PRAVINCHANDRA JETHALAL AND COMPAY,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-13(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6002 & 6001/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09) बिाम/ Parvinchandra Jethalal & Acit-13(1), Co., Aayakar Bhavan, 506, Rajgor Chambers, Churchgate, Mumbai V. Near Masjid Railway Station, Mumbai 400009 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan:Aadfp5716B (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri. Mehul Shah Revenue By: Shri. D.G. Pansari (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 17.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.03.2019

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the 1961 Act was levied on the disallowance of expenses under four heads which are discussed by us in preceding para’s while adjudicating appeal in ITA no 6002/Mum/2017 in this order. These expenses stood I.T.A. No.6002 & 6001/Mum/2017 disallowed by the AO while framing assessment u/s 143(3) by invoking provisions of Section

PRAVINCHANDRA JETHALAL AND COMPAY,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-13(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6002 & 6001/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09) बिाम/ Parvinchandra Jethalal & Acit-13(1), Co., Aayakar Bhavan, 506, Rajgor Chambers, Churchgate, Mumbai V. Near Masjid Railway Station, Mumbai 400009 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan:Aadfp5716B (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri. Mehul Shah Revenue By: Shri. D.G. Pansari (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 17.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.03.2019

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the 1961 Act was levied on the disallowance of expenses under four heads which are discussed by us in preceding para’s while adjudicating appeal in ITA no 6002/Mum/2017 in this order. These expenses stood I.T.A. No.6002 & 6001/Mum/2017 disallowed by the AO while framing assessment u/s 143(3) by invoking provisions of Section

VIDYASAGAR ENTERPRISES LLP,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 13, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2653/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S Vidyasagar Enterprises Llp The Pr. Comm. Of Income Tax 13 (Formerly Vidyasagar Investments Ayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, बनाम/ Private Limited) Mumbai 400020. 6Th Floor, Business Park, S V Road, V. Chincholi Phatak, Malad (W), Mumbai 400064 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcv1066B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Haridas Bhat ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G M Doss

section 194C. The assessee has failed to deduct tax at source u/s.194C, on the said payment. Hence the expenditure of Rs .75,00,000/-is hereby disallowed u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and added back to the total income of the assessee. I am satisfied that this is a fit case for initiating penalty u/s

UNITED FREIGHT CARRIERS,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 20(3), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharm/S United Freight Carriers, B-11, Archana Juhu, Versova Link Road, ……………. Appellant Andheri (W), Mumbai - 400061 Pan – Aaafu1384K V/S Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax 20(3), Room No. 506, 5Th Floor, ……………. Respondent Piramal Chambers, Parel, Mumbai - 400012

penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Act on the basis of following two additions:- 1. Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act Rs. 5,17,328/- 2. Disallowance of commission payment Rs. 2,95,865/- 6 United Freight Carriers 8. As regards disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act, undisputedly the assessee has claimed the aforesaid

ACIT 16(1), MUMBAI vs. HINDUSTAN THOMPSON ASSOAICATES P. LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1206 /Mum/2018 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिाम/ Assistant Commissioner Of Hindustan Thompson Income-Tax, Circle 16(1) Associates Private Room No. 439, 4 Th Floor, Limited V. Aayakar Bhawan 4Th Floor, M.K.Marg , Churchgate Peninsula Chambers, Mumbai-400 020 Ganpat Rao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel(W), Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaach1463M (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri. B. Srinivas (Cit-Dr) Assessee By: Smt. Aarti Vissanji &, Shri. Ajit C. Shah & Ms. Aastha Shah सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.05.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 1206/Mum/2018, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 12.12.2017, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year(Ay) 2012-13, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 23.03.2016 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(3) Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2012-13. I.T.A. No.1206 /Mum/2018

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1 }(c) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 is initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 4. Aggrieved by an assessment framed by the AO u/s 143(3) read with Section 144C(3), the assessee filed first appeal with Ld. CIT(A) who observed that tribunal in assessee’s own case from

ACIT 25 (3), MUMBAI vs. PRAVIN VIRAM SATRA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

section 40(a)(ia) Brokerage 258073 229685 28388 Sub-contractor (Labour) 11243613 6426632 4816981 Legal & Professional Fees 2264874 2148159 116715 Testing & Surveying Charges 1117476 117476 1000000 Consultancy Charges 2964463 1994890 969573 17848499 10916842 6931657 2.2. The ld AO proceeded to disallow the aforesaid expenditure of Rs. 69,31,657/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 2.3. We find that

INCOME TAX OFFICER-12(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ANKITA REALITY AND DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as CO of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2212/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Ito-12(1)(1) बिधम/ Ankita Reality & Room No.129 1St Floor, Development Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. H. Cts-40-44, Sahara India Road, Mumbai-400020. Points, Sv Road, Goregaon West, Mumbai- 400104. Cross Objection No. 106/Mum/2023 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.2212/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Ankita Reality & बिधम/ Ito-12(1)(1) Room No.129 1St Floor, Development Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cts-40-44, Sahara India Aayakar Bhavan, M. H. Points, Sv Road, Goregaon Road, Mumbai-400020. West, Mumbai-400104. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeca4513D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Siddharth Srivastave/Ms. Ekta Shah Revenue By: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue & The Cross- Objection (Co) Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 19.04.2023 For The Ay 2015-16. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Revenue Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Deleting The Penalty Levied U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) & Pointed Out That Assessee Had Not 2 Co. No.106/M/23 A.Y. 2015-16 Ankita Reality & Development Pvt. Ltd. Filed The Return Of Income U/S 139(1) Of The Act. & The Cross- Objection (Co) Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Supporting The Action Of The Ld Cit(A), As Well As Has Raised Certain Legal Issues.

section 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not in accordance with the law especially since he has grossly erred in not being specific with regards to the limb under which he intends to initiate penalty proceedings.” 5. We will first deal with the revenue appeal wherein the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has deleted the addition on merits

SUREMI TRADING P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

271(1)(c) for disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) was considered by the Coordinate Bench in the case of Rushi Builders and Developers Vs. ACIT (ITA No. 6684/Mum/2012 dated 4.3.2015) and the Tribunal has decided the issue in favour of the assessee with following observations :- "4. We have heard the rival contentions and have also gone through the records

ITO 8(3)(4), MUMBAI vs. VADILAL MILK PRODUCTS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2006-07 Ito 8(3)(4) Vadilal Milk Products. R.No.202, 2Nd Floor, बनाम/ Ltd.(Vmpl Dairy Ltd.) Gul Aayakar Bhavan,, Manzil, 1St Floor, 14, Vs. Mumbai-400020. Dashratlal Joshi Rdm Vile Parle(W) Mumbai-400056 (Revenue) (Respondent) P.A. No.Aaacv5103G Revenue By Shri Arvind Kumar (Dr) Respondent By Shri Piyush Chaturvedi (Ar)

194C, the AO disallowed the same by invoking the provisions of Sec. 40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act. Penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1 )(c) were initiated against the assessee for furnishing inaccurate particulars of 8 Vadilal Milk Products. income by claiming expenses which are not allowable as deduction u/s 40(a)(ia) under the I.T Act. In course appellate

SHARMILLA VAZ,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 11(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh (Jm) & Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)

271(1)(c) for disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) was considered by the Coordinate Bench in the case of Rushi Builders and Developers Vs. ACIT (ITA No. 6684/Mum/2012 dated 4.3.2015) and the Tribunal has decided the issue in favour of the assessee with following observations :- “4. We have heard the rival contentions and have also gone through the records

MOHAMMED SALIM YUSUF,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 15(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/Sh. Mahavir Singh,Jm & B.R. Baskaran,Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No./7208/Mum/2012,िन िन िनधा"रण िन धा"रण धा"रण वष" धा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2007-08 वष" Mohammed Salim Yusuf Dcit-15(3) Flat No.14, 1St Floor, Isak Manzil, Aayakar Bhavan S.V. Road, Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 020. Vs. Pan:Aakpy 9942 K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: None Assessee By: S. Ravichandran-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30.08.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement:30.08.2016 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" अिधिनयम क" क" धारा क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आदेश Order U/S 254(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961(The Act) O R D E R "याियक सद"य के अनुसार Per Mahavir Singh,Jm : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of Cit(A)-26, In Appeal No.Cit(A)-26/It-17/Dcit.15(3)/2010-11 Order Dated 04.09.2012. Assessment Was Framed By Dcit-Circle-15(3), Mumbai, U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2007-08 Vide His Order Dated 10.12.2009. The Penalty Under Dispute Was Levied By Dcit, Circle-15(3), Mumbai, U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Act Vide His Order Dated 20.05.2010. 2. The Only Issue In This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Against Levy Of Penalty U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Act On Account Of Addition Of Cash Credits & Disallowance U/S. 40(A)(Ia) Of The Act. For This Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds:- “1.The Ld.Ao Erred In Levying Penalty U/S. 271(1)(C ) For Disallowance Of Cash Credit Of Rs.2,86,500/- & The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Same. 2. The Ld.Ao Erred In Levying Penalty For Disallowance U/S. 40(A)(Ia) Of Rs.75,000/- & The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Same.”

271(1)(c ) of the Act and finally levied penalty for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The CIT(A) also confirmed the levy of penalty on both the counts and did not believe the explanation of the assessee . Aggrieved, now the assessee is in second appeal before the Tribunal. 4. We have heard the ld. Sr.DR and gone through

DHANANJAY M PANDEY,MUMBAI vs. ITO 25 (3)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2007-08 Dhananjay M. Pandey, Ito 25(3)(2), 105 Anant Apartment, R.No.642, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ Thakur Village Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Kandivali(E) M.K. Rd. Mumbai-400101 Mumbai-400020 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Ahjpp9612M "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Darshan Gandhi (Ar) Shri Rakesh Ranjan (Sr. राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Dr)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) can be levied with respect to disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia). 3.2. Per contra, Ld. DR supported the orders of the lower authorities. 3.3. We have gone through the orders of the lower authorities as well as judgment placed before us by the Ld. Counsel on this issue. It is noted that disallowance

VODAFONE ESSAR LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. CIT, CHANDIGARH

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 216/ चंडी/2011 (िन.व. 2006-07) आअसं. 1173/चांडी /2011 (िन.व. 2007-08) Vodafone India Ltd. (Formerly Known As ‘ Vodafone Essar Limited’) Peninsula Corporate Park, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013. ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan:Aaach-5332-B बनाम Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range -1, ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Chandigarh. अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Salil Kapoor With S/Shri Vibhu Jain & Ninad Patade ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Anand Mohan

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act; and 3 ITA NO.1173/CHANDI/2011(A.Y.2007-08 Ground No.12: Levy of interest u/s. 234B, 234C & 234D of the Act. 4. Apart from above grounds of appeal, the assessee raised additional ground of appeal vide application dated 14/02/2013 however, the same was subsequently withdrawn by the assessee vide application dated 06/05/2013. DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA

M/S VODAFONE ESSAR LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. CIT, CHANDIGARH

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 216/ चंडी/2011 (िन.व. 2006-07) आअसं. 1173/चांडी /2011 (िन.व. 2007-08) Vodafone India Ltd. (Formerly Known As ‘ Vodafone Essar Limited’) Peninsula Corporate Park, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013. ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan:Aaach-5332-B बनाम Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range -1, ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Chandigarh. अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Salil Kapoor With S/Shri Vibhu Jain & Ninad Patade ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Anand Mohan

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act; and 3 ITA NO.1173/CHANDI/2011(A.Y.2007-08 Ground No.12: Levy of interest u/s. 234B, 234C & 234D of the Act. 4. Apart from above grounds of appeal, the assessee raised additional ground of appeal vide application dated 14/02/2013 however, the same was subsequently withdrawn by the assessee vide application dated 06/05/2013. DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA

MONISH BUILDERS,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 19(1), MUMBAI

In the result, quantum appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue regarding penalty imposed u/s 271)(1) (c ) stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.8880/Mum/2010 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Monish Builders , बनधम/ Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 7B, Cenced Apartments, Tax Circle 19(1), Vs. 318, Union Park, 3Rd Floor, Piramal Chambers, Palihill Road, Khar, Parel, Mumbi-400052 Mumbai-400012. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.7068/Mum/2013 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Asstt. Commissioner Of बनधम/ M/S Monish Builders , Income Tax Circle 19(1), 7B, Cenced Apartments, Vs. R.No.322, 3Rd Floor, 318, Union Park, Piramal Chambers, Parel, Palihill Road, Khar, Mumbai-400012. Mumbi-400052. स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan : Aanfm6701F अपीऱार्थी ओर से / Assessee By Shri Niraj Sheth प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/ Revenue By Shri Sanjeev Jain सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 02.06.2016 घोषणा की तायीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.06.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Are Two Appeals Under Consideration. These Two Appeals Are Directed Against The Two Separate Orders Of Cit(A) Dated 3.9.2010 In Quantum

194C of the Act thereby invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia). He made the disallowance of these expenses. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) who also confirmed the action of the AO. Aggrieved 3 8880/M/10 and 7068/M/13 by the order of first appellate authority, the assessee preferred second appeal

ACIT 19(1), MUMBAI vs. MONISH BUILDER, MUMBAI

In the result, quantum appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue regarding penalty imposed u/s 271)(1) (c ) stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.8880/Mum/2010 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Monish Builders , बनधम/ Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 7B, Cenced Apartments, Tax Circle 19(1), Vs. 318, Union Park, 3Rd Floor, Piramal Chambers, Palihill Road, Khar, Parel, Mumbi-400052 Mumbai-400012. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.7068/Mum/2013 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Asstt. Commissioner Of बनधम/ M/S Monish Builders , Income Tax Circle 19(1), 7B, Cenced Apartments, Vs. R.No.322, 3Rd Floor, 318, Union Park, Piramal Chambers, Parel, Palihill Road, Khar, Mumbai-400012. Mumbi-400052. स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan : Aanfm6701F अपीऱार्थी ओर से / Assessee By Shri Niraj Sheth प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/ Revenue By Shri Sanjeev Jain सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 02.06.2016 घोषणा की तायीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.06.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Are Two Appeals Under Consideration. These Two Appeals Are Directed Against The Two Separate Orders Of Cit(A) Dated 3.9.2010 In Quantum

194C of the Act thereby invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia). He made the disallowance of these expenses. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) who also confirmed the action of the AO. Aggrieved 3 8880/M/10 and 7068/M/13 by the order of first appellate authority, the assessee preferred second appeal

UNITED MARINE SERVICES,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 12(1)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Pawan Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1179/Mum/2014 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year:2009-10) M/S United Marine Services, बनाम/ Income Tax Officer- 8, Gaurishankar,Row House, Ward 12(1)(2), Vs. Sector-19,Plot No.35, Aayakar Bhavan, Nerul, M K Road, Navi Mumbai-400705 Mumbai-400020 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

271(1)(c) of the Act and confirmed by Ld CIT(A) is liable to be set aside. 7. In other cases relied upon by the assessee, it has been held that failure on the part of the assessee to make disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act will not give rise to concealment of particulars of income

ADARSH KAUL,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 24(3), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed in term of the above

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am

194C and liable to TDS and the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the same. ITAs No.4114/Mum/2016 & & 2811/Mum/2013 2. On the facts and the circumstances of the case & in law the learned. A.O. has erred in disallowing Rs. 4491845/m by invoking provisions of section 40(a)("a) of the Act and the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming

ADARSH KAUL,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 24(3), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed in term of the above

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am

194C and liable to TDS and the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the same. ITAs No.4114/Mum/2016 & & 2811/Mum/2013 2. On the facts and the circumstances of the case & in law the learned. A.O. has erred in disallowing Rs. 4491845/m by invoking provisions of section 40(a)("a) of the Act and the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming