purohit 11,50,309 11,50,309 Nil Section 194C – Transport 52,136 52,136 Nil Section 194J – Professional Charges 1,17,125 Nil 1,17,125 Interest on Loan –Asahi Infrastructure & 10,686 Nil 10,686 Projects Ltd. Disallowance under section 40

JAWAHAR B. PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22XC, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

TDS Interest on Loan – Jawahar Purohit 11,50,309 11,50,309 Nil Section 194C – Transport 52,136 52,136 Nil Section 194J – Professional Charges 1,17,125 Nil 1,17,125 Interest on Loan –Asahi Infrastructure & 10,686 Nil 10,686 Projects Ltd. Disallowance under section 40

ASST CIT CC-22, MUMBAI vs. JAWAHAR PUROHIT, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

TDS Interest on Loan – Jawahar Purohit 11,50,309 11,50,309 Nil Section 194C – Transport 52,136 52,136 Nil Section 194J – Professional Charges 1,17,125 Nil 1,17,125 Interest on Loan –Asahi Infrastructure & 10,686 Nil 10,686 Projects Ltd. Disallowance under section 40

DCIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI vs. M.R. CONSTRUCTION, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

TDS Interest on Loan – Jawahar Purohit 11,50,309 11,50,309 Nil Section 194C – Transport 52,136 52,136 Nil Section 194J – Professional Charges 1,17,125 Nil 1,17,125 Interest on Loan –Asahi Infrastructure & 10,686 Nil 10,686 Projects Ltd. Disallowance under section 40

JAWAHAR B. PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22XC, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

TDS Interest on Loan – Jawahar Purohit 11,50,309 11,50,309 Nil Section 194C – Transport 52,136 52,136 Nil Section 194J – Professional Charges 1,17,125 Nil 1,17,125 Interest on Loan –Asahi Infrastructure & 10,686 Nil 10,686 Projects Ltd. Disallowance under section 40

DCIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI vs. M.R. CONSTRUCTION, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

TDS Interest on Loan – Jawahar Purohit 11,50,309 11,50,309 Nil Section 194C – Transport 52,136 52,136 Nil Section 194J – Professional Charges 1,17,125 Nil 1,17,125 Interest on Loan –Asahi Infrastructure & 10,686 Nil 10,686 Projects Ltd. Disallowance under section 40