ACIT 16(1), MUMBAI vs. UTV ENTERTAINMENT TELEVISION LTD(NOW KNOWN AS M/S.DISNEY BROADCASTING (INDIA) LIMITED), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5958/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिाम/ Acit 16(1) Utv Entertainment R.No. 439, Aayakar Television Ltd. (Now Bhavan, M.K Marg, Known As M/S. Disney V. Mumbai 400020 Broadcasting (India) Ltd.) 11, Solitaire Corporate Park, Guru Hargovind Marg, Chakala , Mumbai-400093 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaccv4782D (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri. Charanjeet Singh Gulati (Cit-Dr) Shri. Abhishek Tilak Assessee By: सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 11.03.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.06.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 5958/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 16.06.2017, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2012-13, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 15.03.2016 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2012-13. I.T.A. No.5958/Mum/2017

TDS on payment 8 | P a g e I.T.A. No.5958/Mum/2017 for professional and technical fees and royalty. It also mentions that royalty shall have the same meaning as contained in Explanation 2 to clause (vi) of Section 9(1) of the Income Tax Act. Reference hasn‘t been made to Explanation 6

ASIAN PIPES & PROFILES P. LTD,AMBERNATH vs. A.O. TDS WD KALYAN, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by different assessees for different quarters relating to different years are allowed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sanjay Garg

section, but if issued, then it is illegal. Hence liable to be cancelled. 5. That the basic concept behind TDS is, to deposit the Tax on the income of deductee as he earns the income. Therefore deductor/ recipient has deposited the tax timely. No such offence has been committed by the assessee that he deducted the TDS & not deposited

ASIAN PIPES & PROFILES P. LTD,AMBERNATH vs. A.O. TDS WD KALYAN, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by different assessees for different quarters relating to different years are allowed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sanjay Garg

section, but if issued, then it is illegal. Hence liable to be cancelled. 5. That the basic concept behind TDS is, to deposit the Tax on the income of deductee as he earns the income. Therefore deductor/ recipient has deposited the tax timely. No such offence has been committed by the assessee that he deducted the TDS & not deposited

DISHA DISTRIBUTORS,MUMBAI vs. A.O. TDS WD KALYAN, KALYAN

In the result, all the appeals filed by different assessees for different quarters relating to different years are allowed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sanjay Garg

section, but if issued, then it is illegal. Hence liable to be cancelled. 5. That the basic concept behind TDS is, to deposit the Tax on the income of deductee as he earns the income. Therefore deductor/ recipient has deposited the tax timely. No such offence has been committed by the assessee that he deducted the TDS & not deposited

SPRING TIME CLUBS & HOSPITALITY SERVICES P.LTD,KALYAN vs. A.O. TDS WD KALYAN, KALYAN

In the result, all the appeals filed by different assessees for different quarters relating to different years are allowed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sanjay Gargm/S. Sprigtime Clubs & Hospitality Assessing Officer, Tds Ward Services Pvt. Ltd. Rani Mansion, Murbad Road Vs. 2Nd Floor, Sprig Avenue, Club Road Kalyan (W), 421301 Kalyan (W) 421301 Pan – Aaocs9107M Appellant Respondent

section, but if issued, then it is illegal. Hence liable to be cancelled. 5. That the basic concept behind TDS is, to deposit the Tax on the income of deductee as he earns the income. Therefore deductor/ recipient has deposited the tax timely. No such offence has been committed by the assessee that he deducted the TDS & not deposited

CORNERVIEW CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 9TDS) - CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

section 200(3) of the Act as a single statement, learned Commissioner (Appeals) observed, when the assessee itself has filed separate statements of TDS in respect of each individual transaction relating to purchase of flat, it cannot be said that purchase 6

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 default under default under default under section 201 section 201 (1) section 201 (1) is of ₹ is determined (1) is of ₹ 13,590,000 at ₹ 30,920,289 5,391,934/– and interest and interest and interest under section under section under section 201 (1A) of ₹ 201 (1A) of ₹ 201 (1A) of ₹ 6

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 default under default under default under section 201 section 201 (1) section 201 (1) is of ₹ is determined (1) is of ₹ 13,590,000 at ₹ 30,920,289 5,391,934/– and interest and interest and interest under section under section under section 201 (1A) of ₹ 201 (1A) of ₹ 201 (1A) of ₹ 6

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 default under default under default under section 201 section 201 (1) section 201 (1) is of ₹ is determined (1) is of ₹ 13,590,000 at ₹ 30,920,289 5,391,934/– and interest and interest and interest under section under section under section 201 (1A) of ₹ 201 (1A) of ₹ 201 (1A) of ₹ 6

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 default under default under default under section 201 section 201 (1) section 201 (1) is of ₹ is determined (1) is of ₹ 13,590,000 at ₹ 30,920,289 5,391,934/– and interest and interest and interest under section under section under section 201 (1A) of ₹ 201 (1A) of ₹ 201 (1A) of ₹ 6

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 default under default under default under section 201 section 201 (1) section 201 (1) is of ₹ is determined (1) is of ₹ 13,590,000 at ₹ 30,920,289 5,391,934/– and interest and interest and interest under section under section under section 201 (1A) of ₹ 201 (1A) of ₹ 201 (1A) of ₹ 6

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 default under default under default under section 201 section 201 (1) section 201 (1) is of ₹ is determined (1) is of ₹ 13,590,000 at ₹ 30,920,289 5,391,934/– and interest and interest and interest under section under section under section 201 (1A) of ₹ 201 (1A) of ₹ 201 (1A) of ₹ 6

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 default under default under default under section 201 section 201 (1) section 201 (1) is of ₹ is determined (1) is of ₹ 13,590,000 at ₹ 30,920,289 5,391,934/– and interest and interest and interest under section under section under section 201 (1A) of ₹ 201 (1A) of ₹ 201 (1A) of ₹ 6

DIAMOND SHIPBROKERS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO (TDS) 1(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2013-14

TDS statements filed by the assessee has to be processed in the manner as laid down in the provisions of section 200A as in force during the relevant period. That the levy of fees under section 234E of the Act, thus, cannot be a subject matter of process, while processing the statement under section 200A

ROHA DYECHEM P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (TDS) 3(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2013-14

TDS statements filed by the assessee has to be processed in the manner as laid down in the provisions of section 200A as in force during the relevant period. That the levy of fees under section 234E of the Act, thus, cannot be a subject matter of process, while processing the statement under section 200A

DINESHKUMAR S. GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (TDS) CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2013-14

TDS statements filed by the assessee has to be processed in the manner as laid down in the provisions of section 200A as in force during the relevant period. That the levy of fees under section 234E of the Act, thus, cannot be a subject matter of process, while processing the statement under section 200A

MEDICAL ENGINEERS INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (TS) CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2013-14

TDS statements filed by the assessee has to be processed in the manner as laid down in the provisions of section 200A as in force during the relevant period. That the levy of fees under section 234E of the Act, thus, cannot be a subject matter of process, while processing the statement under section 200A

KAPOOR GLASS (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (TDS) CPC, UTTAR PRADESH

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2013-14

TDS statements filed by the assessee has to be processed in the manner as laid down in the provisions of section 200A as in force during the relevant period. That the levy of fees under section 234E of the Act, thus, cannot be a subject matter of process, while processing the statement under section 200A