DY CIT 11 (3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL OIL INDIA PVT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy&F Shri Amarjit Singhdy. Commissioner Of Vs. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax-11(3)(1) 3Rd Floor, The Leela Room No. 204, Aayakar Galleria, Bhavan, M.K.Road, Andheri (E) Marine Lines Mumbai 400 059 Mumbai – 400 020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaace2175M Appellant .. Respondent

penalty under Section 201 read with Section 221 of the I.T. Act. In addition, he would also be liable under Section 201(1A) to pay simple interest at 12 per cent per annum on the amount of such tax from the date on which such tax was deductible to the date on which such tax is actually paid

MARVEL DRUGS PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. ITO-6(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Marvel Drugs Pvt. Ito 6(3)(3), Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 20, Nagin Mahal, Vs. Mumbai – 400 020 82 Vn Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaacm4655N (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Surendra Nijsure, A.R. Revenue By : Smt Mahita Nair, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 21.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/02/.2024 O R D E R Per : Sandeep Singh Karhail: 1. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dated 11/08/2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“Learned Cit(A)”], For The Assessment Year 2006-07, Which In Turn Arose From The Penalty Order Dated 26/03/2013 Passed Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act.

u/s 271(1)(c) in respect of other disallowances disregarding that it did not involve any concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. 2 M/s. Marvel Drugs Pvt. Ltd. 3) The learned CIT(A) erred in not dealing with the contention of the appellant challenging the validity of the penalty order in as much as the assessment as well as penalty

SHREE YADVESH TRANSPORT CO . PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 13(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

195/- in the hands of the assessee. Against the assessment order the assessee did not file any appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 3. The Ld. AO subsequently issued penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s.271 of the Act on 27.11.2018 for filing inaccurate particular of income. A show cause notice u/s 271(1)(C) dated 05.04.2019 was issued

KAYCEE FINSTOCK PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjeekaycee Finstock Pvt Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income 7Th 705, Floor, Maker Tax -2(1)(1), Mumbai Chamber V, Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai Pan : Aacck6191P Applicant Respondent

u/s 40(a) in earlier assessment years. However, on verification it was found that the assessee had added back interest amount of Rs. 2,78,83,738/- only during the earlier assessment years. Therefore, addition of Rs. 1,76,88,923/- (4,55,72,663-2,78,83,738) was made to total income under the normal provisions

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

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

penalty thereon. Section 194E of the Act belongs to a set of various provisions which deal 33 ITA 5199/Mum/2019 ITA 5904/Mum/2019 M/s TCS Ltd with tax deduction at source, without any reference to chargeability to tax under the Act of the non-resident assessee. This section is similar to sections 193 and 194 of the Act by which deductions have

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

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

penalty thereon. Section 194E of the Act belongs to a set of various provisions which deal 33 ITA 5199/Mum/2019 ITA 5904/Mum/2019 M/s TCS Ltd with tax deduction at source, without any reference to chargeability to tax under the Act of the non-resident assessee. This section is similar to sections 193 and 194 of the Act by which deductions have

SULZER PUMPS INDIA P. LTD.,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ADDL./JT/DY/ ASSTT/ ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Sulzer Pumps India Pvt Ltd V. Addl./Joint/Dy./Acit/Ito Plot No. 9, Midc, Digha National E-Assessment Centre Delhi Thane-Belapur Road, Navi Mumbai- 400708 Pan: Aaack2238F (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Sulzer Pumps India Pvt Ltd V. National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi Plot No. 9, Midc, Digha Thane-Belapur Road Navi Mumbai- 400708 Pan: Aaack2238F (Appellant) (Respondent)

271,088 Total 3,830,510 B.41. On account of the submissions in the foregoing paragraphs, it is submitted that the Ld. TPO and consequently DRP has erred in holding the ALP of the transaction under consideration at Nil.” 13. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 14. Considered the rival submissions

THE DDIT (I.T) 2(1) vs. M/S. REUTERS LTD.,

Appeals are disposed off

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year 2000 – 01

195 of the I.T. Act, 1961, no liability u/s 234B and 234C arise, ignoring the fact: (i) that since the tax deducted at source was not adequate to meet the entire tax liability, it was obligation on the part of the assessee to make the deficit good by making the payments towards the advance tax; (ii) that since the assessee

THE DDIT(IT)-2(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. REUTERS LTD, UK, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year 2000 – 01

195 of the I.T. Act, 1961, no liability u/s 234B and 234C arise, ignoring the fact: (i) that since the tax deducted at source was not adequate to meet the entire tax liability, it was obligation on the part of the assessee to make the deficit good by making the payments towards the advance tax; (ii) that since the assessee

REFINITIV LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DDIT (IT)-2(1), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year 2000 – 01

195 of the I.T. Act, 1961, no liability u/s 234B and 234C arise, ignoring the fact: (i) that since the tax deducted at source was not adequate to meet the entire tax liability, it was obligation on the part of the assessee to make the deficit good by making the payments towards the advance tax; (ii) that since the assessee

THE DDIT(IT)-2(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. REUTERS LTD, UK, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year 2000 – 01

195 of the I.T. Act, 1961, no liability u/s 234B and 234C arise, ignoring the fact: (i) that since the tax deducted at source was not adequate to meet the entire tax liability, it was obligation on the part of the assessee to make the deficit good by making the payments towards the advance tax; (ii) that since the assessee

REFINITIV LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 2(1), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year 2000 – 01

195 of the I.T. Act, 1961, no liability u/s 234B and 234C arise, ignoring the fact: (i) that since the tax deducted at source was not adequate to meet the entire tax liability, it was obligation on the part of the assessee to make the deficit good by making the payments towards the advance tax; (ii) that since the assessee

REFINITIV LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DY DIT (I.T) 2(1), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year 2000 – 01

195 of the I.T. Act, 1961, no liability u/s 234B and 234C arise, ignoring the fact: (i) that since the tax deducted at source was not adequate to meet the entire tax liability, it was obligation on the part of the assessee to make the deficit good by making the payments towards the advance tax; (ii) that since the assessee

REFINITIV LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADIT (IT) RG 2(1), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year 2000 – 01

195 of the I.T. Act, 1961, no liability u/s 234B and 234C arise, ignoring the fact: (i) that since the tax deducted at source was not adequate to meet the entire tax liability, it was obligation on the part of the assessee to make the deficit good by making the payments towards the advance tax; (ii) that since the assessee

REFINITIV LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE DDIT (IT)-2(1), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year 2000 – 01

195 of the I.T. Act, 1961, no liability u/s 234B and 234C arise, ignoring the fact: (i) that since the tax deducted at source was not adequate to meet the entire tax liability, it was obligation on the part of the assessee to make the deficit good by making the payments towards the advance tax; (ii) that since the assessee

REFINITIV LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (I.T) - 2(1), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year 2000 – 01

195 of the I.T. Act, 1961, no liability u/s 234B and 234C arise, ignoring the fact: (i) that since the tax deducted at source was not adequate to meet the entire tax liability, it was obligation on the part of the assessee to make the deficit good by making the payments towards the advance tax; (ii) that since the assessee

DDIT (I.T) 2(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. REUTERS LTD., MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year 2000 – 01

195 of the I.T. Act, 1961, no liability u/s 234B and 234C arise, ignoring the fact: (i) that since the tax deducted at source was not adequate to meet the entire tax liability, it was obligation on the part of the assessee to make the deficit good by making the payments towards the advance tax; (ii) that since the assessee

REFINITIV LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADIT (IT) 2(1), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year 2000 – 01

195 of the I.T. Act, 1961, no liability u/s 234B and 234C arise, ignoring the fact: (i) that since the tax deducted at source was not adequate to meet the entire tax liability, it was obligation on the part of the assessee to make the deficit good by making the payments towards the advance tax; (ii) that since the assessee