KORN FERRY INTERNATIONAL P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 3(2), MUMBAI

Appeal of the AO is dismissed

77 A of that Act. In the 2013 Act Sub-section 10 of Section 230 provides as follows :- "10. No compromise or arrangement in respect of any buy-back of securities under this section shall be sanctioned by the Tribunal unless such buy-back is in accordance with the provisions of section 68." This provision may have an impact

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI CITY vs. ITO (TDS)-2(2)(1), MUMBAI CITY

In the result, in the present batch of appeals for the

TDS under section 194A\nof the Act is not sustainable. Accordingly, grounds no.1, 2, and 4 raised in\nRevenue's appeal are dismissed.\n18. Before analysing whether the assessee was under an obligation to\ndeduct tax at source under section 194H or section 194) of the Act, it is\nnecessary to reiterate that both the assessee and the Revenue

M/S THE MAHARASHTRA STATE CO. OP BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO-1(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

77,639/- (10% of 2,07,76,389/-) corresponds ) corresponds to the amount already credited by the appellant to the Profit to the amount already credited by the appellant to the Profit to the amount already credited by the appellant to the Profit & loss A/c in AY 2013 & loss A/c in AY 2013-14 and TDS

DY CIT-1(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

77,639/- (10% of 2,07,76,389/-) corresponds ) corresponds to the amount already credited by the appellant to the Profit to the amount already credited by the appellant to the Profit to the amount already credited by the appellant to the Profit & loss A/c in AY 2013 & loss A/c in AY 2013-14 and TDS

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO (TDS)-2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, in the present batch of appeals for the

TDS under section 194A\nof the Act is not sustainable. Accordingly, grounds no.1, 2, and 4 raised in\nRevenue's appeal are dismissed.\n18. Before analysing whether the assessee was under an obligation to\ndeduct tax at source under section 194H or section 194) of the Act, it is\nnecessary to reiterate that both the assessee and the Revenue

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI CITY vs. ITO (TDS)-2(2)(1), MUMBAI

TDS under section 194A\nof the Act is not sustainable. Accordingly, grounds no.1, 2, and 4 raised in\nRevenue's appeal are dismissed.\n\n18. Before analysing whether the assessee was under an obligation to\ndeduct tax at source under section 194H or section 194) of the Act, it is\nnecessary to reiterate that both the assessee and the Revenue

CHEMOX EXPORTS IMPORTS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, ASSESSMENT UNIT, DELHI

Section TDS-1941)\nRent\nGtl Infrastructure Ltd\nAmount paid or credited 1,77,500\nTDS-1941(B)\nTDS Statement\n(Section

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

DCIT (TDS), CIRCLE-2(2), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, in the present batch of appeals for the

TDS under section 194A\nof the Act is not sustainable. Accordingly, grounds no.1, 2, and 4 raised in\nRevenue's appeal are dismissed.\n18. Before analysing whether the assessee was under an obligation to\ndeduct tax at source under section 194H or section 194) of the Act, it is\nnecessary to reiterate that both the assessee and the Revenue

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO (TDS)-2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, in the present batch of appeals for the

TDS under section 194A\nof the Act is not sustainable. Accordingly, grounds no.1, 2, and 4 raised in\nRevenue's appeal are dismissed.\nBefore analysing whether the assessee was under an obligation to\ndeduct tax at source under section 194H or section 194) of the Act, it is\nnecessary to reiterate that both the assessee and the Revenue are aggrieved

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

77,884/- being adhoc disallowance of expenses incurred on Kashish Construction are emanating from seized material. He admitted that these other disallowances are adhoc disallowances and for non-deduction of TDS under various provisions of section

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

77,884/- being adhoc disallowance of expenses incurred on Kashish Construction are emanating from seized material. He admitted that these other disallowances are adhoc disallowances and for non-deduction of TDS under various provisions of section

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

77,884/- being adhoc disallowance of expenses incurred on Kashish Construction are emanating from seized material. He admitted that these other disallowances are adhoc disallowances and for non-deduction of TDS under various provisions of section

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

77,884/- being adhoc disallowance of expenses incurred on Kashish Construction are emanating from seized material. He admitted that these other disallowances are adhoc disallowances and for non-deduction of TDS under various provisions of section

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

77,884/- being adhoc disallowance of expenses incurred on Kashish Construction are emanating from seized material. He admitted that these other disallowances are adhoc disallowances and for non-deduction of TDS under various provisions of section

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

77,884/- being adhoc disallowance of expenses incurred on Kashish Construction are emanating from seized material. He admitted that these other disallowances are adhoc disallowances and for non-deduction of TDS under various provisions of section

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

77,884/- being adhoc disallowance of expenses incurred on Kashish Construction are emanating from seized material. He admitted that these other disallowances are adhoc disallowances and for non-deduction of TDS under various provisions of section