COLO COLOUR PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- WARD 6(2)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Colo Colour Pvt. Ltd., Ito-Ward-6(2)(1), 1St Floor, Dadar Departmental Stores, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. M.C. Jawale Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400028. Pan No. Aabcc 3349 L Appellant Respondent

disallow 30% of inerest on unsecured loan paid of Rs. 9,38,61,640/ loan paid of Rs. 9,38,61,640/- ie.Rs.2,81,58,4921- under section 4 under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and add it to the income returned by the assessee company. of the Act and add it to the income returned

MR NARENDRA MAGANLAL MEHTA ,MUMBAI vs. ITO 17 (2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Learned Cit(A), The Assessee Furnished Details Of Pan Of Each Of The Payees. However, Learned Cit(A) Took The View That The Assessee Has Obtained Pan Subsequent To Making Of Payment Of Transport Charges. He Took The View That The Assessee Should Have Obtained Pan Prior To Making Of Payment In Order To Avoid Disallowance U/S 40(A)(Ia) Of The Act. Accordingly, He Confirmed The Disallowance Made By The Assessing Officer Under Section 40(A)(Ia) Of The Act.

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 4. The Learned AR submitted that learned CIT(A) has erroneously presumed that the assessee has obtained PAN only subsequent to making of payment. He submitted that the assessee had duly obtained PAN number from the payees before making the payment. The payments of transport charges

POPATLAL KANTILAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ITO 17(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as above

section 197A of the Act and in the absence of such compliance, the disallowance of interest was justified. 5. Before

DCIT (OSD) 8(1), MUMBAI vs. FUTURE VALUE RETAIL LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA N0

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2612/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11) Dy. Commissioner Of Income बनाम/ M/S Future Value Retail Tax (Osd), Range 8(1), Ltd., V. Room No. 260A, 2 Nd Floor, Knowledge House, Aayakar Bhavan, Shyam Nagar, M.K. Road, Off Jvlr, Mumbai 400 020. Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai- 400 072. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaecp3041P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

disallowed the commission on credit card of Rs. 5,30,13,348/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act on which no TDS was deducted u/s 194H of the Act. ITA 2612/Mum/2014 4 4. Aggrieved by the assessment orders dated 22.02.2013 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act by the AO, the assessee company carried the matter in appeal before

THE MUNICIPAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

disallowed the commission expenses on the ground that TDS was not deducted. However, it has pointed out before us that the CBDT has issued a notification dated 17/06/2016 being Notification No.47 of 2016, The Municipal Co-operative Bank Ltd wherein it has categorically directed that any payment system authorised by RBI under sub-section (2) of Section

THE MUNICIPAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT , CIRCLE-1(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

disallowed the commission\nexpenses on the ground that TDS was not deducted. However, it\nhas pointed out before us that the CBDT has issued a\nnotification dated 17/06/2016 being Notification No.47 of 2016,\nwherein it has categorically directed that any payment system\nauthorised by RBI under sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the\nPayment Settlement Systems

ACIT 25(2), MUMBAI vs. KANTILAL P. SHAH, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10

section 197A. If there is any default regarding submission of Form No. 15G/15H with the department, the AO can initiate penalty proceedings u/s 272A, but no disallowance

ACIT 25(2), MUMBAI vs. HIMANSHU K MODI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby Dismissed

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Arora & Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6866/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Asst. Commissioner Of Shri Himanshu K. Modi बनाम/ Income Tax 25(2) Prop.M/S.Vitrag Vs. Room No.108, 1St Floor, Construction, C-4/406, Bldg. No.C-11, Yogi Nagar, Borivali (W) Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Mumbai - 400091 Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacpm8724B .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

disallowance u/s.40A(ia). During appeal, the appellant has once again reiterated the argument that considering the Section 194A r.w.s. 197A

SHRI MANOJ PREMCHAND DHARMANI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 22(2)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Manoj Premchand Dharmani, The Income Tax Officer 22(2)(3), Prop. Of M/S Drishti Trade House, Vashi Railway Station Complex, B-503, Swami Jairamdas Vashi Navi Mumbai - 400703 Shopping Centre, R.C. Marg, Vs. Chembur, Mumbai - 400071 Pan: Aegpd3228P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Vikash Kr Agarwal (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 02/01/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 29/01/2019

Section 197A. 7. The learned Assessing Officer is not justified in making an addition of Rs. 24,57,351/- on account of estimated net profit merely on assumption, presumptions and surmises. The appellant have declared the net profit after claiming the expenses as per proper and regular books of accounts which are quite reasonable and justified considering the nature