ACIT CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BOMBAY DYEING & MANUFACTURING CO. LTD. , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S Bombay Dyeing & Income-Tax 2(1)(1), Mumbai, Manufacturing Co. Ltd Room No.561, 5Th Floor, Vs. Neville House, Jn Herdia Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 M/S Bombay Dyeing & Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Manufacturing Co. Ltd Tax 2(1), Mumbai, Room Neville House, Jn Herdia No.561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Vs Marg, Ballard Estate, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Mumbai-400 001 400 020 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent

section 115JB of the Act. ile computing book profit under section 115JB of the Act. ile computing book profit under section 115JB of the Act. 23. This ground was raised by the assessee before the Ld.CIT(A) This ground was raised by the assessee before the Ld.CIT(A) This ground was raised by the assessee before the Ld.CIT

THE BOMBAY DYEING & MANUFACTURING COMPANY LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, C--2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S Bombay Dyeing & Income-Tax 2(1)(1), Mumbai, Manufacturing Co. Ltd Room No.561, 5Th Floor, Vs. Neville House, Jn Herdia Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 M/S Bombay Dyeing & Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Manufacturing Co. Ltd Tax 2(1), Mumbai, Room Neville House, Jn Herdia No.561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Vs Marg, Ballard Estate, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Mumbai-400 001 400 020 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent

section 115JB of the Act. ile computing book profit under section 115JB of the Act. ile computing book profit under section 115JB of the Act. 23. This ground was raised by the assessee before the Ld.CIT(A) This ground was raised by the assessee before the Ld.CIT(A) This ground was raised by the assessee before the Ld.CIT

PERCIVAL JOSEPH PEREIRA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (IT)-3(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

TDS amounting to Rs.8,25,78,755/-. In the said return, assessee did not offer the additional compensation received by him in view of proviso to section 45

PERCIVAL JOSEPH PEREIRA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (IT) -3(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

TDS amounting to Rs.8,25,78,755/-. In the said return, assessee did not offer the additional compensation received by him in view of proviso to section 45

ITO(TDS)-2(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. N ROSE DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri B R Baskaranshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.6328/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year : 2018-19) (Assessment Year : 2019-20) Ito (Tds)-2(3)(1), Room No.909, 9Th Floor, Mtnl Building, Cumbala Hill, Peddar Road, Mumbai - 400026 ............... Appellant V/S N Rose Developers Private Limited, C-1 Building No.3, Sumer Nagar Chs Ltd. ……………… Respondent S.V. Road, Borivali (West), Mumbai -400092 Pan : Aaccn5680J Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Agrawal Revenue By : Ms. Monika H. Pande, Sr.Dr

TDS under section 194IC. 8. The Id DR on the other hand vehemently argued that for the purpose of section 194IC, the provisions of section 45

ITO(TDS)-2(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. N ROSE DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri B R Baskaranshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.6328/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year : 2018-19) (Assessment Year : 2019-20) Ito (Tds)-2(3)(1), Room No.909, 9Th Floor, Mtnl Building, Cumbala Hill, Peddar Road, Mumbai - 400026 ............... Appellant V/S N Rose Developers Private Limited, C-1 Building No.3, Sumer Nagar Chs Ltd. ……………… Respondent S.V. Road, Borivali (West), Mumbai -400092 Pan : Aaccn5680J Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Agrawal Revenue By : Ms. Monika H. Pande, Sr.Dr

TDS under section 194IC. 8. The Id DR on the other hand vehemently argued that for the purpose of section 194IC, the provisions of section 45

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

TDS section 201 section 201 default under (1A) of ₹ (1) of ₹ section 201 (1) 3,562,616 45,760,000 of ₹ and interest

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

TDS section 201 section 201 default under (1A) of ₹ (1) of ₹ section 201 (1) 3,562,616 45,760,000 of ₹ and interest

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

TDS section 201 section 201 default under (1A) of ₹ (1) of ₹ section 201 (1) 3,562,616 45,760,000 of ₹ and interest

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

TDS section 201 section 201 default under (1A) of ₹ (1) of ₹ section 201 (1) 3,562,616 45,760,000 of ₹ and interest

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

TDS section 201 section 201 default under (1A) of ₹ (1) of ₹ section 201 (1) 3,562,616 45,760,000 of ₹ and interest

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

TDS section 201 section 201 default under (1A) of ₹ (1) of ₹ section 201 (1) 3,562,616 45,760,000 of ₹ and interest

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

TDS section 201 section 201 default under (1A) of ₹ (1) of ₹ section 201 (1) 3,562,616 45,760,000 of ₹ and interest

NATHANI PAREKH CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO (TDS) - 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

section 45(5A) of the Act and hence were liable for TDS as per the provisions of section 194IC of the Act. The appellant

NATHANI PAREKH CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO (TDS) - 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

section 45(5A) of the Act and hence were liable for TDS as per the provisions of section 194IC of the Act. The appellant

SUGEE SEVEN DEVELOPERS LLP,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD 2(2)(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

TDS under section 194IC as per which the tax should have been deducted at 10% is not applicable in the present case. The assessee contended that Shri Premal Dayalal Doshi is holding only a lease hold right which does not fall within the definition of specified agreement under section 45

SUGEE SEVEN DEVELOPERS LLP,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD 2(2)(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

TDS under section 194IC as per which the tax should have been deducted at 10% is not applicable in the present case. The assessee contended that Shri Premal Dayalal Doshi is holding only a lease hold right which does not fall within the definition of specified agreement under section 45

SUGEE SEVEN DEVELOPERS LLP,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD 2(2)(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

TDS under section 194IC as per which the tax should have been deducted at 10% is not applicable in the present case. The assessee contended that Shri Premal Dayalal Doshi is holding only a lease hold right which does not fall within the definition of specified agreement under section 45