DZ BANK INDIA REPRESENTATIVE OFFICE,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee to the extent of In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee to the extent of the recalled grounds, are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dz Bank, India Representative Dcit (International Taxation) Office C/O Srbc & Associates Llp, Range-2(1)(2), 14Th Floor, The Ruby, 29, Senapati Vs. 16Th Floor, Room No. 1612, Air Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400028. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aabcd 6455 E Appellant Respondent

TDS on interest payable by the Indian borrowers is born by them and that as per section 115A(5) of the borrowers is born by them and that as per section 115A(5) of the borrowers is born by them and that as per section 115A(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short , 1961 (in short

DZ BANK INDIA REPRESENTATIVE OFFICE,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee to the extent of In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee to the extent of the recalled grounds, are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dz Bank, India Representative Dcit (International Taxation) Office C/O Srbc & Associates Llp, Range-2(1)(2), 14Th Floor, The Ruby, 29, Senapati Vs. 16Th Floor, Room No. 1612, Air Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400028. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aabcd 6455 E Appellant Respondent

TDS on interest payable by the Indian borrowers is born by them and that as per section 115A(5) of the borrowers is born by them and that as per section 115A(5) of the borrowers is born by them and that as per section 115A(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short , 1961 (in short

DZ BANK INDIA REPRESENTATIVE OFFICE,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee to the extent of In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee to the extent of the recalled grounds, are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dz Bank, India Representative Dcit (International Taxation) Office C/O Srbc & Associates Llp, Range-2(1)(2), 14Th Floor, The Ruby, 29, Senapati Vs. 16Th Floor, Room No. 1612, Air Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400028. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aabcd 6455 E Appellant Respondent

TDS on interest payable by the Indian borrowers is born by them and that as per section 115A(5) of the borrowers is born by them and that as per section 115A(5) of the borrowers is born by them and that as per section 115A(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short , 1961 (in short

DZ BANK INDIA REPRESENTATIVE OFFICE,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee to the extent of In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee to the extent of the recalled grounds, are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dz Bank, India Representative Dcit (International Taxation) Office C/O Srbc & Associates Llp, Range-2(1)(2), 14Th Floor, The Ruby, 29, Senapati Vs. 16Th Floor, Room No. 1612, Air Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400028. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aabcd 6455 E Appellant Respondent

TDS on interest payable by the Indian borrowers is born by them and that as per section 115A(5) of the borrowers is born by them and that as per section 115A(5) of the borrowers is born by them and that as per section 115A(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short , 1961 (in short

HINDUJA GROUP INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT RG 6(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals for A

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Amarjit Singh

TDS were filed before the lower authorities. A perusal of these employment agreements will reveal that these are regular employees of the assessee company and are designated as Asst. Managers. They act as management trainees and assist other senior professionals of the assessee and are not independent consultants. Since these are employees of the assessee company, the professional

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 are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

TDS Interest No. Sister Concerns Due u/s 201(1A) Ruparel Developers 1 59,065 5,907 473 India Pvt Ltd Ruparel Estates 2 2,76,357 27,636 2,211 India Pvt Ltd. Ruparel Homes (I) 3 1,33,38,962 13,33,896 1,06,712 Private Ltd. Shree Sukhakarta 4 Developers India 22,57

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 are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

TDS Interest No. Sister Concerns Due u/s 201(1A) Ruparel Developers 1 59,065 5,907 473 India Pvt Ltd Ruparel Estates 2 2,76,357 27,636 2,211 India Pvt Ltd. Ruparel Homes (I) 3 1,33,38,962 13,33,896 1,06,712 Private Ltd. Shree Sukhakarta 4 Developers India 22,57

DCIT(TDS) 2(2), MUMBAI vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

57,73,942 for delayed payments. 5. Vide order dated 30/03/2011, passed under section 201 (1) and section 201 (1A) of the Act for the assessment year 2008-09, the Assessing Officer- TDS

DCIT (TDS) 2(2), MUMBAI vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

57,73,942 for delayed payments. 5. Vide order dated 30/03/2011, passed under section 201 (1) and section 201 (1A) of the Act for the assessment year 2008-09, the Assessing Officer- TDS

DCIT(TDS) 2(2), MUMBAI vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

57,73,942 for delayed payments. 5. Vide order dated 30/03/2011, passed under section 201 (1) and section 201 (1A) of the Act for the assessment year 2008-09, the Assessing Officer- TDS

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (TDS) 2(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

57,73,942 for delayed payments. 5. Vide order dated 30/03/2011, passed under section 201 (1) and section 201 (1A) of the Act for the assessment year 2008-09, the Assessing Officer- TDS

PARAG ENGG. PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT , CPC TDS, GHAZIABD, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Blem/S. Parag Engineering Products Pvt. Ltd., V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Tds) Plot No. 121, Abcd Cpc, Gaziabad Government Indl. Estate Charkop, Kandivali (W) Mumbai – 400 067

57,600/-, ₹.25,540/- and ₹.15,200/- u/s 234E was levied for the delay in filing Form Nos.24Q. The Ld. Counsel submits that whether late fee u/s 234E can be levied prior to amendment to section 200A(1)(c) of the Act by Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 1.06.2015 while processing the 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) of the Act. 28. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We find that the above disallowances are not based on any evidence i.e. the incriminating material found during

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) of the Act. 28. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We find that the above disallowances are not based on any evidence i.e. the incriminating material found during

M.R. CONSTRUCTION,.,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22, 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) of the Act. 28. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We find that the above disallowances are not based on any evidence i.e. the incriminating material found during

M. R. CONSTRUCTION,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 22, 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) of the Act. 28. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We find that the above disallowances are not based on any evidence i.e. the incriminating material found during

ACIT 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) of the Act. 28. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We find that the above disallowances are not based on any evidence i.e. the incriminating material found during

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) of the Act. 28. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We find that the above disallowances are not based on any evidence i.e. the incriminating material found during