DCIT (OSD)(TDS)-2(3), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL ENERGIES MARKETING INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

1,66,32,320/– the learned CIT – A following the decision of the coordinate ITA Nos. 127 to 133/Mum/2023 Total Energies Marketing India Pvt. Ltd.; A.Ys. 2013-14 to 19-20 benches in case of Biocon Ltd versus DCIT, Bharat financial inclusion Ltd versus DCIT [2018] 96 taxmann.com 540 (Hyderabad - Trib.)and IBM India private limited versus ITO held that

DCIT (OSD)(TDS)-2(3) , MUMBAI vs. TOTAL ENERGIES MARKETING INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

1,66,32,320/– the learned CIT – A following the decision of the coordinate ITA Nos. 127 to 133/Mum/2023 Total Energies Marketing India Pvt. Ltd.; A.Ys. 2013-14 to 19-20 benches in case of Biocon Ltd versus DCIT, Bharat financial inclusion Ltd versus DCIT [2018] 96 taxmann.com 540 (Hyderabad - Trib.)and IBM India private limited versus ITO held that

DCIT (OSD)(TDS)-2(3), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL ENERGIES MARKETING INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

1,66,32,320/– the learned CIT – A following the decision of the coordinate ITA Nos. 127 to 133/Mum/2023 Total Energies Marketing India Pvt. Ltd.; A.Ys. 2013-14 to 19-20 benches in case of Biocon Ltd versus DCIT, Bharat financial inclusion Ltd versus DCIT [2018] 96 taxmann.com 540 (Hyderabad - Trib.)and IBM India private limited versus ITO held that

DCIT (OSD)(TDS)-2(3), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL ENERGIES MARKETING INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

1,66,32,320/– the learned CIT – A following the decision of the coordinate ITA Nos. 127 to 133/Mum/2023 Total Energies Marketing India Pvt. Ltd.; A.Ys. 2013-14 to 19-20 benches in case of Biocon Ltd versus DCIT, Bharat financial inclusion Ltd versus DCIT [2018] 96 taxmann.com 540 (Hyderabad - Trib.)and IBM India private limited versus ITO held that

DCIT (OSD)(TDS)-2(3), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL ENERGIES MARKETING INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

1,66,32,320/– the learned CIT – A following the decision of the coordinate ITA Nos. 127 to 133/Mum/2023 Total Energies Marketing India Pvt. Ltd.; A.Ys. 2013-14 to 19-20 benches in case of Biocon Ltd versus DCIT, Bharat financial inclusion Ltd versus DCIT [2018] 96 taxmann.com 540 (Hyderabad - Trib.)and IBM India private limited versus ITO held that

DCIT (OSD)(TDS)-2(3) , MUMBAI vs. TOTAL ENERGIES MARKETING INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

1,66,32,320/– the learned CIT – A following the decision of the coordinate ITA Nos. 127 to 133/Mum/2023 Total Energies Marketing India Pvt. Ltd.; A.Ys. 2013-14 to 19-20 benches in case of Biocon Ltd versus DCIT, Bharat financial inclusion Ltd versus DCIT [2018] 96 taxmann.com 540 (Hyderabad - Trib.)and IBM India private limited versus ITO held that

SAFE AND SURE MARINE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO (TDS), WARD 8(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for partly allowed for 7

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee () Assessment Year: 2013-14

1) solely on technical ground that Form 26A was not filed. The appellant undertakes to furnish Form was not filed. The appellant undertakes to furnish Form was not filed. The appellant undertakes to furnish Form 26A along with director tax proof before the Hon'ble 26A along with director tax proof before the Hon'b 26A along with director

DUCK CREEK TECHNOLOGIES INDIA LLP,MUMBAI vs. ACIT- CIRCLE 26 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

201 on account of delayed remittance of employees contribution towards provident fund without considering the provisions of section 36(1)(va) read with section 43B of the Act 5. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in disallowing

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, as indicated above

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri G Manjunatha, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 3644/Mum/2016 (ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2008-09) State Bank Of India The Dy. Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Corporate Centre Income Tax, Circle -2(2)(1) बनाम/ Madam Cama Road Mumbai Vs. Nariman Point Mumbai-400021 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaacs8577K

1% of the exempt interest and dividend income is to be disallowed under section 14A. 4.4 Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that income of yielding any exempt income during the year will not be considered for the purpose of computing disallowance under section 14A.” Revenue has raised the following ground

INFINITY RETAIL LTD.,MUMBAI vs. CIT(TDS)-1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleinfinity Retail Limited, Cit (Tds) – 1 Unit No. 701 & 702, 7Th Room No. 900, 9Th Floor, बनाम/ Floor, Kaledonia, Sahar K.G. Mittal Building, Road, Andheri (East), Vs. Netaji Subhash Road, Mumbai – 400069. Charni Road, Mumbai-400002. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccv1726H .. (""थ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant)

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Whereas the A.O. has passed the order in respect of short deduction of TDS under section 201(1

DENA BANK,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sooddena Bank Vs. Pcit-2 Room No.344, 3Rd Floor Accounts Department Dena Bank Building Aaykar Bhawan 2Nd Floor M.K.Road 17/B, Horniman Circle Mumbai-400 020 Fort, Mumbai-400 023 Pan/Gir No.Aaacd4249B Appellant) .. Respondent)

section 37(1). The apex court in the context of several cases has held that where penalties are compensatory in nature, the same will not be disallowed u/s, 37(1). Refer; • 201

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

section 143(3) of the Act, disagreed with the submissions of the assessee and held that perpetual bonds are in the nature of debt instruments with no maturity date. Only the issuing company can buy back the bonds from the investors. Therefore, it was held these bonds are perpetual in nature. Since in the case of perpetual bonds, the investor

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

section 143(3) of the Act, disagreed with the submissions of the assessee and held that perpetual bonds are in the nature of debt instruments with no maturity date. Only the issuing company can buy back the bonds from the investors. Therefore, it was held these bonds are perpetual in nature. Since in the case of perpetual bonds, the investor

STRIDES PHARMA SCIENCE LTD.,NAVI MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -5(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result ITA number 1004/M/2021 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2016 – 17 is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Strides Pharma Science Ltd. Dcit 15(1)(2) 201, Devavrata, Sector-17, Aayakar Bhavan, M K Road, Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai, 400703 Mumbai 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcs8104P

201, Devavrata, Sector-17, Aayakar Bhavan, M K Road, Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai, 400703 Mumbai 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AADCS8104P : Shri Nishant Gandh, AR Assessee by Revenue by : Ms Samruddhi Hande SR DR, Aditya M Rai Sr AR, Suresh Gaikwad SR AR Date of hearing: 17-02-023,23/06/2023 and 07/07/2023 Date of pronouncement

THE MAHARASHTRA STATE CO OP MARKETING FEDERATION LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 13(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed,

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Maharashtra State Co-Op. Addl. Cit Range-13(3), Marketing Federation Limited 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Kanmoor House, Narsi Natha Mumbai-400020. Street, Masjid, Mumbai-400 009 Pan No. Aaaat 6218 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Maharashtra State Co-Op. Jt. Cit Range-13(3), Marketing Federation Limited 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Kanmoor House, Narsi Natha Mumbai-400020. Street, Masjid, Mumbai-400 009 Pan No. Aaaat 6218 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Maharashtra State Co-Op. Asst. Cit-17(3), Marketing Federation Limited Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Kanmoor House, Narsi Natha Vs. Mumbai-400020. Street, Masjid, Mumbai-400 009 Pan No. Aaaat 6218 L Appellant Respondent

section 201(1) of the Act, no disallowance of expenses Proviso to section 201(1) of the Act, no disallowance

ITO 3(3)2, MUMBAI vs. SHAMROCK PHARMACHEMI P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1774/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बिाम/ Ito 3(3)2, M/S. Shamrock R.No. 602, Pharmachemi Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 83E,Hansraj Pragi Bldg., V. M.K Road, Opp. Dr. E Moses Road, Mumbai 400020 Worli, Mumbai-400018 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacs6290H (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri. Ashim Kumar Modi (Cit- Dr), Shri V. Justin & Ms. Chaitna Ajaria Shri. Bharat L. Gandhi Assessee By: सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 01.03.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 1774/Mum/2013, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 29.10.2012, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called ―The Cit(A)‖) In Appeal Number Cit(A)-7/Ito-3(3)(2)/It-166/11-12, For Assessment Year 2009-10, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 29.12.2011 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 2009-10. I.T.A. No.1774/Mum/2013

disallowance cannot be made by following the decision G.E India Technology Cen. (P.) Ltd., v. CIT [2010] 327 ITR 456 (SC), inspite of insertion of Explanation 4 to Section 9(1)(i) and Explanation 2 to Section 195(1) of the Act, which was introduced by Finance Act, 2012, w.e.f. 01.04.1962 to overcome the said judgment? 3. Whether

DCIT 8(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SHAMROCK PHARMACHEMI P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M.Balaganeshita Nos. 862 & 863/Mum/2018 (Assessment Years :2013-14 & 2014-15) Dcit-8(2)(1) Vs. M/S. Shamrock Pharmachemi Room No.624, Pvt.Ltd. Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Off Dr. E Moses Road Mumbai-400 020 Worli, Mumbai-400 025 Pan/Gir No.Aaacs6290H (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Bharat Gandhi, Ar Revenue By Shri V.Vinod Kumar, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing 28/10/2020 Date Of Pronouncement 11/11/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per M. Balaganesh (A.M): These Two Appeals Filed By Revenue In Ita Nos. 862 & 863/Mum/2018 For Assessment Years (Ay) 2013-14 & 2014-15 Arise Out Of The Order By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 14, Mumbai In Appeals No.Cit(A)-14/It-170/15-16 & Cit(A)-14/It- 119/16-17, Dated 27/11/2017 (Ld. Cit(A) In Short) Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As Act) Dated 31/08/2016 By The Ld. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-8(2)(1), Mumbai (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. Ao).

disallowance cannot be made by following the decision G.E India Technology Cen. (P.) Ltd., v. CIT [2010] 327 ITR 456 (SC), inspite of insertion of Explanation 4 to Section 9(1)(i) and Explanation 2 to Section 195(1) of the Act, which was introduced by Finance Act, 2012, w.e.f. 01.04.1962 to overcome the said judgment? 3. Whether

ITO (TDS) (OSD) 1(2), MUMBAI vs. EURO RSCG ADVERTISING P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed and Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2010-11

1) and levying interest under Section 201(1A). 3.Without prejudice to Ground No 2, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) and Ld AO legally erred in alleging TDS rate © 20% on car parking charges instead of the applicable rate under Section 1941 of the Act. 5. Ground Nos.1 to 4 raised

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

1,97,54,77,395/- proposed in the Draft Assessment Order) in respect of roaming charges. 6.3. Being aggrieved, the Assessee has carried the issue in appeal before the Tribunal. 6.4. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 6.5. We note that in the identical facts and circumstances, the Tribunal has, vide order dated 08/11/2023