ACIT (LTU)-1, MUMBAI vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

9) of the Companies Act, 2013, a\nbanking company has been defined to mean a banking company as defined\nin section 5(c) of the BR Act). Section 5(c) of the BR Act defines a „banking\ncompany" as under:-\n\"(c) \"banking company\" means any company which transacts the business\nof banking in India\"\nTherefore, for an entity

ATOS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY HK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT (IT)-1 (1)(2), MUMBAI

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

vii) of the Act. 3. Without prejudice to the above Ground, the Learned AO and DRP erred in holding the sum of Rs. 65,19,98,196/- by Atos India to the Appellant as ‘Business Income’ under Section 9(1)(i) of the Act. The Appellant humbly prays that the Learned AO be directed to not treat the aforesaid receipts

ATOS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY HK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INTL. TAX) RANGE 1(1)(2), MUMBAI

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

vii) of the Act. 3. Without prejudice to the above Ground, the Learned AO and DRP erred in holding the sum of Rs. 65,19,98,196/- by Atos India to the Appellant as ‘Business Income’ under Section 9(1)(i) of the Act. The Appellant humbly prays that the Learned AO be directed to not treat the aforesaid receipts

ATOS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY HK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INTL. TAX) RANGE 1(1)(2), MUMBAI

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

vii) of the Act. 3. Without prejudice to the above Ground, the Learned AO and DRP erred in holding the sum of Rs. 65,19,98,196/- by Atos India to the Appellant as ‘Business Income’ under Section 9(1)(i) of the Act. The Appellant humbly prays that the Learned AO be directed to not treat the aforesaid receipts

DCIT 8(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SHAMROCK PHARMACHEMI P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M.Balaganeshita Nos. 862 & 863/Mum/2018 (Assessment Years :2013-14 & 2014-15) Dcit-8(2)(1) Vs. M/S. Shamrock Pharmachemi Room No.624, Pvt.Ltd. Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Off Dr. E Moses Road Mumbai-400 020 Worli, Mumbai-400 025 Pan/Gir No.Aaacs6290H (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Bharat Gandhi, Ar Revenue By Shri V.Vinod Kumar, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing 28/10/2020 Date Of Pronouncement 11/11/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per M. Balaganesh (A.M): These Two Appeals Filed By Revenue In Ita Nos. 862 & 863/Mum/2018 For Assessment Years (Ay) 2013-14 & 2014-15 Arise Out Of The Order By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 14, Mumbai In Appeals No.Cit(A)-14/It-170/15-16 & Cit(A)-14/It- 119/16-17, Dated 27/11/2017 (Ld. Cit(A) In Short) Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As Act) Dated 31/08/2016 By The Ld. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-8(2)(1), Mumbai (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. Ao).

Section 9 (1) (vii) of the Act and therefore TDS certificate is essential. 6. Whether this contention is correct, is the issue

TOTAL OIL INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 8(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

1)(vii) of the Act and the Explanation to Section 9(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, therefore, CIT(A) has wrongly allowed the claim of the assessee, ITA. Nos. 4135/M/2016 & 4300/M/2016 A.Y.2010-11 hence, the finding of the CIT(A) is wrong against law and facts and is liable to be set aside. However on the other hand

ACIT 11(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL OIL INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

1)(vii) of the Act and the Explanation to Section 9(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, therefore, CIT(A) has wrongly allowed the claim of the assessee, ITA. Nos. 4135/M/2016 & 4300/M/2016 A.Y.2010-11 hence, the finding of the CIT(A) is wrong against law and facts and is liable to be set aside. However on the other hand

ITO 3(3)2, MUMBAI vs. SHAMROCK PHARMACHEMI P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1774/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बिाम/ Ito 3(3)2, M/S. Shamrock R.No. 602, Pharmachemi Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 83E,Hansraj Pragi Bldg., V. M.K Road, Opp. Dr. E Moses Road, Mumbai 400020 Worli, Mumbai-400018 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacs6290H (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri. Ashim Kumar Modi (Cit- Dr), Shri V. Justin & Ms. Chaitna Ajaria Shri. Bharat L. Gandhi Assessee By: सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 01.03.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 1774/Mum/2013, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 29.10.2012, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called ―The Cit(A)‖) In Appeal Number Cit(A)-7/Ito-3(3)(2)/It-166/11-12, For Assessment Year 2009-10, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 29.12.2011 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called ―The Ao‖) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ―The Act‖) For Ay 2009-10. I.T.A. No.1774/Mum/2013

Section 9 (1) (vii) of the Act and therefore TDS certificate is essential. 6. Whether this contention is correct, is the issue

DELOITTE HASKINS AND SELLS,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 11(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Amit Shukla

TDS on payment made to DTT Canada. 19. Now, whether such a payment can be said to be in the nature of “fees for technical services” in terms of Section 9(1) (vii

DELOITTE HASKINS AND SELLS,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 11(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Amit Shukla

TDS on payment made to DTT Canada. 19. Now, whether such a payment can be said to be in the nature of “fees for technical services” in terms of Section 9(1) (vii

DELOITTE HASKINS AND SELLS,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 11(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Amit Shukla

TDS on payment made to DTT Canada. 19. Now, whether such a payment can be said to be in the nature of “fees for technical services” in terms of Section 9(1) (vii

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 3(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

9 ITA 2943-2894-2893-3160-3173/M/ 2023 & 2971-2970/M/ 2023 Small Industries Development Bank of India advances. It says that there are no such words in the proviso which indicates that the proviso apply only to rural advances. We find no merit in the objection raised by the Revenue. Firstly, CBDT itself has recognized the position that

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 3(3)(1), MUMBAI , MUMBAI vs. SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

9 ITA 2943-2894-2893-3160-3173/M/ 2023 & 2971-2970/M/ 2023 Small Industries Development Bank of India advances. It says that there are no such words in the proviso which indicates that the proviso apply only to rural advances. We find no merit in the objection raised by the Revenue. Firstly, CBDT itself has recognized the position that

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 3(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

9 ITA 2943-2894-2893-3160-3173/M/ 2023 & 2971-2970/M/ 2023 Small Industries Development Bank of India advances. It says that there are no such words in the proviso which indicates that the proviso apply only to rural advances. We find no merit in the objection raised by the Revenue. Firstly, CBDT itself has recognized the position that

SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(3)(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

9 ITA 2943-2894-2893-3160-3173/M/ 2023 & 2971-2970/M/ 2023 Small Industries Development Bank of India advances. It says that there are no such words in the proviso which indicates that the proviso apply only to rural advances. We find no merit in the objection raised by the Revenue. Firstly, CBDT itself has recognized the position that

ASIA TODAY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADIT (IT) 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, Assessee's appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2004-05 M/S. Asia Today Limited, Asst. Director Of Income C/O. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Tax (International Ltd., Vs. Taxation)-2(2), 135, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Scindia House, Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Bellard Estate, Pan: Aabca0249F Mumbai - 400039 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Niraj Sheth, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Krishna Kumar, Ld. Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 10.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.12.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 25.01.2007, Impugned Herein, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2004-05. 2. The Relevant Facts For Adjudication Of This Appeal Are As Under: The Assessee, Being A Foreign Telecasting Company Incorporated In Mauritius & Having Tax Residency Certificate Of Mauritius , During The Ay Under Consideration Was Engaged In The Production & Acquiring Rights Of Various Television Films Including Feature Films, As A Copy Right Owner/Holder Of Various Hindi Feature Films Produced & Censored In India, As Mentioned In Schedule ‘C’ Annexed With The ‘Agreement Of 2 M/S Asia Today Ltd. Vs Asst. Dit (Int. Taxation)-2(2)

TDS is required to be made from such payment and consequently no disallowance under section 40(a)(i) was called for. Similar view was also held in the case of ACIT vs. Manish Dutta in 2011 – TMI-204199-Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Mumbai in ITA No.4017/Mum/2010 dated 17.6.2011 wherein the ITAT held that in view of the specific provision

M/S. SATELITE TELEVISION ASIAN REGION LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (INT. I.T) 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee and the Revenue are partly

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

vii) of the Act. In the above view, in the draft Assessment Order dated 25th March, 2013 passed under Section 144C of the Act, the Assessing Officer disallowed the entire expenditure of Rs.7.18 Crores under Section 40(a)(ia) of theAct, for failure to deduct tax under Section 194J of the Act; (b) On receipt of the draft assessment order

ACIT 11(2), MUMBAI vs. DELOITE HASKINS & SELLS, MUMBAI

Section 9 (1) (vii) or under Section9(1)(i). Accordingly,disallowance made by the AO u/s 40(a) (i) is directed to be deleted.” Considering the above,we hold that the professional fees paid by the assessee to DTS and DTL were not taxable in India nor were subject to TDS