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

disallowance of various discounts and sales rebate expenditure on which the assessee should have been deducted tax at source under section 194C or under section 194H

DCIT 9(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. FUTURA VALUE RETAIL LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA no

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6705/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिाम/ Acit-9(3)(2), M/S. Future Value 418, 4Th Floor, Retail Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Knowledge House, V. Mumbai-400020 Shyam Nagar, Off Jogeshwari Vikhroli Link Road, Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai-400060 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaecp3041P (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri. Sushil Kumar Poddar (Dr) Assessee By: Ms. Dinkle Hariya सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 12.06.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.07.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 6705/Mum/2016, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 23.08.2016, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16,Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”) In Ita No. Cit(A)/ I.T.305/Dcit-9(3)(2)/2015-16, For Assessment Year 2012-13, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 29.03.2015 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2012-13. I.T.A. No.6705/Mum/2016

disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) read with Section 194H of the 1961 Act is raised by Revenue in memo of appeal

ASUS INDIA PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIRCLE- 9(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

disallowance made under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for alleged violation of section 194C / 194H of the Act is legally

ASUS INDIA PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIRCLE- 9 (1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

disallowance made under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for alleged violation of section 194C / 194H of the Act is legally

ADDL CIT 7(2), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE COMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kochar

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) made by the AO for non-deduction of TDS under section 194H on payments

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

disallow the payment under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act since the assessee has failed to deduct tax at source on such payment in terms of section 194H

BAJAJ AUTO LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX - 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI

section 194H and the\nconsequential disallowance under section 40(a)(ia). The complete\nabsence of such enquiry vitiates the assessment

TATA SKY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. A.C.I.T.(TDS) RG.3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed and the Revenue’s appeal stands

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

section 194H of the Act on discount of Rs.10,39,94,496 offered to distributors on sale of Recharge Coupon Vouchers by the Appellant. 4. Without prejudice to Ground No. 2 and 3 above, as the Assessing Officer has already made disallowance

DCIT, CIR-6(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. DELOITTE TOUCHE TOHMATSU INDIA PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

section 194H of the Act. Accordingly, he made disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for an amount

ACIT - 8(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TATA TELESERVICES (M) LTD., NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

section 194H of the Act. Accordingly, he made disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for an amount

VODAFONE INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 8(3)(2), MUMBAI

disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act on the upfront discount extended to the pre-paid distributors by terming the arrangement as 'Principal to Agent instead of 'Principal to Principal' basis certain clauses in the agreement on exclusivity right to inspect and treated upfront discount given to distributor as commission liable for withholding under Section 194H

HDFC BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Disallowance of bad debts on credit cards – Ground No.3 29. During the year under consideration, the AO noticed that the assessee has claimed Rs. 375,10,36,088/- as write off of bad debts towards credit card. The AO did not allow the claim of the assessee for the reason that the credit card bad debts were never taken into

HDFC BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Disallowance of bad debts on credit cards – Ground No.3 29. During the year under consideration, the AO noticed that the assessee has claimed Rs. 375,10,36,088/- as write off of bad debts towards credit card. The AO did not allow the claim of the assessee for the reason that the credit card bad debts were never taken into

DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. HDFC BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Disallowance of bad debts on credit cards – Ground No.3 29. During the year under consideration, the AO noticed that the assessee has claimed Rs. 375,10,36,088/- as write off of bad debts towards credit card. The AO did not allow the claim of the assessee for the reason that the credit card bad debts were never taken into

DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. HDFC BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Disallowance of bad debts on credit cards – Ground No.3 29. During the year under consideration, the AO noticed that the assessee has claimed Rs. 375,10,36,088/- as write off of bad debts towards credit card. The AO did not allow the claim of the assessee for the reason that the credit card bad debts were never taken into

HDFC BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Disallowance of bad debts on credit cards – Ground No.3 29. During the year under consideration, the AO noticed that the assessee has claimed Rs. 375,10,36,088/- as write off of bad debts towards credit card. The AO did not allow the claim of the assessee for the reason that the credit card bad debts were never taken into

DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. HDFC BANK LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Disallowance of bad debts on credit cards – Ground No.3 29. During the year under consideration, the AO noticed that the assessee has claimed Rs. 375,10,36,088/- as write off of bad debts towards credit card. The AO did not allow the claim of the assessee for the reason that the credit card bad debts were never taken into

VODAFONE INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(3)(2), MUMBAI

Appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

section 194H of the Act. The objections filed by the Appellant on this issue were rejected by the DRP. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer passed the Final Assessment Order, dated 26/10/2017, making disallowance