ASST CIT (E) I(1),MUMBAI vs. INSTITUTE OF CHEMICAL TECHNOLOGY, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Shri Lalit Kumar, Jm

section 11(4A), because the 4 ITA No.3808/Mum/2015. Institute of Chemical Technology. business if any being carried out by the appellant is incidental / ancillary to the objects of the appellant trust. So far as maintenance of separate books of account is concerned, the appellant has maintained separate ledger of consultancy fee receipts. Since there is no question of expenses, assets

ACIT 17(1), MUMBAI vs. ELVE CORPORATION, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

charitable purposes. Section 12 deals with income of trust or institutions from contributions. By section 12A conditions for applicability of sections 11 and 12 are set out. Section 12AA sets out the procedure for registration. Section 13 states that section 11 will not apply in certain cases. By section 13A, special provision is made relating to incomes of political parties

ACIT 17(1), MUMBAI vs. ELVE CORPORATION, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

charitable purposes. Section 12 deals with income of trust or institutions from contributions. By section 12A conditions for applicability of sections 11 and 12 are set out. Section 12AA sets out the procedure for registration. Section 13 states that section 11 will not apply in certain cases. By section 13A, special provision is made relating to incomes of political parties

ADDL CIT 8(2), MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT P. LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09

194C, 194J and 195, and since the assessee failed in deducting tax at source, the AO disallowed the provision for the expenditure. 6.2. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee filed detailed written submissions before Ld. CIT(A) wherein it was inter-alia submitted that these expenses were provided for in the book

MUMBAI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09

194C, 194J and 195, and since the assessee failed in deducting tax at source, the AO disallowed the provision for the expenditure. 6.2. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee filed detailed written submissions before Ld. CIT(A) wherein it was inter-alia submitted that these expenses were provided for in the book

ACIT 25(3), MUMBAI vs. BHAVARLAL C. SUTHAR, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Sanjay Aroraassessment Years:2007-08 Acit-25(3), Shri Bhavarlal C.Suthar C-11, R. No.308, C/4/705, Sai Krupa Chsl, Pratyaksh Kar Bhavan, Sector-7, Kandivali (West), Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400067 Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaops8548P

194C(1) as the provision is applicable only from 01/06/2007, thus, the assessee was not liable to deduct tax, therefore, there is no question of disallowance of the impugned amount. It is also noted that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has already relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Teja Construction vs ACIT

MUMBAI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals are statistically allowed and revenue’s

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

194C but failed to do so." 5. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 12,31,76,051/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 40(a)(ia), without appreciating that the assessee’s tax auditors had pointed out that the said amount

DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals are statistically allowed and revenue’s

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

194C but failed to do so." 5. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 12,31,76,051/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 40(a)(ia), without appreciating that the assessee’s tax auditors had pointed out that the said amount

MUMBAI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 8(20, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals are statistically allowed and revenue’s

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

194C but failed to do so." 5. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 12,31,76,051/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 40(a)(ia), without appreciating that the assessee’s tax auditors had pointed out that the said amount

MUMBAI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals are statistically allowed and revenue’s

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

194C but failed to do so." 5. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 12,31,76,051/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 40(a)(ia), without appreciating that the assessee’s tax auditors had pointed out that the said amount

DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals are statistically allowed and revenue’s

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

194C but failed to do so." 5. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 12,31,76,051/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 40(a)(ia), without appreciating that the assessee’s tax auditors had pointed out that the said amount

DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI INTERNAIOTNAL AIRPORT P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals are statistically allowed and revenue’s

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

194C but failed to do so." 5. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 12,31,76,051/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 40(a)(ia), without appreciating that the assessee’s tax auditors had pointed out that the said amount

MUMBAI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 10(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodmumbai International Airport Vs. Dcit,Circle-10(2)(2) Private Limited Room No.209,Aaykar Bhawan Finance Department M.K.Road 1St Floor, Terminal 1B Mumbai-400 020 Chhatrapati Shivaji Internaitonal Airport Santacruz (E) Mumbai-400 099 Pan/Gir No.Aaecm6285C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & Dcit-10(2)(2) Vs. Mumbai International Room No.216-A,Aaykar Bhawan Airport Private Limited M.K.Road Finance Department, 1St Floor, Terminal 1B Mumbai-400 020 Chhatrapati Shivaji Internaitonal Airport Santacruz (E) Mumbai-400 099

194C and other TDS provisions, it is very clear that the liability to deduct TDS is arises, even if, the amount is credited to a suspense account. Therefore, once amount is provided in books of account, it is the obligation of the assessee to deduct applicable TDS. Since, the assesse has not deducted TDS on various expenditure