FLEMINGO LINERS PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WQARD-15(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

section 154(7) of the Act rightly rejected the\napplication of the assessee for rectification to allow TDS credit which

FORESIGHT HOLDINGS, MUMBAI vs. DCIT (TDS) CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sanjay Gargm/S. Foresight Holdings Dcit (Tds) Cpc #11, 2Nd Floor, Ismail Mansion Aayakar Bhavan Vs. 94/96/98 Bazargate, Fort Sector 3, Vyshali Mumbai 400001 Ghaziabad 201010 Pan – Aacff9466H Appellant Respondent

TDS statements as provided under section 200(3) of the Act. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and have

INCOME TAX OFFIECER-17(3)(4), MUMBAI vs. SUGARCHEM, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalincome Tax Officer-17(3)(4) M/S. Sugarchem 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Kshamalaya, 3Rd Floor Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 Marine Lines Mumbai 400020 Pan – Aayfs3762P Appellant Respondent

TDS was made to the prescribed authority as per provisions of Section 194C(7), the assessee was not entitled to the benefit

DCIT -4(1), MUMBAI vs. FOUR DIMENSION SECURITIES (I) LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off in terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S Four Dimensions Addl. Commissioner Of Securities (India) Ltd. Income Tax, Range-4(1), बनाम/ 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F Assessment Year: 2005-06 Addl. Commissioner Of M/S Four Dimensions Income Tax, Range-4(1), Securities (India) Ltd. बनाम/ 6Th Floor,Aayakar Bhavan, 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Fort, Mumbai (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S Four Dimensions Addl. Commissioner Of Securities (India) Ltd. Income Tax, Range-4(1), बनाम/ 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F

7 pertains to deleting the disallowance of Rs.41.32 lakhs made in respect of V-SAT, Leaseline charges and transaction charges and non-deduction of TDS thereon. The crux of argument advanced on behalf of the Revenue is that these are composite charges and no TDS was deducted by the assessee by contending that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

FOUR DIMENSIONS SECURITIES (I) LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 4(1), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off in terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S Four Dimensions Addl. Commissioner Of Securities (India) Ltd. Income Tax, Range-4(1), बनाम/ 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F Assessment Year: 2005-06 Addl. Commissioner Of M/S Four Dimensions Income Tax, Range-4(1), Securities (India) Ltd. बनाम/ 6Th Floor,Aayakar Bhavan, 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Fort, Mumbai (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S Four Dimensions Addl. Commissioner Of Securities (India) Ltd. Income Tax, Range-4(1), बनाम/ 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F

7 pertains to deleting the disallowance of Rs.41.32 lakhs made in respect of V-SAT, Leaseline charges and transaction charges and non-deduction of TDS thereon. The crux of argument advanced on behalf of the Revenue is that these are composite charges and no TDS was deducted by the assessee by contending that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

FOUR DIMENSIONS SECURITIES (INDIA) LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 4(1), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off in terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S Four Dimensions Addl. Commissioner Of Securities (India) Ltd. Income Tax, Range-4(1), बनाम/ 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F Assessment Year: 2005-06 Addl. Commissioner Of M/S Four Dimensions Income Tax, Range-4(1), Securities (India) Ltd. बनाम/ 6Th Floor,Aayakar Bhavan, 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Fort, Mumbai (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S Four Dimensions Addl. Commissioner Of Securities (India) Ltd. Income Tax, Range-4(1), बनाम/ 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F

7 pertains to deleting the disallowance of Rs.41.32 lakhs made in respect of V-SAT, Leaseline charges and transaction charges and non-deduction of TDS thereon. The crux of argument advanced on behalf of the Revenue is that these are composite charges and no TDS was deducted by the assessee by contending that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

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

TDS statements should be computed in respect of one challan– cum–statement only and should not be computed separately in respect of each of the challan–cum–statement. Without prejudice, it was submitted that the provision of section 194IA of the Act is not 7

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

TDS statements/returns in the present three appeals for the period prior to 01.06.2015 was not empowered to charge fees under section 234E of the Act. Therefore the intimations issued by the AO under section 200A of the Act in these appeals are unsustainable and the demand raised by way of charging of the fees under section 234E

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

TDS statements/returns in the present three appeals for the period prior to 01.06.2015 was not empowered to charge fees under section 234E of the Act. Therefore the intimations issued by the AO under section 200A of the Act in these appeals are unsustainable and the demand raised by way of charging of the fees under section 234E

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

TDS statements/returns in the present three appeals for the period prior to 01.06.2015 was not empowered to charge fees under section 234E of the Act. Therefore the intimations issued by the AO under section 200A of the Act in these appeals are unsustainable and the demand raised by way of charging of the fees under section 234E

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

TDS statements/returns in the present appeal for the period prior to 01.06.2015, was not empowered to charge fees under section 234E of the Act. Therefore the intimations issued by the AO under section 200A of the Act in this appeal are unsustainable and the demand raised by way of charging of the fees under section 234E

BABITA MALKANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO TDS 1(1)(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

TDS statements as provided under section 200(3) of the Act. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and have

CONCEPT MANAGEMENT CONSLUTING LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CPC TDS, UTTAR PRADESH

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

TDS statements as provided under section 200(3) of the Act. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and have

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 as provided under section 200(3) of the Act. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and have

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 as provided under section 200(3) of the Act. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and have

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 as provided under section 200(3) of the Act. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and have

BHOJA VITTAL SHETTY,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CPC TDS, 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 as provided under section 200(3) of the Act. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and have

KASH REALTORS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO TDS 1(1)(3), 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 as provided under section 200(3) of the Act. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and have

HITESH SHANKAR SHETTY,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CPC TDS, 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 as provided under section 200(3) of the Act. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and have