PAHILAJRAI JAIKISHAN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1562/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

3, 4, 6, 11, 16, 35, 36, 39, 40, 41, 49, 62 to 69, 83, 84, 86 and 88] Modification of the provisions regarding deduction of tax at source 49. Under the provisions of section 194A of the Income-tax Act, deduction of income-tax at source is to be made from interest in respect of time deposits with banks

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

iv. to secure the finance from the lenders as the entity has to pledge the shares. If there is only one entity then securing finance from different lenders becomes difficult for the various reasons. v. to give share of the specific projects to the outsiders, wherever applicable. vi. many other reasons depending on case-to-case basis 3. All these

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

iv. to secure the finance from the lenders as the entity has to pledge the shares. If there is only one entity then securing finance from different lenders becomes difficult for the various reasons. v. to give share of the specific projects to the outsiders, wherever applicable. vi. many other reasons depending on case-to-case basis 3. All these

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowed Rs.471,05,05,075/-.\n5. 1. The assessee agitated the matter before ld. CIT(A) and vehemently\ncontended that the assessee had written off bad debts of Rs.923.67 Crore\nafter reducing the opening credit balance in the provision for bad and\ndoubtful debts account u/s 36(1)(viia) of Rs.452.61 Crores and claimed\nthe balance amount of Rs.471.06 Crores

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

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

194A `10,08,795/- (iii) Editing – under section 40(a)(ia) r.w.s. 194J `3,58,040/- (iv) Under section 40(a)(ia) r.w.s. 194-I `12,53,820/- 3.2 Aggrieved by the order of assessment dated 23.12.2009, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A)-3, Mumbai. The learned CIT(A) disposed off the appeal vide the impugned order

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

194A. (1) Any person, not being an individual or a Hindu undivided family, who is responsible for paying to a resident any income by way of interest other than income by way of interest on securities, shall, at the time of credit of such income to the account of the payee or at the time of payment thereof in cash

ACIT 16(1), MUMBAI vs. UTV ENTERTAINMENT TELEVISION LTD(NOW KNOWN AS M/S.DISNEY BROADCASTING (INDIA) LIMITED), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5958/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिाम/ Acit 16(1) Utv Entertainment R.No. 439, Aayakar Television Ltd. (Now Bhavan, M.K Marg, Known As M/S. Disney V. Mumbai 400020 Broadcasting (India) Ltd.) 11, Solitaire Corporate Park, Guru Hargovind Marg, Chakala , Mumbai-400093 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaccv4782D (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri. Charanjeet Singh Gulati (Cit-Dr) Shri. Abhishek Tilak Assessee By: सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 11.03.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.06.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 5958/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 16.06.2017, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2012-13, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 15.03.2016 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2012-13. I.T.A. No.5958/Mum/2017

disallowance of expenses only when there is no deduction of income-tax at source. It was claimed that in case there is a shortfall in deduction of income- tax at source, Section 40(a)(ia) of the 1961 Act has no applicability. The assessee also submitted before the AO that placing of channel on particular band which is otherwise also

ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK (INDIA) LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 11(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.852/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ Entertainment Network Acit 16(1), Room No. 439, 4T H Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, (India) Ltd., M.K Road, 4T H Floor, A Wing, V. Mumbai- 400020 Matulya Centre, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan :Aaace7796G आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.812/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ Acit 16(1), Room No. 439, Entertainment Network 4T H Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, (India) Ltd., M.K Road, Mumbai 400020 4T H Floor, A Wing, V. Matulya Centre, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel(West), Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaace7796G (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

iv. "Commission" generally denotes the compensation which a person can receive on sales" A producer or manufacturer of goods, generally does not sell his goods directly to the ultimate consumer. There are agents who purchase the goods from the manufacturer and sell them to the consumer. In a sense, such agents bring the manufacturers and the consumers together for transaction

ACIT 16(1), MUMBAI vs. ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK (INDIA) LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.852/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ Entertainment Network Acit 16(1), Room No. 439, 4T H Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, (India) Ltd., M.K Road, 4T H Floor, A Wing, V. Mumbai- 400020 Matulya Centre, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan :Aaace7796G आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.812/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ Acit 16(1), Room No. 439, Entertainment Network 4T H Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, (India) Ltd., M.K Road, Mumbai 400020 4T H Floor, A Wing, V. Matulya Centre, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel(West), Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaace7796G (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

iv. "Commission" generally denotes the compensation which a person can receive on sales" A producer or manufacturer of goods, generally does not sell his goods directly to the ultimate consumer. There are agents who purchase the goods from the manufacturer and sell them to the consumer. In a sense, such agents bring the manufacturers and the consumers together for transaction

FIDUCIARY EUROMAX GLOBAL MARKETS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sanjay Garg

194A and the AO therefore disallowed the interest payments under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. On appeal, the assessee contended that in view of the insertion of second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) by Finance Act, 2012 and in view of the fact that the recipients of the interest had included the income embedded in these payments

FIDUCIARY EUROMAX GLOBAL MARKETS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sanjay Garg

194A and the AO therefore disallowed the interest payments under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. On appeal, the assessee contended that in view of the insertion of second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) by Finance Act, 2012 and in view of the fact that the recipients of the interest had included the income embedded in these payments

ACIT 17(1), MUMBAI vs. ELVE CORPORATION, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

194A. Winnings from lottery or cross-word puzzle and winning from horse races are covered by section 194B and 194BB. 27. Payments to contractors, if made, particularly resident contractors, then the obligation to deduct the income-tax at source flows from section 194C. Similarly, insurance commission, payment in respect of Savings Schemes etc. attract the deduction of tax at source

ACIT 17(1), MUMBAI vs. ELVE CORPORATION, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

194A. Winnings from lottery or cross-word puzzle and winning from horse races are covered by section 194B and 194BB. 27. Payments to contractors, if made, particularly resident contractors, then the obligation to deduct the income-tax at source flows from section 194C. Similarly, insurance commission, payment in respect of Savings Schemes etc. attract the deduction of tax at source

INCOME TAX OFFICER-17(2) (1) , MUMBAI vs. MITTAL COURT PREMISES CO.OP. SOCIETY LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

194A that the said cooperative banks are not specifying of genus of co- operative society excluding them from exemption or deduction under the provisions of Chapter VIA by virtue of section 80P of the Act. Following the interpretation of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the above said decision, the Ld.PCIT held that the assessee was not entitled

INCOME TAX OFFICER -17(2) (1) , MUMBAI vs. MITTAL COURT PREMISES CO.OP.SOCIETY LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

194A that the said cooperative banks are not specifying of genus of co- operative society excluding them from exemption or deduction under the provisions of Chapter VIA by virtue of section 80P of the Act. Following the interpretation of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the above said decision, the Ld.PCIT held that the assessee was not entitled

INCOME TAX OFFICER -17(2) (1) , MUMBAI vs. MITTAL COURT PREMISES CO.OP.SOCIETY LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

194A that the said cooperative banks are not specifying of genus of co- operative society excluding them from exemption or deduction under the provisions of Chapter VIA by virtue of section 80P of the Act. Following the interpretation of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the above said decision, the Ld.PCIT held that the assessee was not entitled

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