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

72,33,583 154 of the 22,471,662 on which TDS having a TDS act dated and TDS default under default under 31/12/2019 default section

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

72,33,583 154 of the 22,471,662 on which TDS having a TDS act dated and TDS default under default under 31/12/2019 default section

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

72,33,583 154 of the 22,471,662 on which TDS having a TDS act dated and TDS default under default under 31/12/2019 default section

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

72,33,583 154 of the 22,471,662 on which TDS having a TDS act dated and TDS default under default under 31/12/2019 default section

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

72,33,583 154 of the 22,471,662 on which TDS having a TDS act dated and TDS default under default under 31/12/2019 default section

PEOPLE INERACTIVE (I) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 7, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

TDS under law, such disallowance would ultimately increase assessee's profits from business of developing housing project. The ultimate profits of assessee after adjusting disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act would qualify for deduction under section 80-IB of the Act. This view was taken by the courts in the following cases: • Income-tax Officer - Ward

PEOPLE INERACTIVE (I) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 7, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

TDS under law, such disallowance would ultimately increase assessee's profits from business of developing housing project. The ultimate profits of assessee after adjusting disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act would qualify for deduction under section 80-IB of the Act. This view was taken by the courts in the following cases: • Income-tax Officer - Ward

DADIBA KALI PUNDOLE ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMEM TAX -17(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

section 143(1)(a) are not maintainable. The grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed. 9. With regard to the short credit of TDS. The ld. AR brought to our attention that the assessee has claimed a TDS credit to the tune of Rs. 2,31,72

THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

72\nr.w.s.80 and 139(3) of the IT Act apply only to business loss and do not cover\nthe amount of unabsorbed depreciation which is treated as depreciation of\ncurrent year as per section 32(2) of the IT Act and consequently they ought\nto have held that unabsorbed depreciation of AY 2008-09 is allowable as a\ndeduction against

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

72,270 Section 194C Contractor 59,067 Section 194H- Brokerage 3,60,000 Expenses/ Commission Section 194J – Professional 3,00,000 Charges Section 194J – Supervision 11,55,500 Charges 4. Adhoc Disallowance for direct 5,46,850/- Expenses @ 20% of Rs. 2,734,243 as discussed above 5. Adhoc Disallwance for indirect 5,71,717 Expenses

ASST CIT CC-22, MUMBAI vs. JAWAHAR PUROHIT, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

72,270 Section 194C Contractor 59,067 Section 194H- Brokerage 3,60,000 Expenses/ Commission Section 194J – Professional 3,00,000 Charges Section 194J – Supervision 11,55,500 Charges 4. Adhoc Disallowance for direct 5,46,850/- Expenses @ 20% of Rs. 2,734,243 as discussed above 5. Adhoc Disallwance for indirect 5,71,717 Expenses

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

72,270 Section 194C Contractor 59,067 Section 194H- Brokerage 3,60,000 Expenses/ Commission Section 194J – Professional 3,00,000 Charges Section 194J – Supervision 11,55,500 Charges 4. Adhoc Disallowance for direct 5,46,850/- Expenses @ 20% of Rs. 2,734,243 as discussed above 5. Adhoc Disallwance for indirect 5,71,717 Expenses

ASST CIT CC-22, MUMBAI vs. JAWAHAR PUROHIT, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

72,270 Section 194C Contractor 59,067 Section 194H- Brokerage 3,60,000 Expenses/ Commission Section 194J – Professional 3,00,000 Charges Section 194J – Supervision 11,55,500 Charges 4. Adhoc Disallowance for direct 5,46,850/- Expenses @ 20% of Rs. 2,734,243 as discussed above 5. Adhoc Disallwance for indirect 5,71,717 Expenses

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

72,270 Section 194C Contractor 59,067 Section 194H- Brokerage 3,60,000 Expenses/ Commission Section 194J – Professional 3,00,000 Charges Section 194J – Supervision 11,55,500 Charges 4. Adhoc Disallowance for direct 5,46,850/- Expenses @ 20% of Rs. 2,734,243 as discussed above 5. Adhoc Disallwance for indirect 5,71,717 Expenses

M.R. CONSTRUCTION,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 22,

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

72,270 Section 194C Contractor 59,067 Section 194H- Brokerage 3,60,000 Expenses/ Commission Section 194J – Professional 3,00,000 Charges Section 194J – Supervision 11,55,500 Charges 4. Adhoc Disallowance for direct 5,46,850/- Expenses @ 20% of Rs. 2,734,243 as discussed above 5. Adhoc Disallwance for indirect 5,71,717 Expenses

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

72,270 Section 194C Contractor 59,067 Section 194H- Brokerage 3,60,000 Expenses/ Commission Section 194J – Professional 3,00,000 Charges Section 194J – Supervision 11,55,500 Charges 4. Adhoc Disallowance for direct 5,46,850/- Expenses @ 20% of Rs. 2,734,243 as discussed above 5. Adhoc Disallwance for indirect 5,71,717 Expenses

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

72,270 Section 194C Contractor 59,067 Section 194H- Brokerage 3,60,000 Expenses/ Commission Section 194J – Professional 3,00,000 Charges Section 194J – Supervision 11,55,500 Charges 4. Adhoc Disallowance for direct 5,46,850/- Expenses @ 20% of Rs. 2,734,243 as discussed above 5. Adhoc Disallwance for indirect 5,71,717 Expenses

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

72,270 Section 194C Contractor 59,067 Section 194H- Brokerage 3,60,000 Expenses/ Commission Section 194J – Professional 3,00,000 Charges Section 194J – Supervision 11,55,500 Charges 4. Adhoc Disallowance for direct 5,46,850/- Expenses @ 20% of Rs. 2,734,243 as discussed above 5. Adhoc Disallwance for indirect 5,71,717 Expenses