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

disallowed the deduction for the same by\ninvoking provisions contained in Section 40(a)(i) of the Act.\nFurther, the Assessing

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

disallowed the deduction for the same by\ninvoking provisions contained in Section 40(a)(i) of the Act.\nFurther, the Assessing

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

disallowed the deduction for the same by\ninvoking provisions contained in Section 40(a)(i) of the Act.\nFurther, the Assessing

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

disallowed the deduction for the same by\ninvoking provisions contained in Section 40(a)(i) of the Act.\nFurther, the Assessing

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

disallowed the deduction for the same by\ninvoking provisions contained in Section 40(a)(i) of the Act.\nFurther, the Assessing

TATA CHEMICALS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT 2 (3)(1), MUMBAI

disallowance under section 14A read with Rule\n8D was computed at ₹4,96,40,588/-. After granting credit for the\nsuo

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

40 A (3) of Rs. 2,91,330/– 2 Hiring charges ₹ 6,302,742 Nil Enhancement under section 37 on account of cash payment under section 40A (3) in hiring charges ₹ 85,000/– 3 Unproved 2,87,26,562 Rs. purchases under 2, 11,500 section 37 4 Disallowance

PRAMOD RATAN PATIL,THANE vs. ASST CIT CIR 3, KALYAN

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

40 A (3) of Rs. 2,91,330/– 2 Hiring charges ₹ 6,302,742 Nil Enhancement under section 37 on account of cash payment under section 40A (3) in hiring charges ₹ 85,000/– 3 Unproved 2,87,26,562 Rs. purchases under 2, 11,500 section 37 4 Disallowance

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

disallowances were made under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Thus, he submitted, disallowance made under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for alleged

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

40(a)(ia) of the Act for not deducting tax at the appropriate rate. Though, the assessee objected to the proposed disallowance, however, 10 Dish TV India Ltd. the Assessing Officer rejecting the objections of the assessee disallowed the amount of ` 361,13,12,717 under section

DCIT 4(1), MUMBAI vs. DEUTSCHE EQUITIES INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

disallowed under Section 40(a)(i) of the Act, but no such disallowance has been made in respect of the identical

ACIT CC 4 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MAERSK LINE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical\npurposes

disallowance made under section 40(a)(i) and section 40(a)(ia) of the\nAct.\n4.\nWe have considered the submissions

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

disallowances were made under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Thus, he submitted, disallowance made under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for alleged

ITO 22(3)(1), NAVI MUMBAI vs. CRESCENT CONSTRUCTION, NAVI MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06

disallowance is attracted under section 40(a)(ia). He has further submitted that the said newly inserted proviso to section

CRESCENT CONSTRUCTION CO.,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 22(3), NAVI MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06

disallowance is attracted under section 40(a)(ia). He has further submitted that the said newly inserted proviso to section

M/S. L & T HOCHTIEF SEABIRD JOINT VENTURE,MUMBAI vs. THE DY IT CIR 12(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 L&T Hochtief Seabird Joint Dy. Commissioner Of Venture Vs. Income Tax Range 12(2), Taxation Department, L&T Room No. 114, 1St Floor, House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Estate, Mumbai-400001 Marg, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaaal0284E Appellant Respondent

section 40(ba) of the IT. Act and are liable to be disallowed.” 11. Before us, the Ld. counsel of the assessee

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

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for not deducting tax disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for not deducting

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

disallowances were made under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Thus, he submitted, disallowance made under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for alleged