DCIT (OSD)(TDS)-2(3), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL ENERGIES MARKETINGS INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

92,02,890/– 1,79,73,114 which TDS on which TDS on which TDS default under default under default under 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

92,02,890/– 1,79,73,114 which TDS on which TDS on which TDS default under default under default under 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

92,02,890/– 1,79,73,114 which TDS on which TDS on which TDS default under default under default under 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

92,02,890/– 1,79,73,114 which TDS on which TDS on which TDS default under default under default under 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

92,02,890/– 1,79,73,114 which TDS on which TDS on which TDS default under default under default under section

HSBC SECURITIES AND CAPITAL MARKETS (I) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

92 of the Act is a separate charging provision. 3.1.10 on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble DRP erred in concluding that share premium is liable to be assessed to tax as income by wrongfully drawing reference from proviso to Section 68 of the Act. 3.1.11 On the facts

HSBC SECURITIES AND CAPITAL MARKETS (INDIA) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

92 of the Act is a separate charging provision. 3.1.10 on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble DRP erred in concluding that share premium is liable to be assessed to tax as income by wrongfully drawing reference from proviso to Section 68 of the Act. 3.1.11 On the facts

DCIT 4(1), MUMBAI vs. HSBC SECURITIES AND CAPITAL MARKETS (INDIA) P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

92 of the Act is a separate charging provision. 3.1.10 on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble DRP erred in concluding that share premium is liable to be assessed to tax as income by wrongfully drawing reference from proviso to Section 68 of the Act. 3.1.11 On the facts

CHATTANATHAN DEVARAJAN ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 34(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Chattanathan Devarajan Income Tax Officer - 34(1)(1) 1101, Raheja Tipco Heights Mumbai Rani Sati Marg, Vs. Malad East Mumbai – 400067 (Pan: Abjpc6332P) (Assessee) (Respondent)

TDS Form 92,87,376 24Q, Section 192) (b) TDS-194A TDS Return Other Interest 3,84,683 (Section 194A

ITO 22(3)(1), NAVI MUMBAI vs. CRESCENT CONSTRUCTION, NAVI MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06

92,221/- thereon was deposited on 7th March, 2007. The balance amount of Rs.78,51,800/- was paid/released in the month of March, 2007 and TDS was deducted and was paid on the said amount before the due date in the month of April, 2007. Deduction, therefore, was due and made in the month of M/s Crescent Construction Co. March

CRESCENT CONSTRUCTION CO.,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 22(3), NAVI MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06

92,221/- thereon was deposited on 7th March, 2007. The balance amount of Rs.78,51,800/- was paid/released in the month of March, 2007 and TDS was deducted and was paid on the said amount before the due date in the month of April, 2007. Deduction, therefore, was due and made in the month of M/s Crescent Construction Co. March

DIAGEO INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 7(3), MUMBAI

92 of the Act,as it was not an international transaction.As no adjustment could be made with regard to AMP expenses,so, there is no justification for mark up of AMP and resultant adjustment on sales support services.Second effective ground of appeal(GOA-17-21)is decided in favour of the assessee. 9.The third ground of appeal is about adjustments

THOMAS COOK (INDIA) LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/ JT/ DY/CIT/ASSTT/ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Ble

section under which ESOP expenditure is allowable under the Income Tax Act 1961 ('Act). The only provision where a company can claim the expenditure is section 37 of the ActHence, it is pertinent to test the conditions mentioned in section 37 in order to conclude whether the expenditure is allowable? Section 37 of the Act Page

M/S CEAT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER OSD TDS CIRCLE 1(1), MUMBAI

92[two] per cent :\nProvided that no deduction shall be made under this section in a case\nwhere the amount of such income or, as the case may be, the aggregate\nof the amounts of such income credited or paid or likely to be credited\nor paid during the financial year to the account of, or to, the payee,\ndoes

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

TDS Section 194A – Interest on loans 4,12,416 Nil 10,686 Section 194C Contractor 78,06,579 Nil 78,06,579 Section 194J – Supervision Charges 2,55,100 Nil 2,55,100 Section 194H – Brokerage Expenses/ 2,50,000 Nil 2,50,000 commission Section 194J – professional charges 50,000 Nil 50,000 4. Adhoc Disallowance for direct 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

TDS Section 194A – Interest on loans 4,12,416 Nil 10,686 Section 194C Contractor 78,06,579 Nil 78,06,579 Section 194J – Supervision Charges 2,55,100 Nil 2,55,100 Section 194H – Brokerage Expenses/ 2,50,000 Nil 2,50,000 commission Section 194J – professional charges 50,000 Nil 50,000 4. Adhoc Disallowance for direct 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

TDS Section 194A – Interest on loans 4,12,416 Nil 10,686 Section 194C Contractor 78,06,579 Nil 78,06,579 Section 194J – Supervision Charges 2,55,100 Nil 2,55,100 Section 194H – Brokerage Expenses/ 2,50,000 Nil 2,50,000 commission Section 194J – professional charges 50,000 Nil 50,000 4. Adhoc Disallowance for direct 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

TDS Section 194A – Interest on loans 4,12,416 Nil 10,686 Section 194C Contractor 78,06,579 Nil 78,06,579 Section 194J – Supervision Charges 2,55,100 Nil 2,55,100 Section 194H – Brokerage Expenses/ 2,50,000 Nil 2,50,000 commission Section 194J – professional charges 50,000 Nil 50,000 4. Adhoc Disallowance for direct Expenses