ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL)-48, MUMBAI

In the result, all these five appeals are resorted to learned

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

condonation of delay in filing of this appeal. x. Assessee submitted that the order of the co- ordinate Bench for A.Y. 2013-14 was passed on 6th November, 2018. From this date the assessee became aware that on the impugned payment no tax is required to be deducted under Section 195

ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL)-48 , MUMBAI

In the result, all these five appeals are resorted to learned

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

condonation of delay in filing of this appeal. x. Assessee submitted that the order of the co- ordinate Bench for A.Y. 2013-14 was passed on 6th November, 2018. From this date the assessee became aware that on the impugned payment no tax is required to be deducted under Section 195

ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-48 , MUMBAI

In the result, all these five appeals are resorted to learned

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

condonation of delay in filing of this appeal. x. Assessee submitted that the order of the co- ordinate Bench for A.Y. 2013-14 was passed on 6th November, 2018. From this date the assessee became aware that on the impugned payment no tax is required to be deducted under Section 195

ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL)-48, MUMBAI

In the result, all these five appeals are resorted to learned

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

condonation of delay in filing of this appeal. x. Assessee submitted that the order of the co- ordinate Bench for A.Y. 2013-14 was passed on 6th November, 2018. From this date the assessee became aware that on the impugned payment no tax is required to be deducted under Section 195

DCIT, CIR 16(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S KPMG ASSURANCE AND CONSULTING SERVICES LLP, MUMBAI

Section 195 of the Act as the same were\nchargeable to tax in India in terms of Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act\nread with either Article 12 or Article 22/23 of the corresponding\nDTAAs as FTS or Other Income, respectively. Since the Assessee\nhad failed to deduct tax from the same in terms of Section 195

DCIT, CIR 16(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S KPMG ASSURANCE AND CONSULTING SERVICES LLP, MUMBAI

Section 195 of the Act as the same were\nchargeable to tax in India in terms of Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act\nread with either Article 12 or Article 22/23 of the corresponding\nDTAAs as FTS or Other Income, respectively. Since the Assessee\nhad failed to deduct tax from the same in terms of Section 195

KPMG ASSURANCE AND CONSULTING SERVICES LLP,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -16(2), MUMBAI

195 of the Act. Since the Assessee had failed to deduct\ntax at source from the professional fee paid to non-residents, the\nAssessing Officer disallowed the deduction for the same by\ninvoking provisions contained in Section 40(a)(i) of the Act.\nFurther, the Assessing Officer also disallowed deduction claimed\nby the Assessee for remittance made by the Assessee

KPMG ASSURANCE AND CONSULTING SERVICES LLP,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE-16(2), MUMBAI

195 of the Act. Since the Assessee had failed to deduct\ntax at source from the professional fee paid to non-residents, the\nAssessing Officer disallowed the deduction for the same by\ninvoking provisions contained in Section 40(a)(i) of the Act.\nFurther, the Assessing Officer also disallowed deduction claimed\nby the Assessee for remittance made by the Assessee

HEMCHAND CHINTAMAN PATIL,THANE vs. ITO, THANE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Omkareshwar Chidarahemchand Chintaman Patil, Vs. Income Tax Officer 202, Lovely Palace No.2, Qureshi Mansion, Kharigaon, B. P. Road, 2Nd Floor, Gokhale Bhayander (East), Road, Naupada, Teen Thane - 401105. Haath Naka, Thane (W), Thane – 400602. Pan/Gir No. Amapp3180E (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Aditya Rai (Sr. Dr.)

195, 199 (Karn). It is the duty of the appellant to place the relevant facts that there was a sufficient cause for delay in filing an appeal. In the absence of such facts, no presumption can be drawn that there must a sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time [ Union of India v. Brij Lal Prabhu

IATA BSP, INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ADIT 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. We find it appropriate to reproduce the said note hereunder: “1. IATA BSP India (IATA, India), the appellant is a branch office of International Air Transport Association, Canada ("IATA, Canada"). The Reserve Bank of India vide its letter dated 25.11 .1995 has permitted IATA, Canada to establish branch office in India

IATA BSP INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ADIT 3(1),

In the result, these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. We find it appropriate to reproduce the said note hereunder: “1. IATA BSP India (IATA, India), the appellant is a branch office of International Air Transport Association, Canada ("IATA, Canada"). The Reserve Bank of India vide its letter dated 25.11 .1995 has permitted IATA, Canada to establish branch office in India

IATA BSP, INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ADIT 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. We find it appropriate to reproduce the said note hereunder: “1. IATA BSP India (IATA, India), the appellant is a branch office of International Air Transport Association, Canada ("IATA, Canada"). The Reserve Bank of India vide its letter dated 25.11 .1995 has permitted IATA, Canada to establish branch office in India

IATA BSP, INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ADIT 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. We find it appropriate to reproduce the said note hereunder: “1. IATA BSP India (IATA, India), the appellant is a branch office of International Air Transport Association, Canada ("IATA, Canada"). The Reserve Bank of India vide its letter dated 25.11 .1995 has permitted IATA, Canada to establish branch office in India

DCIT, CIR 16(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S KPMG ASSURANCE AND CONSULTING SERVICES LLP, MUMBAI

195 of the Act. Since the Assessee had failed to deduct\n\nITA No.2272-2276/Mum/2023 & CO No.123-128/Mum/2023\nITA No.2410-2415/Mum/2023 AYs 2012-2013 to 2017-2018\n\ntax at source from the professional fee paid to non-residents, the\nAssessing Officer disallowed the deduction for the same by\ninvoking provisions contained in Section 40(a)(i) of the Act.\nFurther, the Assessing

UNITED HOME ENTERTAINMENT P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADIT (IT) 2(2), MUMBAI

The appeals are allowed in terms of our directions as given above

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

condonation of delay in filing the appeal before Ld.CIT(A) is concerned, it is noted that the assessee submitted before us application dated 15-11-2016 wherein all the facts and circumstances of the case, which led to delay in filing the appeals before Ld.CIT(A) were explained in detail. Relevant part of the same reads as follows

UNITED HOME ENTERTAINMENT P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADIT (IT) 2(2), MUMBAI

The appeals are allowed in terms of our directions as given above

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

condonation of delay in filing the appeal before Ld.CIT(A) is concerned, it is noted that the assessee submitted before us application dated 15-11-2016 wherein all the facts and circumstances of the case, which led to delay in filing the appeals before Ld.CIT(A) were explained in detail. Relevant part of the same reads as follows

UNITED HOME ENTERTAINMENT P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADIT (IT) 2(2), MUMBAI

The appeals are allowed in terms of our directions as given above

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

condonation of delay in filing the appeal before Ld.CIT(A) is concerned, it is noted that the assessee submitted before us application dated 15-11-2016 wherein all the facts and circumstances of the case, which led to delay in filing the appeals before Ld.CIT(A) were explained in detail. Relevant part of the same reads as follows

YOGESH RAGHAVJI MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 41(4)(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhanyogesh Raghavji Mehta Vs. Ito Ward 41(4)(4) Opp. Devi Mandir, Devi Gully, Kautilya Bhavan, Carnac Bunder, Mumbai-400 009 Mumbai-400 051 Pan: Aabpm4679A (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] for the A.Y. 2012-13, wherein the appeal of the assessee was dismissedby the Ld. CIT(A) on the ground that assessee neither sought Yogesh Raghavji Mehta any condonation nor filed any satisfactory explanation regarding the delay, therefore the addition of Rs. 17,65,841/- made