ASST CIT 3, MUMBAI vs. PRAMOD RATAN PATIL, MUMBAI

In the result, Appeal of Ld AO is dismissed, appeal of assessee is allowed partly

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Shri Pramod Ratan Patil Acit A–1, Chandresh Oasis, Lodha Circle–3, Kalyan, 2 Nd Floor, Heaven, Vs. Kalyan Shil Road, Dombivali (East), Rani Mansion, Murbad Road, Thane–421201 Kalyan West–421301 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadpp6274F Acit Shri Pramod Ratan Patil Circle–3, A–1, Chandresh Oasis, Lodha Kalyan, 2 Nd Floor, Heaven, Vs. Rani Mansion, Murbad Road, Kalyan Shil Road, Dombivali (East), Kalyan West–421301 Thane–421201 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Mr. Satyaprakash Singh, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Nihar Ranjan Samal, Dr

disallowance under section 40 A (3) of the act with respect to the purchases of the material. The assessee’s claim is that there is no cash payment made by the assessee which is in violation of the provisions of section 40 A (3) of the act and the learned departmental representative has categorically relied upon the orders

SHIVALIK VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC 8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) made towards non-deduction of tax at source under section 194I on the payments

STOCK TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT OSD-2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhstock Traders Private Ltd. Acit (Osd)-2(3) 63, Bombay Samachar Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, Fort, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400001. Mumbai-400020. Vs. Pan: Aaacs7235A Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Nitesh Joshi (Ar) Respondent By : Shri Nishant Somaiya (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing : 03.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.04.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act

section 194I. 21. We have considered the submission of the parties and have gone through the orders of authorities below. The Assessing Officer discussed the ground of appeal that disallowance

DCIT8(3), MUMBAI vs. WAH RESTAURANTS P.LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S. MARS RESTAURATNS P.LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ashwani Taneja

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) for non– deduction of tax at source under section 194I on payment of revenue

SAHANA DWELLERS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

section 194I of the Act, hence, disallowance of expenditure under section 40(a)(ia) alleging non–deduction of tax at source

DCIT 8(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TATA TELESERVICES (MAH) LTD, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhdcit-8(3)(1) M/S Tata Teleservices (Mah) Room No. 615, 6Th Floor, Ltd., D-26, Ttc Indl Area Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Midc, Sanpada, P.O. Turbhe, Mumbai-20. Navi Mumbai-400703. Vs. Pan: Aaach1458C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy (Cit-Dr) Respondent By : Shri Hiten Chande (Ar) Date Of Hearing : 21.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.01.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act

194I of the Act and, consequently, the provisions of section 201 and section 201(IA) could not be applied? (b) Without prejudice to the above, whet her, on t he facts and in the circumstances of the case and i n law, payment of wheeling and transmission charges t o the entitles like MSETCL and P G CIL, should have

INSPIRE FILMS LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

disallowance in respect of payment made in respect of fuel charges under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. As regards the payment made for generator/attendant hire charges, as per the assessee on generator hire charges no TDS was deducted as it was below the threshold limit provided under section 194I

FAIYAZ YUNUS PATEL,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 27(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Faiyaz Yunus Patel, Ito-27(1)(4), Flat No. 602, Vmk Chs, Room No. 409, 4Th Floor, Tower Vs. Lbs Marg, Chirag Nagar, No. 6 Vashi Railway Station Ghatkopar (W), Commercial Complex Vashi, Mumbai-400086. Navi Mumbai-400703. Pan No. Akxpp 9040 L Appellant Respondent

disallowance of Rs.75,600/- being paid as 30% of the rent expenses 30% of the rent expenses of Rs.2,52,000/- invoking section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. voking section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. voking section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 4.1. We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the We have heard

SHIVALIK VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC 8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

disallowed 30% of the amount under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. In this regard we notice that the Co-ordinate Bench has been consistently holding in various cases including assessee's own case that the payments made towards alternate accommodation is not liable for TDS under section 194I

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHIVALIK VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

disallowed 30% of the amount under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. In this regard we notice that the Co-ordinate Bench has been consistently holding in various cases including assessee's own case that the payments made towards alternate accommodation is not liable for TDS under section 194I

S. KUMARS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12

section 194I were applicable. On the ground that the assessee had deducted tax at 1% u/s 194C(2) as against the actual deduction to be made at 10% u/s 194C(2) as against the actual deduction to be made at 10% u/s 194I, the payments were disallowed

S. KUMARS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 4(3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12

section 194I were applicable. On the ground that the assessee had deducted tax at 1% u/s 194C(2) as against the actual deduction to be made at 10% u/s 194C(2) as against the actual deduction to be made at 10% u/s 194I, the payments were disallowed

INFRASTRUCTURE LEASING & FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 10(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee as well as revenue are partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

194I of the Act, thereby lesser deduction of tax. The revenue has made out a case of lesser deduction of tax and that also under different head and accordingly disallowed the payments proportionately by invoking the provisions of section

INFRASTRUCTURE LEASING & FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 10(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee as well as revenue are partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

194I of the Act, thereby lesser deduction of tax. The revenue has made out a case of lesser deduction of tax and that also under different head and accordingly disallowed the payments proportionately by invoking the provisions of section

DCIT 10(1), MUMBAI vs. INFRASTRUCTURE LEASING & FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee as well as revenue are partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

194I of the Act, thereby lesser deduction of tax. The revenue has made out a case of lesser deduction of tax and that also under different head and accordingly disallowed the payments proportionately by invoking the provisions of section

DCIT 10(1), MUMBAI vs. INFRASTRUCTURE LEASING & FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee as well as revenue are partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

194I of the Act, thereby lesser deduction of tax. The revenue has made out a case of lesser deduction of tax and that also under different head and accordingly disallowed the payments proportionately by invoking the provisions of section

SHREE JALARAM BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-32(3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal file by the assessee is allowed

section 194I, there is no requirement for deduction of tax under the said provisions. Therefore, the disallowance made under section

DADIBA KALI PUNDOLE,MUMBAI vs. ACIT WARD 17(1), MUMBAI

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपील िं./ Ita No. 779/Mum/2019 (निर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2013-14) Dadiba Kali Pundole The Asst. Commissioner Of Esplanade House Income Tax, Ward 17(1) बिाम/ 2N D Floor, 29 Hazarimal Somani Marg Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Vs. (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aadpp0451H अपीलार्थी की ओर े/ Appellant By : Shri Mehligoluala, Ar’S प्रत्यर्थी की ओर े/ Respondent By : Shri Kavita P Kaushik, Dr ुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26.08.2020 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 08.10.2020 आदेश / O R D E R

section 194I of the Act. The AO disallowed and added the same under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non deduction