K D LITE DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE 1(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

disallowance could not be made by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(iii) for non-deduction of tax from reimbursement. 8. Linklaters LLP Vs ITO (Int.Tax) [2011] 9 ITR (Trib) 217 (Mum) It was, inter alia, held in this case that reimbursements received by the assessee were in respect of specific and actual expenses incurred by the assessee

K D LITE DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE 1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

disallowance could not be made by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(iii) for non-deduction of tax from reimbursement. 8. Linklaters LLP Vs ITO (Int.Tax) [2011] 9 ITR (Trib) 217 (Mum) It was, inter alia, held in this case that reimbursements received by the assessee were in respect of specific and actual expenses incurred by the assessee

ACIT (LTU)-1, MUMBAI vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

iii) of sub-section (3) of section 194A of the Income-tax Act, 1961\n(43 of 1961), the Central Government hereby notify with effect from the 19th\nJuly, 1969, the following banks for the purposes of the said sub-clause:-\n1. Indian Overseas Bank, 151, Mount Road, Madras-\n2. Indian Bank, Indian Chamber Building, Madras-1.\n3. Allahabad Bank

DCIT-3(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S UNION OF BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

iii) of sub-section (3) of section\n194A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the Central Government\nhereby notify with effect from the 19th July, 1969, the following banks for\nthe purposes of the said sub-clause:-\n1. Indian Overseas Bank, 151, Mount Road, Madras-\n2. Indian Bank, Indian Chamber Building, Madras-1.\n3. Allahabad Bank

K D LITE DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE 1(3),, MUMBAI

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee\nare allowed

3), Mumbai the Ld. Assessing Officer is of the view that\nthe assessee has prima facie committed default in\ndeduction of TDS and consequently proceedings u/s 201(1)\n/ 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('IT Act') were\ninitiated against the various group entities & the assessee.\n5. The AO after serving notices and seeking reply of the\nassessee

UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIR - (LTU)-2, MUMBAI

sections": [ "14A", "8D", "36(1)(iii)", "36(1)(viii)", "41(4)", "115JB", "43D", "37(1)", "194A(3)" ], "issues": "The appeals addressed multiple issues including disallowance

M/S UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-(LTU)-2, MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

iii) of sub-section (3) of section 194A\nof the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the Central Government hereby notify\nwith effect from the 19th July, 1969, the following banks for the purposes of\nthe said sub-clause:-\n1. Indian Overseas Bank, 151, Mount Road, Madras-\n2. Indian Bank, Indian Chamber Building, Madras-1.\n3. Allahabad Bank

ACIT CIRCLE ,3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

iii) of sub-section (3) of section 194A\nof the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the Central Government hereby notify\nwith effect from the 19th July, 1969, the following banks for the purposes of\nthe said sub-clause:-\n1. Indian Overseas Bank, 151, Mount Road, Madras-\n2. Indian Bank, Indian Chamber Building, Madras-1.\n3. Allahabad Bank

DCIT-3(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S UNION OF BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

iii) of sub-section (3) of section\n194A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the Central Government\nhereby notify with effect from the 19th July, 1969, the following banks for\nthe purposes of the said sub-clause:-\n1. Indian Overseas Bank, 151, Mount Road, Madras-\n2. Indian Bank, Indian Chamber Building, Madras-1.\n3. Allahabad Bank

UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIR - (LTU)-2, MUMBAI

iii) of sub-section (3) of section\n194A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the Central Government\nhereby notify with effect from the 19th July, 1969, the following banks for\nthe purposes of the said sub-clause:-\n1. Indian Overseas Bank, 151, Mount Road, Madras-\n2. Indian Bank, Indian Chamber Building, Madras-1.\n3. Allahabad Bank

ACIT, CIRCLE -3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

iii) of sub-section (3) of section 194A\nof the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the Central Government hereby notify\nwith effect from the 19th July, 1969, the following banks for the purposes of\nthe said sub-clause:-\n1. Indian Overseas Bank, 151, Mount Road, Madras-\n2. Indian Bank, Indian Chamber Building, Madras-1.\n3. Allahabad Bank

M/S UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-(LTU) 2, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

iii) of sub-section (3) of section 194A\nof the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the Central Government hereby notify\nwith effect from the 19th July, 1969, the following banks for the purposes of\nthe said sub-clause:-\n1. Indian Overseas Bank, 151, Mount Road, Madras-\n2. Indian Bank, Indian Chamber Building, Madras-1.\n3. Allahabad Bank

K D LITE DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE 1(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee\nare allowed

disallowance could not be\nmade by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(iii) for\nnon-deduction of tax from reimbursement.\n8. Linklaters LLP Vs ITO (Int.Tax) [2011] 9 ITR (Trib) 217\n(Mum)\nIt was, inter alia, held in this case that reimbursements\nreceived by the assessee were in respect of specific and\nactual expenses incurred by the assessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER , MUMBAI vs. IDBI STAFF CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD , MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals in ITA Nos

194A(3)(v) of the\nAct after the amendment of Finance Act, 2015 which excludes the co-operative\nbank from the definition of ‘co-operative society'. So, the entire addition will be\nupheld.\n5. The Ld.AR placed that the issue is squarely covered by the orders of\njurisdictional High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Ld.AR invited

SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

3,72,00,210/- under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. On further appeal the CIT(A) upheld the disallowance made by the AO on the ground that section 194C applies not only to direct payments for services or work but also to the payments that in inextricably linked to the contractor for work or services

DCIT 1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. FORBES & COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shir Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyal

iii) of the Rules, Since it is found to be inconsistency with the proposition of law the disallowance is not maintainable. The learned CIT(A) has. rightly set aside the same. Since the disallowance of interest u/s 14A has been set aside to the AO as done by the CIT(A)for adjudication afresh as per law, accordingly, the ground

DCIT - 1 (1) (2), MUMBAI vs. FORBES & COMPANY LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shir Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyal

iii) of the Rules, Since it is found to be inconsistency with the proposition of law the disallowance is not maintainable. The learned CIT(A) has. rightly set aside the same. Since the disallowance of interest u/s 14A has been set aside to the AO as done by the CIT(A)for adjudication afresh as per law, accordingly, the ground

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 3(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are invoked in this case……....”. 14 ITA 2943-2894-2893-3160-3173/M/ 2023 & 2971-2970/M/ 2023 Small Industries Development Bank of India 17. From the above observations of the AO, we notice that the basis for rejecting the suo-motu disallowance is that it is based on estimation