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

ASUS INDIA PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE LD. ADDL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ACIT/ ITO, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Asus India Private Limited The Learned. 402, Supreme Chambers, Addl/Joint/Deputy/Acit/Ito 17-18 Shah Industrial Estate, Room No.305, Ara Centre 2-E Veera Desai Road, Vs. Jhandewalan Extn, New Delhi, Andheri (West), Delhi-110055 Mumbai-400 053 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aajca6450C Assessee By : Mr. Vijay Mehta, Adv. Revenue By : Mr. Nihar Ranjan Samal, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing: 19.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.08.2023

194C or under section 194H or under section 194J of the income tax act as per the learned assessing officer, same has not been deducted and therefore 30% of such expenditure as been disallowed. Before us the learned authorized representative are furnished paper book number 1 containing 218 pages on the disallowance under section

UBER INDIA SYSTEMS PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT (TDS)-2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhuber India Systems Vs. The Dcit(Tds)-2(3) Private Limited Smt. K.G. Mittal Unit 41/46, Floor 3 Ayurvedic Hospital Paragon, Phoenix Market Building, City, Lbs Marg, Charni Road (West) Kurla (W), Mumbai - 400002 Mumbai – 400070 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcu6223H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : J.D. Mistry & Hiten Chande Respondent By : Achal Sharma

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) will not be applicable to the person claiming the expenditure merely because the person making the payment is a different person. Such an interpretation will render the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) superfluous and infructuous. d) Therefore, it is submitted that the interpretation put forward by the Learned DR is incorrect and unsustainable

UBER INDIA SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. JT.CIT (TDS)(OSD)-2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) will not be applicable to the person claiming the expenditure merely because the person making the payment is a different person. Such an interpretation will render the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) superfluous and infructuous. d) Therefore, it is submitted that the interpretation put forward by the Learned DR is incorrect and unsustainable

DISH TV INDIA LTD vs. ASST CIT RG 11(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumardish Tv India Ltd. Fc–19, Firm City, Sector–16A ……………. Appellant Noida 400 063 Pan – Aaaca5478M V/S Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Range–11(1), Mumbai Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Range–16(1), Mumbai V/S Dish Tv India Ltd. 135, Continental Building Dr. A.B. Road, Worli ……………. Respondent Mumbai 400 018 Pan – Aaaca5478M

7,18,15,595 called upon the assessee to furnish the details of such expenses and also to justify the reason for not deducting tax at source while making such payment, as, according to the Assessing Office such payment is covered under section 194H of the Act. In reply, it was submitted by 6 Dish TV India Ltd. the assessee

JAWAHAR B. PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22XC, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

194C Contractor 59,067 Section 194H- Brokerage 3,60,000 Expenses/ Commission Section 194J – Professional 3,00,000 Charges Section 194J – Supervision 11,55,500 Charges 4. Adhoc Disallowance for direct 5,46,850/- Expenses @ 20% of Rs. 2,734,243 as discussed above 5. Adhoc Disallwance for indirect 5,71,717 Expenses

ASST CIT CC-22, MUMBAI vs. JAWAHAR PUROHIT, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

194C Contractor 59,067 Section 194H- Brokerage 3,60,000 Expenses/ Commission Section 194J – Professional 3,00,000 Charges Section 194J – Supervision 11,55,500 Charges 4. Adhoc Disallowance for direct 5,46,850/- Expenses @ 20% of Rs. 2,734,243 as discussed above 5. Adhoc Disallwance for indirect 5,71,717 Expenses

M. R. CONSTRUCTION,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

194C Contractor 59,067 Section 194H- Brokerage 3,60,000 Expenses/ Commission Section 194J – Professional 3,00,000 Charges Section 194J – Supervision 11,55,500 Charges 4. Adhoc Disallowance for direct 5,46,850/- Expenses @ 20% of Rs. 2,734,243 as discussed above 5. Adhoc Disallwance for indirect 5,71,717 Expenses

M.R. CONSTRUCTION,.,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

194C Contractor 59,067 Section 194H- Brokerage 3,60,000 Expenses/ Commission Section 194J – Professional 3,00,000 Charges Section 194J – Supervision 11,55,500 Charges 4. Adhoc Disallowance for direct 5,46,850/- Expenses @ 20% of Rs. 2,734,243 as discussed above 5. Adhoc Disallwance for indirect 5,71,717 Expenses

JAWAHAR B. PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22XC, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

194C Contractor 59,067 Section 194H- Brokerage 3,60,000 Expenses/ Commission Section 194J – Professional 3,00,000 Charges Section 194J – Supervision 11,55,500 Charges 4. Adhoc Disallowance for direct 5,46,850/- Expenses @ 20% of Rs. 2,734,243 as discussed above 5. Adhoc Disallwance for indirect 5,71,717 Expenses

M.R. CONSTRUCTION,.,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

194C Contractor 59,067 Section 194H- Brokerage 3,60,000 Expenses/ Commission Section 194J – Professional 3,00,000 Charges Section 194J – Supervision 11,55,500 Charges 4. Adhoc Disallowance for direct 5,46,850/- Expenses @ 20% of Rs. 2,734,243 as discussed above 5. Adhoc Disallwance for indirect 5,71,717 Expenses

DCIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI vs. M.R. CONSTRUCTION, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

194C Contractor 59,067 Section 194H- Brokerage 3,60,000 Expenses/ Commission Section 194J – Professional 3,00,000 Charges Section 194J – Supervision 11,55,500 Charges 4. Adhoc Disallowance for direct 5,46,850/- Expenses @ 20% of Rs. 2,734,243 as discussed above 5. Adhoc Disallwance for indirect 5,71,717 Expenses

JAWAHAR B. PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22XC, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

194C Contractor 59,067 Section 194H- Brokerage 3,60,000 Expenses/ Commission Section 194J – Professional 3,00,000 Charges Section 194J – Supervision 11,55,500 Charges 4. Adhoc Disallowance for direct 5,46,850/- Expenses @ 20% of Rs. 2,734,243 as discussed above 5. Adhoc Disallwance for indirect 5,71,717 Expenses

M.R. CONSTRUCTION,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 22,

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

194C Contractor 59,067 Section 194H- Brokerage 3,60,000 Expenses/ Commission Section 194J – Professional 3,00,000 Charges Section 194J – Supervision 11,55,500 Charges 4. Adhoc Disallowance for direct 5,46,850/- Expenses @ 20% of Rs. 2,734,243 as discussed above 5. Adhoc Disallwance for indirect 5,71,717 Expenses

DCIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI vs. M.R. CONSTRUCTION, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

194C Contractor 59,067 Section 194H- Brokerage 3,60,000 Expenses/ Commission Section 194J – Professional 3,00,000 Charges Section 194J – Supervision 11,55,500 Charges 4. Adhoc Disallowance for direct 5,46,850/- Expenses @ 20% of Rs. 2,734,243 as discussed above 5. Adhoc Disallwance for indirect 5,71,717 Expenses

JAWAHAR B. PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22XC, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

194C Contractor 59,067 Section 194H- Brokerage 3,60,000 Expenses/ Commission Section 194J – Professional 3,00,000 Charges Section 194J – Supervision 11,55,500 Charges 4. Adhoc Disallowance for direct 5,46,850/- Expenses @ 20% of Rs. 2,734,243 as discussed above 5. Adhoc Disallwance for indirect 5,71,717 Expenses

ACIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI vs. M.R. CONSTRUCTION, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

194C Contractor 59,067 Section 194H- Brokerage 3,60,000 Expenses/ Commission Section 194J – Professional 3,00,000 Charges Section 194J – Supervision 11,55,500 Charges 4. Adhoc Disallowance for direct 5,46,850/- Expenses @ 20% of Rs. 2,734,243 as discussed above 5. Adhoc Disallwance for indirect 5,71,717 Expenses

ASST CIT CC-22, MUMBAI vs. JAWAHAR PUROHIT, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

194C Contractor 59,067 Section 194H- Brokerage 3,60,000 Expenses/ Commission Section 194J – Professional 3,00,000 Charges Section 194J – Supervision 11,55,500 Charges 4. Adhoc Disallowance for direct 5,46,850/- Expenses @ 20% of Rs. 2,734,243 as discussed above 5. Adhoc Disallwance for indirect 5,71,717 Expenses