HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assesse bearing ITA No

194H of\nthe Act and also ignoring that the matter is covered by judicial precedents in favour of the\nappellant.\n6. The CIT(A) erred in not directing the AO to grant refund of Rs.3,78,31,605 being excess\nDividend Distribution Tax ('DDT') paid by the Appellant being the difference between the rate of\n20.35765 percent under section

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(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. COX & KINGS (I) LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manjunathad C I T – 1(1)(1) M/S. Cox & Kings (I) Ltd. Room No. 579, 5Th Floor Tuner Morrison Bldg. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 16, Bank Street Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400001 Pan – Aaacc1921B Appellant Respondent Co No. 117/Mum/2017 (In Ita No. 5583/Mum/2015) (Assessment Year: 2007-08)

194H and consequently section 40(a)(ia). 10. The learned D.R. relied upon the observations of the CIT(A). 11. We have considered rival submissions and perused the material on record. As discussed earlier, the assessee has a foreign exchange division approved by the RBI and is authorised to buy foreign exchange and travellers cheques from RMCs and others

COX AND KINGS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manjunathad C I T – 1(1)(1) M/S. Cox & Kings (I) Ltd. Room No. 579, 5Th Floor Tuner Morrison Bldg. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 16, Bank Street Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400001 Pan – Aaacc1921B Appellant Respondent Co No. 117/Mum/2017 (In Ita No. 5583/Mum/2015) (Assessment Year: 2007-08)

194H and consequently section 40(a)(ia). 10. The learned D.R. relied upon the observations of the CIT(A). 11. We have considered rival submissions and perused the material on record. As discussed earlier, the assessee has a foreign exchange division approved by the RBI and is authorised to buy foreign exchange and travellers cheques from RMCs and others

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes

194H of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1916 on an estimated basis of incentive and\npayout of Ra 7,00,00,000/-,\n8. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) rejected\nthe audited accounts for the previous year 2008-2009\nfurnished as additional evidence merely on the ground that\nthe audited accounts were finalized too late in September\n2011 and confirm

SURESH G. HUNDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Shri Suresh G Hundia Vs. Dcit-2(4) (Erstwhile-Acit 14/A, Bharat Nagar, Cc-14, Mumbai) Grant Road Mumbai Mumbai Pan/Gir No.Aaqph7289E (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

condone the delay in filing of appeal before us of 2107 days and admit the appeal of the assessee for adjudication. 3. The only issue to be decided on merits is as to whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified in upholding the disallowance made u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act in the sum of Rs.20 lakhs in respect

HDFC BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

condone the delay of 120 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. ITA.No.3375/Mum/2023 Disallowance under section 14A – Ground No.1 22. The contention of the Revenue is that the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the amendment brought in by Finance Act 2022 to section 14A whereby it has been clarified that the provisions

HDFC BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

condone the delay of 120 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. ITA.No.3375/Mum/2023 Disallowance under section 14A – Ground No.1 22. The contention of the Revenue is that the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the amendment brought in by Finance Act 2022 to section 14A whereby it has been clarified that the provisions

DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. HDFC BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

condone the delay of 120 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. ITA.No.3375/Mum/2023 Disallowance under section 14A – Ground No.1 22. The contention of the Revenue is that the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the amendment brought in by Finance Act 2022 to section 14A whereby it has been clarified that the provisions

DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. HDFC BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

condone the delay of 120 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. ITA.No.3375/Mum/2023 Disallowance under section 14A – Ground No.1 22. The contention of the Revenue is that the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the amendment brought in by Finance Act 2022 to section 14A whereby it has been clarified that the provisions

DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. HDFC BANK LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

condone the delay of 120 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. ITA.No.3375/Mum/2023 Disallowance under section 14A – Ground No.1 22. The contention of the Revenue is that the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the amendment brought in by Finance Act 2022 to section 14A whereby it has been clarified that the provisions

HDFC BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

condone the delay of 120 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. ITA.No.3375/Mum/2023 Disallowance under section 14A – Ground No.1 22. The contention of the Revenue is that the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the amendment brought in by Finance Act 2022 to section 14A whereby it has been clarified that the provisions

DCIT 9(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. CREDILA FINANCIAL SERVICES P.LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1491/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिाम/ Dcit 9(2)(2) Credila Financial Services R.No. 665A, 6 T H Floor, Private Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Road, B-301 Citi Point, V. Mumbai-400020 Next To Kohinoor Continental Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri(E), Mumbai 400056 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaccc8789P (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent)

Section 79 of the 1961 Act has no application to the assessee. It was submitted that the said loss was not claimed in the return of income filed with the Revenue but since it is purely a legal ground which does not requires investigation into new facts and the facts as are emanating from the orders of the authorities below

DCIT CIRCLE 2.3.1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PRESTIGE HOLIDAY RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, ground no. 2 and 3 are

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Arun Khodpia

194H, wherein certain commission agent failed to give their PAN tax was deducted @ 20%. Out of 16 agents, who failed to reply during assessment, 7 of them confirmed receipt of commission payment after completion of assessment. The names of 8 other/remaining persons were also provided whose contract was terminated. 13. The ld CIT(A) deleted the addition by holding that

DCIT CIRCLE 2.3.1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PRESTIGE HOLIDAY RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, ground no. 2 and 3 are

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Arun Khodpia

194H, wherein certain commission agent failed to give their PAN tax was deducted @ 20%. Out of 16 agents, who failed to reply during assessment, 7 of them confirmed receipt of commission payment after completion of assessment. The names of 8 other/remaining persons were also provided whose contract was terminated. 13. The ld CIT(A) deleted the addition by holding that

SURESHKUMAR GHEWARCHAND HUNDIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC 14, MUMBAI

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./4324/Mum/2012,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./4325/Mum/2012,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2008-09 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Sureshkumar Ghewarchand Hundia Acit – Cc-14 14/A, Bharta Nagar, Opp. Shalimar Mumbai. Vs. Cinema, Grant Road,Mumbai-400 007. Pan:Aaqph 7289 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By: Shri Vishwas Munde-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से /Assessee By: S/Shri Shailesh Parmar & Pratik Jain -Ars सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 24/03/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 31/03/2017 लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार/ Per Rajendra, Am- अनुसार Challenging The Orders Dated 15.03.2012 Of The Cit(A)- 37,Mumbai,The Assessee Has Filed Appeals For The Above Mentioned Two Assessment Years(Ay.S).As The Issues Are Common In Both The Appeals,So,We Are Adjudicating Them By Passing A Common Order.

condone the delay. 3.Assessee,an individual,is engaged in the business of import and export of gold, silver and bullion and connected activities.The details of dates of filing of returns, returned incomes, dates of assessment etc. can be summarised as under: AY ROI filed on Returned income Assessment Date Assessed income 2007-08 31.10.2007 Rs.1.17 crores 27.12.2010 Rs.1.42 crores

DCIT, CC 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assesse bearing ITA No

Bench: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

194H of the Act and also ignoring that the matter is covered by judicial precedents in favour of the appellant. 6. The CIT(A) erred in not directing the AO to grant refund of Rs.3,78,31,605 being excess Dividend Distribution Tax ('DDT') paid by the Appellant being the difference between the rate of 20.35765 percent under section

SHRI RAJESH RAMCHANDRA DAKE,PANVEL vs. DY CIT CC-1, MUMBAI

delay of 592 days in filing the instant CO by the Revenue Department is condoned, as an exceptional case under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.\n\n26.3 Coming to the merits of CO, we observe that the Revenue Department has raised following grounds of CO.\n\n\"1. On the facts and in the circumstances

ITO 16(1)(4), MUMBAI vs. SHRI SHIV SAI CONSTRUCTION CO., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainincome Tax Officer-16(1)94) Shri Shiv Sai Construction Co. 2Nd Floor, Room No. 222 A/3, Everest Building Vs. Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road Tardeo, Mumbai 400034 Mumbai 400070 Pan – Aatfs2619E Appellant Respondent Co No. 153/Mum/2013 (Assessment Year: 2007-08) Shri Shiv Sai Construction Co. Income Tax Officer-16(1)94) A/3, Everest Building 2Nd Floor, Room No. 222 Vs. Tardeo, Mumbai 400034 Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road Mumbai 400070 Pan – Aatfs2619E Cross Objector Appellant In Appeal

Section 194H of the Act and thus not liable to deduct TDS. After considering the facts we find that to reach this conclusion, although the CIT(A) has mentioned that the payments were made by the assessee to Sharpmind Marketing Pvt. Ltd. in respect of brokerage and 4 Income Tax Officer-16(1)94)/Shri Shiv Sai Construction Co. commission