ACIT(LTU-1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. TCS LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

2) of the Act, not deducted such proportion of tax as is required, that the consequences of a failure to deduct and pay, reflected in section 201 of the Act, follow by virtue of which the resident-payee is deemed an "assessee in default", and thus, is made liable to pay tax, interest and penalty thereon. Section 194E

TATA CONSULTANCY SERRVICES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-1, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

2) of the Act, not deducted such proportion of tax as is required, that the consequences of a failure to deduct and pay, reflected in section 201 of the Act, follow by virtue of which the resident-payee is deemed an "assessee in default", and thus, is made liable to pay tax, interest and penalty thereon. Section 194E

KPMG ASSURANCE AND CONSULTING SERVICES LLP,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE-16(2), MUMBAI

195 of the Act. Since the Assessee had failed to deduct\ntax at source from the professional fee paid to non-residents, the\nAssessing Officer disallowed the deduction for the same by\ninvoking provisions contained in Section 40(a)(i) of the Act.\nFurther, the Assessing Officer also disallowed deduction claimed\nby the Assessee for remittance made by the Assessee

DCIT, CIR 16(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S KPMG ASSURANCE AND CONSULTING SERVICES LLP, MUMBAI

Section 195 of the Act as the same were\nchargeable to tax in India in terms of Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act\nread with either Article 12 or Article 22/23 of the corresponding\nDTAAs as FTS or Other Income, respectively. Since the Assessee\nhad failed to deduct tax from the same in terms of Section 195

KPMG ASSURANCE AND CONSULTING SERVICES LLP,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -16(2), MUMBAI

195 of the Act. Since the Assessee had failed to deduct\ntax at source from the professional fee paid to non-residents, the\nAssessing Officer disallowed the deduction for the same by\ninvoking provisions contained in Section 40(a)(i) of the Act.\nFurther, the Assessing Officer also disallowed deduction claimed\nby the Assessee for remittance made by the Assessee

DCIT, CIR 16(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S KPMG ASSURANCE AND CONSULTING SERVICES LLP, MUMBAI

2\n2. KPMG AB, Sweden Company 19,19,086/- 2\n3. KPMG Abogados S.L., Spain Company 1,93,758/- 2\n4. KPMG Advisory N.V., Netherlands Company 16,75,488/- 2\n5. KPMG Advisory Services, Nigeria LLP 29,50,726/- 3\n6. KPMG ASESORES S.L., Spain Company 33,73,980/- 2\n7. KPMG Audyt Sp. Zoo, Poland

DCIT, CIR 16(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S KPMG ASSURANCE AND CONSULTING SERVICES LLP, MUMBAI

2\n2. KPMG AB, Sweden Company 19,19,086/- 2\n3. KPMG Abogados S.L., Spain Company 1,93,758/- 2\n4. KPMG Advisory N.V., Netherlands Company 16,75,488/- 2\n5. KPMG Advisory Services, Nigeria LLP 29,50,726/- 3\n6. KPMG ASESORES S.L., Spain Company 33,73,980/- 2\n7. KPMG Audyt Sp. Zoo, Poland

ASIA INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals are allowed partly

2)(iii) of the Rules, the Assessing\nOfficer computed disallowance at 0.5% of the average value of\ninvestments towards administrative expenses, which amounted to\n*1,07,39,195\n\n5.6 Accordingly, the Assessing Officer determined the total\ndisallowance under section

BAJAJ CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2017-18

195/- under section 10(34) of the Act; (ii) interest income of ₹1,68,72,735/- section 10(34) of the Act; (ii) interest income of section 10(34) of the Act; (ii) interest income of claimed exempt under section 10(15)(iv)(h) of the Act; and (iii) long- claimed exempt under section

ACIT 4(3), MUMBAI vs. MORGAN STANLEY INDIA CO. PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and ground of the Revenue is dismissed

195 ITR 682 and other decisions of the Jurisdictional High Court. Hence, this ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 20. In so far as disallowance of remuneration paid to Mr. Ashith Kampani u/s. 40A(2), the same has been stated that it has been deleted by the Tribunal in A.Y.2003-04,2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07. The relevant observation

MORGAN STANLEY INDIA COMPANY P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 4(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and ground of the Revenue is dismissed

195 ITR 682 and other decisions of the Jurisdictional High Court. Hence, this ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 20. In so far as disallowance of remuneration paid to Mr. Ashith Kampani u/s. 40A(2), the same has been stated that it has been deleted by the Tribunal in A.Y.2003-04,2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07. The relevant observation

MORGAN STANLEY INDIA COMPANY P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 4(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and ground of the Revenue is dismissed

195 ITR 682 and other decisions of the Jurisdictional High Court. Hence, this ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 20. In so far as disallowance of remuneration paid to Mr. Ashith Kampani u/s. 40A(2), the same has been stated that it has been deleted by the Tribunal in A.Y.2003-04,2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07. The relevant observation

DCIT 4(3), MUMBAI vs. JM MORGAN STANLEY SECURITIES P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and ground of the Revenue is dismissed

195 ITR 682 and other decisions of the Jurisdictional High Court. Hence, this ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 20. In so far as disallowance of remuneration paid to Mr. Ashith Kampani u/s. 40A(2), the same has been stated that it has been deleted by the Tribunal in A.Y.2003-04,2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07. The relevant observation

MORGAN STANLEY INDIA COMPANY P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 4(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and ground of the Revenue is dismissed

195 ITR 682 and other decisions of the Jurisdictional High Court. Hence, this ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 20. In so far as disallowance of remuneration paid to Mr. Ashith Kampani u/s. 40A(2), the same has been stated that it has been deleted by the Tribunal in A.Y.2003-04,2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07. The relevant observation

ADDL CIT RG 4(3), MUMBAI vs. MORGAN STANLEY INDIA CO P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and ground of the Revenue is dismissed

195 ITR 682 and other decisions of the Jurisdictional High Court. Hence, this ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 20. In so far as disallowance of remuneration paid to Mr. Ashith Kampani u/s. 40A(2), the same has been stated that it has been deleted by the Tribunal in A.Y.2003-04,2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07. The relevant observation

DCIT CIR. 4(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. MORGAN STANLEY INDIA CO. PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and ground of the Revenue is dismissed

195 ITR 682 and other decisions of the Jurisdictional High Court. Hence, this ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 20. In so far as disallowance of remuneration paid to Mr. Ashith Kampani u/s. 40A(2), the same has been stated that it has been deleted by the Tribunal in A.Y.2003-04,2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07. The relevant observation

MORGAN STANLEY INDIA COMPANY P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 4(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and ground of the Revenue is dismissed

195 ITR 682 and other decisions of the Jurisdictional High Court. Hence, this ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 20. In so far as disallowance of remuneration paid to Mr. Ashith Kampani u/s. 40A(2), the same has been stated that it has been deleted by the Tribunal in A.Y.2003-04,2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07. The relevant observation

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

disallowance under section 40(a)(i) of the Act. The ld. AR in this regard relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sainath Rajkumar Saroade vs. State of Maharashtra [2021] 131 taxamann.com 332 (Bom.) where it has been held that “11. We have considered the case law tendered by both the parties