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

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm Ita No.3295/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) (Assessment Year: 2016-17)

65,650. On the date of allotment letter itself i.e., 29th October 2015, out of the total sale consideration, the assessee paid an amount of Rs.55 crore to 4 Cornerview Construction & Developers Pvt. Ltd the assessee through cheque and while making such payment the assessee simultaneously deducted tax @ 1% under section 194IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short

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

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyand Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

TDS statement under section 200A of the Act. 3. Brief facts are, during the year under consideration, the assessee entered into an agreement with M/s. Accent Construction Pvt. Ltd., for purchase of 96 flats. Vide allotment letter dated 29th October 2015 the flats were allotted to the assessee for a total consideration of ` 100,51,65

SHRI TRUST T 2018,MUMBAI vs. ITO (TDS)-2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Girish Agrawalshri Trust T 2018, Universal Insurance Building, Ground Floor, Sir P.M. Road, Fort, Mumbai - 400001 ............... Appellant Pan : Aauts1169E V/S

TDS and computed the total liability under section 201(1) and section 201(1A) of the Act at Rs.3,76,65

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Assessee are hereby ordered to be dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.3653 To 3667/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S. Cornerview बिधम/ Acit(Tds)-Cpc, Construction & Developers Ghaziabad. Vs. Pvt. Ltd. Building No. 10, 5Th Floor, Acme Group, Solitaire Park, Guru Hargovindji Road, Andheri (E), 400093.. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aafcc9548R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ravikant Pathak Revenue By: Shri Abi Rama Kartikiyen (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30/07/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/07/2019

65,650/- by virtue of allotment letter dated 29.10.2015. On the ITA. Nos. 3653 to 3667 A.Y. 2016-17 date of allotment letter i.e. 29.10.2015, the assessee paid an amount of Rs.55 crores through cheque out of the total sale consideration and while making such payment the assessee simultaneously deducted tax @ 1% under Section 194IA of the Act, 1961 amounting

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

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

65,650/-. On the date of allotment letter itself i.e. 29th October 2015, out of the total sale consideration, the assessee paid an amount of Rs.55/- crores to the assessee through cheque and while making such payment the assessee simultaneously deducted tax @ 1% under section 194IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") amounting to Rs.55 lakh

ADDL CIT 7(2), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE COMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kochar

TDS under section 194H on payments made to distributors as discount on sale of pre-paid recharge vouchers and secondly, disallowance under section 14A of Rs. 8,65

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

TDS held the assessee to be „assessee in default‟ for non-deducting tax under section 194-I on payment of additional premium of Rs.20,52,99,027 and held the assessee to be liable to pay tax of Rs.4,65

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

TDS held the assessee to be „assessee in default‟ for non-deducting tax under section 194-I on payment of additional premium of Rs.20,52,99,027 and held the assessee to be liable to pay tax of Rs.4,65

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

TDS held the assessee to be „assessee in default‟ for non-deducting tax under section 194-I on payment of additional premium of Rs.20,52,99,027 and held the assessee to be liable to pay tax of Rs.4,65

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

TDS held the assessee to be „assessee in default‟ for non-deducting tax under section 194-I on payment of additional premium of Rs.20,52,99,027 and held the assessee to be liable to pay tax of Rs.4,65

DCIT (TDS) 3(2), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE LIFE NSURANACE CO. LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

section 201 for not deducting TDS u/s 194J of the Act in respect of event management expenses and worked out the default under this head at Rs. 19,15,759/-. However, no demand was raised by the AO on this account. Aggrieved, assessee went in appeal before the first appellate authority. 11. During the first appellate proceedings, assessee submitted that

DCIT (TDS) 3(2), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

section 201 for not deducting TDS u/s 194J of the Act in respect of event management expenses and worked out the default under this head at Rs. 19,15,759/-. However, no demand was raised by the AO on this account. Aggrieved, assessee went in appeal before the first appellate authority. 11. During the first appellate proceedings, assessee submitted that

DCIT (TDS) 3(2), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

section 201 for not deducting TDS u/s 194J of the Act in respect of event management expenses and worked out the default under this head at Rs. 19,15,759/-. However, no demand was raised by the AO on this account. Aggrieved, assessee went in appeal before the first appellate authority. 11. During the first appellate proceedings, assessee submitted that

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

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) 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

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