WIN CABLE & DATACOM P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (TDS) 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

Bench: S/Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Amarjit Singh (Jm) I.T.A. No. 3635/Mum/2016(Assessment Year 2001-02)

condoned the delay. 4. Now, coming to issue No. 1&2 in which the assessee took the plea of limitation. It is the argument of the representative of the assessee that the show-cause notice in all the cases were issued by the Assessing Officer on 23.9.2003, which was served upon the assessee on 24.9.2003 and the proceedings

BAIJNATH MELARAM,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 14(3), MUMBAI

In the result, these appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2008-09 Baijnath Melaram, Acit Rg 14(3) C/O. Mangaldas D Shah & Co. बनाम/ 6Th Floor, Earnest 506, Lotus House, 5Th Floor, House, Vs. 33-A, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400021 Mumbai-400020 (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaafb2675E Appellant By Shri Dhirendra M. Shah (Ar) Revenue By Shri Suman Kumar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date 21/12/2016 Of Hearing: आदेश की तारीख /Date Of Order: 27/01/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ashwani Taneja: These Appeals Pertain To Same Assessee For The Two Different Years Involving Identical Issues, Therefore, These Were Heard Together & Being Disposed By This Common Order: 2. First We Shall Take Appeal For A.Y. 2007-08 Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Dated 24.10.2011 Passed Against The Assessment Order Of The Ao U/S 143(3)

condone the delay in filing this appeal. Thus, appeal is admitted for disposal on merits. 3. Ground No.1: In this ground the assessee is aggrieved with the action of lower authorities in making disallowance of Rs.1,05,038/- u/s 14A read with Rule 8D. 3.1. The brief background is that during the course of assessment proceeding, the A.O. observed that

BAIJNATH MELARAM,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 14(3), MUMBAI

In the result, these appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2008-09 Baijnath Melaram, Acit Rg 14(3) C/O. Mangaldas D Shah & Co. बनाम/ 6Th Floor, Earnest 506, Lotus House, 5Th Floor, House, Vs. 33-A, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400021 Mumbai-400020 (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaafb2675E Appellant By Shri Dhirendra M. Shah (Ar) Revenue By Shri Suman Kumar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date 21/12/2016 Of Hearing: आदेश की तारीख /Date Of Order: 27/01/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ashwani Taneja: These Appeals Pertain To Same Assessee For The Two Different Years Involving Identical Issues, Therefore, These Were Heard Together & Being Disposed By This Common Order: 2. First We Shall Take Appeal For A.Y. 2007-08 Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Dated 24.10.2011 Passed Against The Assessment Order Of The Ao U/S 143(3)

condone the delay in filing this appeal. Thus, appeal is admitted for disposal on merits. 3. Ground No.1: In this ground the assessee is aggrieved with the action of lower authorities in making disallowance of Rs.1,05,038/- u/s 14A read with Rule 8D. 3.1. The brief background is that during the course of assessment proceeding, the A.O. observed that

INFINITY RETAIL LTD.,MUMBAI vs. CIT(TDS)-1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleinfinity Retail Limited, Cit (Tds) – 1 Unit No. 701 & 702, 7Th Room No. 900, 9Th Floor, बनाम/ Floor, Kaledonia, Sahar K.G. Mittal Building, Road, Andheri (East), Vs. Netaji Subhash Road, Mumbai – 400069. Charni Road, Mumbai-400002. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccv1726H .. (""थ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant)

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted and heard. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of retail trading of electronic goods(CROMA). The asssessee has taken various leave and license premises from M/s R. Mall Developers Pvt.Ltd in R.N.Mall, Ghatkopar. There was survey u/sec 133A

PRAVINCHANDRA JETHALAL AND COMPAY,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-13(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6002 & 6001/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09) बिाम/ Parvinchandra Jethalal & Acit-13(1), Co., Aayakar Bhavan, 506, Rajgor Chambers, Churchgate, Mumbai V. Near Masjid Railway Station, Mumbai 400009 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan:Aadfp5716B (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri. Mehul Shah Revenue By: Shri. D.G. Pansari (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 17.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.03.2019

Section 194C to hold that for clearing and forwarding expenses , the TDS is required to be deducted on total payment. 3.3. Disallowance of Terminal Handling Charges to the tune 1,54,028 on account of non-deduction of TDS u/s 194C. The assessee has claimed to have paid Terminal Handling Charges of Rs. 1,54,028/- to M/s Swift Freight

PRAVINCHANDRA JETHALAL AND COMPAY,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-13(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6002 & 6001/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09) बिाम/ Parvinchandra Jethalal & Acit-13(1), Co., Aayakar Bhavan, 506, Rajgor Chambers, Churchgate, Mumbai V. Near Masjid Railway Station, Mumbai 400009 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan:Aadfp5716B (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri. Mehul Shah Revenue By: Shri. D.G. Pansari (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 17.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.03.2019

Section 194C to hold that for clearing and forwarding expenses , the TDS is required to be deducted on total payment. 3.3. Disallowance of Terminal Handling Charges to the tune 1,54,028 on account of non-deduction of TDS u/s 194C. The assessee has claimed to have paid Terminal Handling Charges of Rs. 1,54,028/- to M/s Swift Freight

SODEXO FOOD SOLUTIONS INDIA P.LTD ( FORMELRY KNWONA S RADHAKRISHNA HOSPIALALITY SERVICES P.LTD),MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 8(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.304 & 305/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2002-03 & 2003-04) Sodexo Food Solutions India Deputy Commissioner Of Income Private Limited Tax Range-8(3) (Formerly Known As Radhakrishna Hospitality 2Nd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan बनाम/ Services Private Limited) M.K.Road, Mumbai -400 020 Gemstar Commercial Complex Vs. 1St Floor, Ramchandra Lane Extn. Kanchpada, Malad(W) Mumbai-400 064 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacr-2547-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.7042/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Sodexo Food Solutions India Assistant Commissioner Of Private Limited Income Tax -8(3) (Formerly Known As Radhakrishna Hospitality Room No.217, 2Nd Floor बनाम/ Services Private Limited) Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road Gemstar Commercial Complex Vs. 1St Floor, Ramchandra Lane Extn. Mumbai -400 020 Kanchpada, Malad(W) Mumbai-400 064 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacr-2547-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.6864/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Assistant Commissioner Of Sodexo Food Solutions India Private Limited Income Tax -8(3) बनाम/ (Formerly Known As Radhakrishna Hospitality Room No.217, 2Nd Floor Services Private Limited) Vs. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road Gemstar Commercial Complex 1St Floor, Ramchandra Lane Extn.

delay in payment of TDS on amount of Rs.9,35,581/- and therefore the same was not allowable to the assessee in terms of Section 40(a)(ia). Another addition of Rs.20,91,550/- was made u/s 40(a)(ia) for short deduction of TDS against contractual / professional / rental payments made by the assessee during impugned AY. Sodexo Food Solutions

SODEXO FOOD SOLUTIONS INDIA P LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 8(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.304 & 305/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2002-03 & 2003-04) Sodexo Food Solutions India Deputy Commissioner Of Income Private Limited Tax Range-8(3) (Formerly Known As Radhakrishna Hospitality 2Nd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan बनाम/ Services Private Limited) M.K.Road, Mumbai -400 020 Gemstar Commercial Complex Vs. 1St Floor, Ramchandra Lane Extn. Kanchpada, Malad(W) Mumbai-400 064 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacr-2547-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.7042/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Sodexo Food Solutions India Assistant Commissioner Of Private Limited Income Tax -8(3) (Formerly Known As Radhakrishna Hospitality Room No.217, 2Nd Floor बनाम/ Services Private Limited) Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road Gemstar Commercial Complex Vs. 1St Floor, Ramchandra Lane Extn. Mumbai -400 020 Kanchpada, Malad(W) Mumbai-400 064 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacr-2547-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.6864/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Assistant Commissioner Of Sodexo Food Solutions India Private Limited Income Tax -8(3) बनाम/ (Formerly Known As Radhakrishna Hospitality Room No.217, 2Nd Floor Services Private Limited) Vs. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road Gemstar Commercial Complex 1St Floor, Ramchandra Lane Extn.

delay in payment of TDS on amount of Rs.9,35,581/- and therefore the same was not allowable to the assessee in terms of Section 40(a)(ia). Another addition of Rs.20,91,550/- was made u/s 40(a)(ia) for short deduction of TDS against contractual / professional / rental payments made by the assessee during impugned AY. Sodexo Food Solutions

ACIT 8(3), MUMBAI vs. SODEXO FOOD SOLUTIONS INDIA P.LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS RADHAKRISHNA HOSPITALITY SERVICES P.LTD)), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.304 & 305/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2002-03 & 2003-04) Sodexo Food Solutions India Deputy Commissioner Of Income Private Limited Tax Range-8(3) (Formerly Known As Radhakrishna Hospitality 2Nd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan बनाम/ Services Private Limited) M.K.Road, Mumbai -400 020 Gemstar Commercial Complex Vs. 1St Floor, Ramchandra Lane Extn. Kanchpada, Malad(W) Mumbai-400 064 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacr-2547-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.7042/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Sodexo Food Solutions India Assistant Commissioner Of Private Limited Income Tax -8(3) (Formerly Known As Radhakrishna Hospitality Room No.217, 2Nd Floor बनाम/ Services Private Limited) Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road Gemstar Commercial Complex Vs. 1St Floor, Ramchandra Lane Extn. Mumbai -400 020 Kanchpada, Malad(W) Mumbai-400 064 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacr-2547-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.6864/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Assistant Commissioner Of Sodexo Food Solutions India Private Limited Income Tax -8(3) बनाम/ (Formerly Known As Radhakrishna Hospitality Room No.217, 2Nd Floor Services Private Limited) Vs. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road Gemstar Commercial Complex 1St Floor, Ramchandra Lane Extn.

delay in payment of TDS on amount of Rs.9,35,581/- and therefore the same was not allowable to the assessee in terms of Section 40(a)(ia). Another addition of Rs.20,91,550/- was made u/s 40(a)(ia) for short deduction of TDS against contractual / professional / rental payments made by the assessee during impugned AY. Sodexo Food Solutions

POMEGRANATE MEDIA (PTY) LTD,SOUTH AFRICA vs. DCIT(IT)-3(3)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Saktijit Dey

condoning the delay in filing the appeals, we admit them for hearing and adjudication on merits. 5. The solitary common issue in dispute arising in these appeals relate to the nature of income received by the assessee from Endemol India Pvt. Ltd., towards line production services, whether is in the nature of fee for technical service, hence, exhigible

NEO SPORTS BROADCAST PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (TDS)2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood

1) and 201(1A) of the Act. Copies of the orders have been placed on record. 8. On the other hand, the ld. DR has opposed the plea of the assessee for condonation of delay by pointing out that the delay was for an extraordinary period and that merely prosecuting a wrong remedy cannot be a ground to seek condonation

NEO SPORTS BROADCAST PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (TDS) 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood

1) and 201(1A) of the Act. Copies of the orders have been placed on record. 8. On the other hand, the ld. DR has opposed the plea of the assessee for condonation of delay by pointing out that the delay was for an extraordinary period and that merely prosecuting a wrong remedy cannot be a ground to seek condonation

HATHWAY C NET P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. TRO (TDS) RG 1, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Hathway C-Net Private The Tax Recovery Officer Limited, Rahejas, 4Th Floor, (Tds)-1 Smt. K.G. Mittal बिधम/ Corners Of Main Avenue & Ayurvedic Hospital Bldg, Vs. V.P. Road, Santa Cruz (West) Charni Road-(West), Mumbai- 400054 Mumbai-400 002 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaach8338K (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

section 201(1A) of the Act amounting to a sum of Rs.2, 15,528/-; P a g e | 3 ITA No. 4112/Mum/2016 AY: 2003-04 Hathway C-Net Private Ltd. Vs. TRO (TDS) and to modify the order as per the provisions of the law. 6. Each of the above grounds of appeal are independent and without prejudice to each

AGILITY LOGISTICS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT TDS 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both Department’s appeal and assessee’s cross objection are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Dey

194C of the Act. Therefore, he worked out the default for non deduction of tax at `73,77,522/– and raised a demand under section 201(1) along with interest under section 201(1A) amounting to `26,55,908/– for assessment year 2010–11. Similarly, demand of `82,70,796/– under section 201(1) along with interest

REKHA MAHESHWARI ,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

condoning the delay is reversed as the appeal was filed within time. However, the Ld. CIT (A) also decided the appeal on merits. 5. The brief facts are that assessee is an individual and had declared income under the head ‘income from house property’ from rent of Rs.26,00,000/- received from tenant SVIL Mines Ltd in respect of property

DCIT-1(2)1, MUMBAI., MUMBAI vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue\nare dismissed

condone the delay and hence the appeals are\nadmitted for hearing on merits.\n4\nआयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण\nINCOMETAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nΙ.Τ.Α. No. 4940/Mum/2024\nI.T.A. No. 4942/Mum/2024\nΙ.Τ.Α. No. 4944/Mum/2024\n4. All the grounds raised by the Department are inter-\nrelated and inter-connected and relates to challenging the\norder of the 1d. CIT(A) in allowing

EXPERTEASE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO TDS 1(2)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Renu Jauhrii Ta. No. 1594/Mum/2024 (A.Y.2009-10) Expertease (India) Pvt Ltd, Vs Ito (Tds)-1(2)(2) 3102, Gokul Concorde, Roomno. 805, 8Th Flr, Thakur Village, Smt K G Mittal Kandivali (East), Ayurvedic Hospitalbldg Mumbai-400101. Charni Road, Mumbai-400002. Pan/Gir No. Aabce2693P (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Appellant By Shri Prakash Jotwani. Ar Respondent By Shri P.D Chougule. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 27.06.2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 29.07.2024 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Common Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)(Cit(A))- 59 Mumbai Passed U/Sec 201(1)/201(1A) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, It Was Brought To The Knowledge Of The Bench That, The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Electronically On 07.12.2018 & Emphasized On Facts & Relied On The Affidavit Of The Director Of The Assesse Company As Under:

section 194C of the IT Act.1961; 10. I received the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) order dated 21/09/2018 on 08/10/2018 11.I paid the appeal fees of Rs. 500/- on 06/12/2018 and filed the appeal on 11/12/2018 Vide an acknowledgment number1544206393; 12. the appeal was not listed for hearing, though the Department's appeal was disposed of on ground

RAKHI A SAWANT,MUMBAI vs. CIT -11, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Before Shri Before Before Shri Shri Sanjay Garg, Shri Sanjay Garg, Sanjay Gargsanjay Garg & And & Shri Shri Ashwani Taneja Shri Shri Ashwani Taneja Ashwani Taneja, , , Ashwani Tanejaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2965 & 2966/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / / / / Assessment Year : 2006-07) Ms.Rakhi Sawant, बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम Income Tax Officer 11(1)(3), , M/S Chandravijay Shah & Vs. Room No. 438, 4Th Floor, Co., Aayakar Bhavan, Chartered Accountant, M K Road, 401, Rainbow Chambers, Mumbai-400020. S V Road, Nr. Mtnl, Kandivili (W), Mumbai-400067 (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aumps5377C अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By None ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By Shri A K Srivastava सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 28.09.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.09.2016 आदेश आदेश / O R D E R आदेश आदेश / O R D E R / O R D E R / O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Above Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order, For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Take Up Assessee’S Appeal Bearing Ita No.2966/Mum/2013. 3. This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order

condonation of delay and the same is therefore dismissed. Accordingly, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed being barred by limitation. 7. Now coming to the second appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.2965/Mum/2013. 8. This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 11.2.2013 in relation of the assessment proceedings carried