PANKAJ PARASAR,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 11(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainshri Pankaj Parasar Acit, Circle 11(1) 1St Floor, Plot No. 376 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. Didee House, 14Th Road Mumbai 400020 Khar (W), Mumbai 400052 Pan – Aaapp9015A Appellant Respondent

condone the delay of 248 days in filing this appeal. This appeal is accordingly admitted for consideration and adjudication. We hold and direct accordingly. 3 Shri Pankaj Parasar 3. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are as under: - 3.1 The assessee, Prop. M/s. Mazaa Films & M/s. Mazaa Productions, engaged in the production and direction of advertisement films, feature films

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

HSBC SECURITIES AND CAPITAL MARKETS (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO (TDS) 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Arora & Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.5679/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S. Hsbc Securities & Income Tax Officer (Tds) बनाम/ Capital Markets (India) Pvt. (Osd) 1(1) Vs. 9Th Floor, Ltd. 52/60,Mahatma Gandhi Road, Smt. K.G.Mittal Ayurvedic Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Hospital Building, Mumbai - 400002 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacj1395E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

section 194J of the Act upto the date on which the recipient has paid taxes on their income as advance tax or self assessment tax. ADDITIONAL GROUND NO. I:- 1. There is no liability to deduct tax at source u/s.194J of the Act on the transaction charges paid to Stock Exchanges and thus the question of levying interest

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

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

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

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

M/S TEXANLAB LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-15(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Texanlab Laboratories Dcit-15(3)(1), Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 451, Aayakar Vs. W-384, Ttc Industrial Area, Bhavan, New Marine Lines Rabale, Navi Mumbai-400701. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabct 4229 Q Appellant Respondent

section 194J of the Act. The Appellant submits that it has duly deducted TDS The Appellant submits that it has duly deducted TDS The Appellant submits that it has duly deducted TDS under Chapter XVII under Chapter XVII-B on payment of testing charges; B on payment of testing charges; hence no disallowance

RSVA & CO,MUMBAI CITY vs. ITO 16(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, ground no 2 of assessee’s appeal is also allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Arun Khodpia(Physical Hearing)

delay in filing appeal is condoned. Now, adverting to merits of the case. 9. Ground no. 1 relates to disallowance under section 40(a)(ia). The ld. AR of the assessee invited our attention on page 2 of para 5 of assessment order wherein the AO identified 5 parties (professionals) to whom payments were made and no TDS under section

SATELLITE DEVELOPERS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (TDS) 3(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

194J and not section 194C of I.T. Act without considering the fact that your appellant had properly deducted the tax as required under the law and had paid the same in time. 3. There is a marginal delay in filing the appeals. After going through the reasons for delay and the affidavit filed in support of it, we are convinced

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

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

MAPE SECURITIES P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. JCIT OSD 4(3), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for Asst

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-10

condonation of delay and permitted the Ld. Counsel to argue the case on merits holding that 5 Assessment Year: 2009-10 the appellant had been prevented by the sufficient cause from filing the present appeal within the limitation period. 7. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee was not given proper opportunity of being

PRODUCTION TESTING SERVICES INC,MUMBAI vs. DY.C.I.T(IT)-3(3)(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 1422/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Production Testing Services Inc. Dy. Cit (It)-3(3)(2) Room No. 1603, 16Th Usa, C/O. Madhav Joshi & बिधम/ Floor, Air India Associates, 801/B, Heritage Plaza, Vs. Building, 8Th Floor, B Wing, Teli Galli Cross Nariman Point, Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai – 400 069. स्थामीरेखासं./ जीआइआयसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aafcp5834R (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent :

section 115A are not applicable. 9. Without Prejudice to the above, Assessing Officer has not considered the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. CIT (2015) 59 Taxman.com 1 (SC) though the same was cited and discussed at length. The Assessing Officer has not even distinguished the said case

SUNBELL ALLOYS OF INDIA P.LTD,THANE vs. DCIT 9(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singh: (A.Y : 2009-10)

condone the delay in filing of appeal following the ratio of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., 167 ITR 471 (SC). 6. Coming to the merits of the dispute, the relevant facts can be understood as follows. The assessee before us is engaged in the business of manufacture

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

194J to factual matrix of the current case. The amount was credited to the account of the payee, payment was made and TDS was deducted in March, 2007 and paid/deposited in April, 2007. 22. Now, we refer to the amendments which have been made by the Finance Act, 2010 and the effect thereof. We have already quoted the decision

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

194J to factual matrix of the current case. The amount was credited to the account of the payee, payment was made and TDS was deducted in March, 2007 and paid/deposited in April, 2007. 22. Now, we refer to the amendments which have been made by the Finance Act, 2010 and the effect thereof. We have already quoted the decision

EAGLE COURIERS,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT (TDS) RG 1,, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singh

194J of the Act. The tax deducted at source has been paid to the credit of the Central Government. There is also no disallowance under section 40a of the Act for this assessment year. The assessee has filed letters with the Assessing Officer on 3rd August 2011, 16th August 2011 and 30th November 2011 giving reasons for the delay