ITO (TDS) 3(5), MUMBAI vs. WIRE & WIRELESS (INDIA) LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2006-07 & Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito (Tds) 3(5), Wire & Wireless (India) Ltd. R.No.1008, 10Th Floor, Madhu Industrial Estate, 4Th बनाम/ Smt. K.G. Mittal Floor, Pandurang Budhkar Vs. Ayurvedic Hospital Marg, Worli Bldg, Charni Rd, (W) Mumbai-400018 Mumbai-400002 (Revenue) (Respondent) P.A. No.Mumv15600E Revenue By Shri Awungshi Gimsen & Shri Nitin Waghmode (Dr) Respondent By Shri Vijay Mehta (Ar) सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 20/01/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order: 24/02/2016

section 194C, “work includes broadcasting and telecasting including production of programmes”. We are also helped by the order of the coordinate Bench of ITAT Mumbai in the case of ACIT(TDS) vs UTV Entertainment Television Ltd., ITA No. 2699/Mum/2012, wherein the ITAT held that while making the payment of carriage fee to cable operators, TDS has to be deducted

ITO (TDS) 3(5), MUMBAI vs. WIRE & WIRELESS (INDIA) LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2006-07 & Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito (Tds) 3(5), Wire & Wireless (India) Ltd. R.No.1008, 10Th Floor, Madhu Industrial Estate, 4Th बनाम/ Smt. K.G. Mittal Floor, Pandurang Budhkar Vs. Ayurvedic Hospital Marg, Worli Bldg, Charni Rd, (W) Mumbai-400018 Mumbai-400002 (Revenue) (Respondent) P.A. No.Mumv15600E Revenue By Shri Awungshi Gimsen & Shri Nitin Waghmode (Dr) Respondent By Shri Vijay Mehta (Ar) सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 20/01/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order: 24/02/2016

section 194C, “work includes broadcasting and telecasting including production of programmes”. We are also helped by the order of the coordinate Bench of ITAT Mumbai in the case of ACIT(TDS) vs UTV Entertainment Television Ltd., ITA No. 2699/Mum/2012, wherein the ITAT held that while making the payment of carriage fee to cable operators, TDS has to be deducted

KORN FERRY INTERNATIONAL P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 3(2), MUMBAI

Appeal of the AO is dismissed

46A in the Income-tax Act, to provide that any consideration received by a shareholder or a holder of other specified securities from any company on purchase of its own shares or other specified securities shall be, subject to provisions contained in section 48, deemed to be the capital gains. 28.4 This amendment will take effect from

GOLDMAN SACHS (INDIA) SECURITIES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO (IT) TDS 3, MUMBAI

46A in the Income-tax Act, to provide that any consideration received by a shareholder or a holder of other specified securities from any company on purchase of its own shares or other specified securities shall be, subject to provisions contained in section 48, deemed to be the capital gains. 28.4 This amendment will take effect from

M/S PODDAR FININ CONSULTANCY P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-7(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1860/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Poddar Finin Consultancy बिधम/ Ito Ward Pvt. Ltd. Maharashtra-410206. Vs. 4A/B, Ground Floor, Tk Industries Estate, Sitaram Palturam Murai Marg, Mumbai- 400015. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagcp3938D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri R. A. Dhyani (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 06.08.2020 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Thane [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1) The Assessment Order Passed By The Id. Assessing Officer (Ao) Is Invalid & Bad In Law. 2) (A) The Id. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)] Erred In Law & Facts In Confirming The Action Of The Ld. Assessing Officer

TDS is to be made on the 'rent'. The expression 'rent' is given much wider meaning under this provision than what is normally known in common parlance. In the first instance, it means any payment which is made under any lease, sub- lease, tenancy. Once the payment is made under lease, sub-lease or tenancy, the nomenclature which is given

TOTAL OIL INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 11(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

Section 195 which requires the payer to furnish information M/s. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd., relating to payment of any sum in such form and manner as may be prescribed by the Board. This provision is brought into force only from 1.4.2008. It will not apply for the period with which we are concerned in these cases before us. Therefore

TOTAL OIL INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 11(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

Section 195 which requires the payer to furnish information M/s. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd., relating to payment of any sum in such form and manner as may be prescribed by the Board. This provision is brought into force only from 1.4.2008. It will not apply for the period with which we are concerned in these cases before us. Therefore

ASST CIT RANGE 11(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL OIL INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

Section 195 which requires the payer to furnish information M/s. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd., relating to payment of any sum in such form and manner as may be prescribed by the Board. This provision is brought into force only from 1.4.2008. It will not apply for the period with which we are concerned in these cases before us. Therefore

ACIT CIR 11(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL OIL INDIA P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

Section 195 which requires the payer to furnish information M/s. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd., relating to payment of any sum in such form and manner as may be prescribed by the Board. This provision is brought into force only from 1.4.2008. It will not apply for the period with which we are concerned in these cases before us. Therefore

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (IT) 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalstandard Chartered Bank Taxation Department, 23-25, M. G. Road, 3Rd Floor, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Pan: Aabcs4681D ..... Appellant Vs. Ddit (Intl. Tax)-2(1) Scindia House, Ballard Estate, N. M. Marg, Mumbai-400 038 ..... Respondent

46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The brief facts of the case are that the Appellant is a foreign bank incorporated in United Kingdom (UK) and has been carrying banking business in India through branches. The Appellant is a tax resident of UK and is eligible to claim the benefits of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement entered into between

ACIT 22(1), MUMBAI vs. SHRI FAIYAZ S RANGWALA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Bleasst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax – 22(1) V. Shri Faiyaz S. Rangwala Room No. 322 56/901, Empressa, 2Nd Road Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug Opp. Municipal Market, Khar (W) Mumbai – 400 012 Mumbai – 400 052

TDS, assessee has placed evidences as required by the Ld.CIT(A) and therefore there is no violation of provisions of section 46A

SHEKHAR DADARKAR PROP M/S, S.D. CONSTRUCTION,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 24(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10

46A. 23. The brief facts are that the assessee has made total purchases to the tune of Rs.5,34,77,339/- in the proprietary concern namely, S.D. Hospitality (Restaurant). During the assessment proceedings AO, in order to verify the genuineness of the purchases, issued notice under section 136(6) of the Act to the suppliers. However, in respect of three

DCIT 24(3), MUMBAI vs. SHEKHAR S. DADARKAR, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10

46A. 23. The brief facts are that the assessee has made total purchases to the tune of Rs.5,34,77,339/- in the proprietary concern namely, S.D. Hospitality (Restaurant). During the assessment proceedings AO, in order to verify the genuineness of the purchases, issued notice under section 136(6) of the Act to the suppliers. However, in respect of three

SHEKHAR DADARKAR PROP,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 31(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10

46A. 23. The brief facts are that the assessee has made total purchases to the tune of Rs.5,34,77,339/- in the proprietary concern namely, S.D. Hospitality (Restaurant). During the assessment proceedings AO, in order to verify the genuineness of the purchases, issued notice under section 136(6) of the Act to the suppliers. However, in respect of three

SHEKHAR DADARKAR PROP,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 31(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10

46A. 23. The brief facts are that the assessee has made total purchases to the tune of Rs.5,34,77,339/- in the proprietary concern namely, S.D. Hospitality (Restaurant). During the assessment proceedings AO, in order to verify the genuineness of the purchases, issued notice under section 136(6) of the Act to the suppliers. However, in respect of three

SHEKHAR DADARKAR PROP,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 34(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10

46A. 23. The brief facts are that the assessee has made total purchases to the tune of Rs.5,34,77,339/- in the proprietary concern namely, S.D. Hospitality (Restaurant). During the assessment proceedings AO, in order to verify the genuineness of the purchases, issued notice under section 136(6) of the Act to the suppliers. However, in respect of three

ACIT (OSD)-2(2), MUMBAI vs. SHOPPERS STOP LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1163/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13) Acit(Osd)(Tds)-2(2) बिधम/ Shoppers Stop Ltd Room No. 706, 7Th Floor, K. 5Th Floor, Umang Tower, Vs. G. Mittal Ayurvedic Malad Link Road, Hospital Bldg, Charni Road Minidspace, Malad (W), (W), Mumbai-400002. Mumbai-400064. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcs4383A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Manan Mathuria Revenue By: Shri Byomakesh Pradipta Kumar Panda (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22/12/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: The Present Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-52, Mumbai Dated 12.03.2021 For Ay. 2012-13. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Revenue Is Directed Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Holding That, The Payments Made By The Assessee To Several Vendors In Relation To Its Procurements From Them, Consisting Of Appeals/Clothes/Footwear/Goods Manufactured By These Vendors, Were Not In The Nature Of “Works Contract” But “Purchase Of Goods” & That, Therefore, The Provisions Of Section 194C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Invoked By The Assessing Officer In Relation Thereto, Were Not Applicable.

TDS)-2(2) बिधम/ Shoppers Stop Ltd Room No. 706, 7th Floor, K. 5th Floor, Umang Tower, Vs. G. Mittal Ayurvedic Malad Link Road, Hospital Bldg, Charni Road Minidspace, Malad (W), (W), Mumbai-400002. Mumbai-400064. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AABCS4383A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Manan Mathuria Revenue by: Shri Byomakesh Pradipta Kumar Panda

DCIT (OSD) (TDS) -2 (2) , MUMBAI vs. SHOPPPERS STOP LTD, MUMBAI

Accordingly, all the grounds raised by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.1783/Mum/2021 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) बिधम/ Acit (Osd) Tds 2(2), M/S Shoppers Stop Limited Room No 706, 7Th Fl.., K.G Mittal 5Th Floor, Umang Tower, Vs. Ayurvedic Hospital Bldg, Malad Link Road, Charni Road (W), Minidspace, Malad (W), Mumbai- 400002 Mumbai-400064 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcs4383A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri .Vijay Mehta/Shri Manan Mathuriya Revenue By: Shri. Rakesh Ranjan (Dr) सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/10/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

TDS 2(2), M/s Shoppers Stop Limited Room No 706, 7th Fl.., K.G Mittal 5th Floor, Umang Tower, Vs. Ayurvedic Hospital Bldg, Malad Link Road, Charni Road (W), Minidspace, Malad (W), Mumbai- 400002 Mumbai-400064 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. : AABCS4383A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. Assessee by: Shri .Vijay Mehta/Shri Manan Mathuriya Revenue by: Shri. Rakesh Ranjan (DR) सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date