OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMTIED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

TDS were deposited by the assessee with the Central Government. Assessee also submitted that the assessee cannot be held responsible if the parties did not file their respective tax returns. 8.13. Ld. CIT(A) took note of the factual position that the parties were employees/contractors of the assessee. These expenses were incurred Overseas Infrastructure Alliance (India

ACIT, CC-6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

TDS were deposited by the assessee with the Central Government. Assessee also submitted that the assessee cannot be held responsible if the parties did not file their respective tax returns. 8.13. Ld. CIT(A) took note of the factual position that the parties were employees/contractors of the assessee. These expenses were incurred Overseas Infrastructure Alliance (India

ACIT CC 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

TDS were deposited by the assessee with the Central Government. Assessee also submitted that the assessee cannot be held responsible if the parties did not file their respective tax returns. 8.13. Ld. CIT(A) took note of the factual position that the parties were employees/contractors of the assessee. These expenses were incurred Overseas Infrastructure Alliance (India

ACIT, CC 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

TDS were deposited by the assessee with the Central Government. Assessee also submitted that the assessee cannot be held responsible if the parties did not file their respective tax returns. 8.13. Ld. CIT(A) took note of the factual position that the parties were employees/contractors of the assessee. These expenses were incurred Overseas Infrastructure Alliance (India

ACIT, CC 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

TDS were deposited by the assessee with the Central Government. Assessee also submitted that the assessee cannot be held responsible if the parties did not file their respective tax returns. 8.13. Ld. CIT(A) took note of the factual position that the parties were employees/contractors of the assessee. These expenses were incurred Overseas Infrastructure Alliance (India

ACIT, CC-6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

TDS were deposited by the assessee with the Central Government. Assessee also submitted that the assessee cannot be held responsible if the parties did not file their respective tax returns. 8.13. Ld. CIT(A) took note of the factual position that the parties were employees/contractors of the assessee. These expenses were incurred Overseas Infrastructure Alliance (India

ACIT, CC 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

TDS were deposited by the assessee with the Central Government. Assessee also submitted that the assessee cannot be held responsible if the parties did not file their respective tax returns. 8.13. Ld. CIT(A) took note of the factual position that the parties were employees/contractors of the assessee. These expenses were incurred Overseas Infrastructure Alliance (India

DCIT CC 5 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LTD, MUMBAI

65B, after section 65. These provisions are\nvery important. They govern the integrity of the\nelectronic record as evidence, as well as, the process\nfor creating electronic record. Importantly, they\nimpart faithful output of computer the same\nevidentiary value as original without further proof or\nproduction of original. Accordingly, while handling any\ndigital evidence, the procedure

OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE(INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI

TDS were deposited by\nthe assessee with the Central Government. Assessee also submitted\nthat the assessee cannot be held responsible if the parties did not file\ntheir respective tax returns.\n8.13. Ld. CIT(A) took note of the factual position that the parties were\nemployees/contractors of the assessee. These expenses were incurred\nfor the purpose of business and allowable

ACIT, CC 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

TDS were deposited by\nthe assessee with the Central Government. Assessee also submitted\nthat the assessee cannot be held responsible if the parties did not file\ntheir respective tax returns.\n8.13. Ld. CIT(A) took note of the factual position that the parties were\nemployees/contractors of the assessee. These expenses were incurred\nfor the purpose of business and allowable

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED, MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

DCIT CC 5-1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED , MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

NISH DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- CC- 6(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee except ITA

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negi

65B(2) of the Indian Evidence Act, the electronic media relied upon should be regularly fed information in regular course of business. However, this pen drive was neither updated nor contained regular business transactions. Even no business transaction was found on the computer system found at the residence of Shri Praveen Mishra. Therefore, the pen drive is not a valid

NISH DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - CC -6(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee except ITA

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negi

65B(2) of the Indian Evidence Act, the electronic media relied upon should be regularly fed information in regular course of business. However, this pen drive was neither updated nor contained regular business transactions. Even no business transaction was found on the computer system found at the residence of Shri Praveen Mishra. Therefore, the pen drive is not a valid

MANGESHI ENTERPRISES,KALYAN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, THANE

In the result, appeal in ITA No

TDS has been done on the interest payment which has been\ndeposited to the account of the government. It was also submitted that\nthe lender company had adequate reserves and surplus as reported in\nits audited balance sheet as on 31.03.2016. Further, bank statement of\nthe lender had sufficient balance for lending the amount to the assessee\nand there