VILAS TRANSPORT COMPANY,MUMBAI vs. ITO 13(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainm/S. Vilas Transport Company Income Tax Officer-13(2)(1) 103/104, Vyapar Bhavan Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. 49, P. D’Mello Road, Carnac Mumbai 400020 Bunder, Mumbai 400009 Pan - Aaafv0760G Appellant Respondent

section 40A(3) of I.T. Act, 1961 and since payments in cash exceeded Rs. 20,000/-, disallowance u/s 40A(3) of I.T. Act, 1961 was justified in the facts of the case. 4.3.2 It appears from records that assessee has incurred expenses in cash exceeding Rs.20,000/- to various persons for getting goods cleared from docks on behalf

SHRI RENUKAMATA MULTI-STATE CO-OPERATIVE URBAN SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 40A(3) of the Act. 32. As per the assessee, the rental expenses have been paid as per the rent agreement after deduction of TDS

JCIT (OSD), CC-4(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SHRI RENUKAMATA MULTI-STATE COOPERATIVE URBAN CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., AHAMEDNAGAR

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 40A(3) of the Act. 32. As per the assessee, the rental expenses have been paid as per the rent agreement after deduction of TDS

M/S RENUKAMATA MULTI STATE CO-OP. URBAN CREDITN SOC. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSTT. CIT, CC-4(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 40A(3) of the Act. 32. As per the assessee, the rental expenses have been paid as per the rent agreement after deduction of TDS

JCIT (OSD), CC-4(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SHRI RENUKAMATA MULTI-STATE COOPERATIVE URBAN CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., AHAMEDNAGAR

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 40A(3) of the Act. 32. As per the assessee, the rental expenses have been paid as per the rent agreement after deduction of TDS

JCIT (OSD), CC-4(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SHRI RENUKAMATA MULTI-STATE COOPERATIVE URBAN CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., AHAMEDNAGAR

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 40A(3) of the Act. 32. As per the assessee, the rental expenses have been paid as per the rent agreement after deduction of TDS

ACIT 25(1), MUMBAI vs. CHIRAG CONSTRUCTION, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit-25(1), M/S Chirag Construction Room No.202, 02Nd Floor, Company, बनाम/ Pratayakshkar Bhavan, 105, Gopal Puri, S.V.Road, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Borivali (W), Bandra (East), Mumbai-400066 Mumbai-400051 (राज"व /Revenue) (""यथ" /Respondent) Pan. No.Aacfc7646N

section 40A(3) cannot be applied following the decision of the Jurisdictional bench in case of Free India Assurance Services Ltd. as reported in (2011) 12 Taxman.com 424 (Mum). 20.9.5. In the remand report the A.O. has raised the issue that the appellant did not co-operate when he wanted to gather information more particularly purchases in respect

ABU JANI SANDEEP KHOSLA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Ms. Padmavathy S.(Physical Hearing) Abu Jani Sandeep Khosla, Dcit, Central Circle 3(3), Gala No. 22 A Block, 1St Floor, Room No. 1923, 19Th Floor, Vs Ghanshyam Industrial Estate, Air India Building, Veera Desai Road, Andheri West, Nariman Point, Mumbai Mumbai-400058 Pan: Aaafa 2341 Q Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Dcit, Central Circle 3(3), Abu Jani Sandeep Khosla, Room No.404, 4Th Floor, Vs Gala No. 22 A Block, 1St Floor, Kautilya Bhawan, Ghanshyam Industrial Estate, Bandra Kurla Complex, Veera Desai Road, Andheri Mumbai-400051 West, Mumbai-400058 Pan: Aaafa 2341 Q Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

section 40A(3) amounting to Rs. 37,70,347/- on account of payment excess of Rs. 20,000/- to various parties ignoring the factual position as stated in the assessment order and remand report in which the AO clearly stated that the assessee could not produced the copy of work order/ contract & proof of TDS

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ABU JANI SANDEEP KHOSLA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Ms. Padmavathy S.(Physical Hearing) Abu Jani Sandeep Khosla, Dcit, Central Circle 3(3), Gala No. 22 A Block, 1St Floor, Room No. 1923, 19Th Floor, Vs Ghanshyam Industrial Estate, Air India Building, Veera Desai Road, Andheri West, Nariman Point, Mumbai Mumbai-400058 Pan: Aaafa 2341 Q Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Dcit, Central Circle 3(3), Abu Jani Sandeep Khosla, Room No.404, 4Th Floor, Vs Gala No. 22 A Block, 1St Floor, Kautilya Bhawan, Ghanshyam Industrial Estate, Bandra Kurla Complex, Veera Desai Road, Andheri Mumbai-400051 West, Mumbai-400058 Pan: Aaafa 2341 Q Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

section 40A(3) amounting to Rs. 37,70,347/- on account of payment excess of Rs. 20,000/- to various parties ignoring the factual position as stated in the assessment order and remand report in which the AO clearly stated that the assessee could not produced the copy of work order/ contract & proof of TDS

ITO 31(2)(3), MUMBAI vs. MANJULA S. SHAH, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-31(2)(3), Mrs. Manjula S. Shah, Room No.704, C-11, Prop. Of M/S Eastment बनाम/ Pratayaksha Kar Bhavan, Chemicals, 3/202, Rishabh Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Mansion, S.V.Road, Nr. St. Bandra(East), John School, Mumbai-400051 Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400062 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aapps3790Q

section 40A(3) cannot be applied following the decision of the Jurisdictional bench in case of Free India Assurance Services Ltd. as reported in (2011) 12 Taxman.com 424 (Mum). 20.9.5. In the remand report the A.O. has raised the issue that the appellant did not co-operate when he wanted to gather information more particularly purchases in respect of other

BAJINATH MELARAM,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 18, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm / I.T.A. No.1795/M/16 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Baijnath Melaram Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income C/O.Mangaldas D. Shah & Co Tax – 18 506, Lotus House, 5Th Floor, 6Th Floor, Earnest House, 33-A, New Marine Lines Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400021 Pan/Gir No. : Aaafb2675E (/Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 40A(3) is concerned, the details of date-wise ledger account and particulars of giving details of name, amount and I.T.Pan No. of Transporter were produced and no TDS

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

DCIT CC 7(2).MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MAN INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2020-2021

section 194A(3)(iii) and is therefore not liable for deduction of TDS. 194A(3)(iii) and is therefore not liable for deduction of TDS. The appellant has The appellant has rightly not deducted TDS on the said payment. Therefore, the disallowance u/s rightly not deducted TDS on the said payment. Therefore, the disallowance u/s rightly not deducted TDS

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 under various provisions of section by invoking provisions of section 40a(ia) of the Act or 40(b) or 40A(3

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 under various provisions of section by invoking provisions of section 40a(ia) of the Act or 40(b) or 40A(3

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 under various provisions of section by invoking provisions of section 40a(ia) of the Act or 40(b) or 40A(3

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 under various provisions of section by invoking provisions of section 40a(ia) of the Act or 40(b) or 40A(3

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 under various provisions of section by invoking provisions of section 40a(ia) of the Act or 40(b) or 40A(3

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 under various provisions of section by invoking provisions of section 40a(ia) of the Act or 40(b) or 40A(3

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 under various provisions of section by invoking provisions of section 40a(ia) of the Act or 40(b) or 40A(3