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

6 Neo Sports Broadcast Pvt. Ltd. ITA Nos. 2642 & 2643/Mum/2016 other, the courts are expected to further the cause of substantial justice. For the said reason, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has opined that while considering matters relating to condonation of delay, a judicious and liberal approach ought to be pursued. In fact, the Hon'ble Supreme Court

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

6 Neo Sports Broadcast Pvt. Ltd. ITA Nos. 2642 & 2643/Mum/2016 other, the courts are expected to further the cause of substantial justice. For the said reason, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has opined that while considering matters relating to condonation of delay, a judicious and liberal approach ought to be pursued. In fact, the Hon'ble Supreme Court

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

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

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

condone delay of 2119 days which translates into delay of almost six years and appeal of the assessee is dismissed on this short ground only. The assessee fails in this appeal. We order accordingly. 6. In the result , appeal in ITA no. 6002/Mum/2017 filed by the assessee stand dismissed. Assessee’s Appeal in ITA no. 6001/Mum/2017

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

condone delay of 2119 days which translates into delay of almost six years and appeal of the assessee is dismissed on this short ground only. The assessee fails in this appeal. We order accordingly. 6. In the result , appeal in ITA no. 6002/Mum/2017 filed by the assessee stand dismissed. Assessee’s Appeal in ITA no. 6001/Mum/2017

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)

6. The appellant submits that the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in levying interest under section 201(1A) of the Act amounting to Rs. 13,15,847/-. 7. The appellant submits that the Assessing Officer be directed : (i) Order under section 201(1) and 201(1 A) passed beyond

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

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

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

194C. If tax has been deducted at source, the credit for such TDS has to be allowed in the year of deduction itself. In ACIT v. Peddu Srinivas Rao ITA 324/Vizag/2009 mobilisation advance was received and on identical facts it was held that credit for such TDS should be given in the year of deduction of TDS itself. This decision

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

194C. If tax has been deducted at source, the credit for such TDS has to be allowed in the year of deduction itself. In ACIT v. Peddu Srinivas Rao ITA 324/Vizag/2009 mobilisation advance was received and on identical facts it was held that credit for such TDS should be given in the year of deduction of TDS itself. This decision

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

6. From the above pleadings, we do not find any plausible reasons to justify the long delay of 704 days for filing the present appeal. Even though earlier Chartered Accountant did not co-operate with her, yet, she required to file appeal in a reasonable time. The delay of few days for non co-operation of the Authorized Representative/CA

RAKHI A SAWANT,MUMBAI vs. ITO 11(1)(3), 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

6. From the above pleadings, we do not find any plausible reasons to justify the long delay of 704 days for filing the present appeal. Even though earlier Chartered Accountant did not co-operate with her, yet, she required to file appeal in a reasonable time. The delay of few days for non co-operation of the Authorized Representative/CA

S.S. CONSTRUCTION,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER CIR 19(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes while CO filed by Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5482/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ M/S. S.S. Construction, The Assessing Officer Cir Shop No. 106, Building No.9, 19(1), 3Rd Floor, Jogani Industrial Estate, Piramal Chambers, V. V.N. Purav Marg, Lal Buag, Parel, Chunabhatti, Mumbai- 400012 Mumbai-400022. स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aasfs8983N

Section 40(a)(ia) of the 1961 Act has no applicability . 9. Aggrieved by appellate order dated 15.04.2013 passed by learned CIT(A), the assessee has come in an appeal before the tribunal . The Revenue has filed Cross Objection which is delayed by 930 days beyond the time stipulated u/s 253(4) of the 1961 Act. The Ld. Counsel

DINESH KUMAR RAJENDRA SINGH,MALAD EAST MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER (AO), KAUTILYA BHAVAN, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

194C and Section 194I of the Income Tax Act 1961, for making additions to income though these are TDS provisions applicable to payers and not charging sections applicable to the Appellant. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) had erred in upholding the contention of the Ld. AO where the Ld. AO erred in adding rental income and contract receipt amounting

ASHOK PANDURANG GAIKWAD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal u/s 263 stands allowed and appeal bearing no

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6191/Mum/2009 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2005-06) Shri Ashok Pandurang Gaikwad, बनधम/ Commissioner Of Income Tax – 10, Rudra Kautir Apartment, Circle-Iii, Vs. Opp Dutta Temple, 3Rd Floor, Quoreshi Mansion, Ambernath -421501 Gokhale Road, Naupada, Thane(W)-400602 आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.22/Mum/2010 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2005-06) बनधम/ Shri Ashok Pandurang Gaikwad, Income Tax Officer-Ward 2(1), 10, Rudra Kautir Apartment, Kalyan. Vs. Opp Dutta Temple, Ambernath -421501 स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan :Aevpg3266M अपीऱार्थी ओर से / Assessee By Shri Vijay Mehta प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Revenue By Shri A.K Srivastava सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2016 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.10.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Dated 31.1.2008 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-Iii, Thane Under Section 263 Of The Income

condone the delay and admit the appeal for disposal on merit. I.T.A. No.6191/Mum/2009 5. The issue raised in all the grounds of appeal is against the invocation of the provisions of section 263 of the Act in the case of the assessee by directing the AO to add contract payments under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act on which

ASHOK PANDURANG GAIKWAD,AMBERNATH vs. CIT -III, THANE

In the result, the appeal u/s 263 stands allowed and appeal bearing no

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6191/Mum/2009 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2005-06) Shri Ashok Pandurang Gaikwad, बनधम/ Commissioner Of Income Tax – 10, Rudra Kautir Apartment, Circle-Iii, Vs. Opp Dutta Temple, 3Rd Floor, Quoreshi Mansion, Ambernath -421501 Gokhale Road, Naupada, Thane(W)-400602 आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.22/Mum/2010 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2005-06) बनधम/ Shri Ashok Pandurang Gaikwad, Income Tax Officer-Ward 2(1), 10, Rudra Kautir Apartment, Kalyan. Vs. Opp Dutta Temple, Ambernath -421501 स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan :Aevpg3266M अपीऱार्थी ओर से / Assessee By Shri Vijay Mehta प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Revenue By Shri A.K Srivastava सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2016 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.10.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Dated 31.1.2008 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-Iii, Thane Under Section 263 Of The Income

condone the delay and admit the appeal for disposal on merit. I.T.A. No.6191/Mum/2009 5. The issue raised in all the grounds of appeal is against the invocation of the provisions of section 263 of the Act in the case of the assessee by directing the AO to add contract payments under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act on which