THUMBPRINT ADVERTISING PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, 13(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, grounds of

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt.Renu Jauhri(Physical Hearing)

reassessment for the first time before Tribunal and as such, such ground of appeal was not raised before ld. CIT(A). The ld. AR of the assessee further invited our attention on order sheet dated 19.06.2025 wherein raising of such additional ground of appeal was allowed. For admission of such additional ground of appeal, the ld. AR of the assessee

UNITED BROTHERS MULTIPLAST LLP (SUCCESSOR TO M/S UNITED BROTHERS),MUMBAI vs. PCIT-17, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S.Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailunited Brothers Multiplast Llp (Successor To M/S. United Brothers) 301, Heritage Plazza, A Wing, R.S. Maharaj Marg, Teli Gali, ……………. Appellant Cross Lane, Andheri (E), Mumbai, Maharashtra – 400069 Pan: Aaafu0314K V/S

194H and 194A of the Act in the hands of the newly converted LLP but erroneously deducted the TDS in the hands of the erstwhile partnership firm. It was further submitted that despite repeated requests to such parties they have not revised the TDS return pertaining to the assessment year under consideration. It was further submitted that

DCIT, CC 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assesse bearing ITA No

Bench: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

194H of the Act and also ignoring that the matter is covered by judicial precedents in favour of the appellant. 6. The CIT(A) erred in not directing the AO to grant refund of Rs.3,78,31,605 being excess Dividend Distribution Tax ('DDT') paid by the Appellant being the difference between the rate of 20.35765 percent under section

ACIT 6(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. CHARAK PHARMA P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.5544/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11) Acit-6(2)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Charak Pharma Pvt. R. No. 504, 5Th Floor, Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. 21, 2Nd Floor, Evergreen Road, Mumbai-400020. Indl. Estate, Shakti Mills Lane, Dr. Moses Road, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai- 400011. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcc4014A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Krupa Gandhi Revenue By: Shri Hiren Bhatt (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01/11/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/01/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Mumbai Dated 16.06.2017 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Revenue Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Holding The Ao’S Action Of Re-Opening The Assessment For Ay 2010-11 Was Bad In Law, Since It Was Based On Change Of Opinion.

reassessment proceedings has made the addition on the presumption that what is reasonable which itself indicates that there was no belief of the AO to the escapement of income and further it is seen that the appellant, has furnished all the relevant material at the time of original assessment and disclosed all the facts correctly. In view of this

ZENITH DYEINTERMEDIATES LTD ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE CIT-3,, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

194H, 1941, etc., as\napplicable to the case, did not use the expression \"income\", and instead used the\nexpression \"sum\" and tax deduction is required on the \"sum so paid\". The said\nsection do not use the expression \"chargeable to tax\", unlike Section 195 applicable\non payment of sum to non-residents. Since the assessee was the person responsible\nfor

SHRI RAJESH RAMCHANDRA DAKE,PANVEL vs. DY CIT CC-1, MUMBAI

194H of the Act. As no TDS was deducted therefore the payments cannot be treated as brokerage income of the Assessee. The Assessee also claimed that the AO was orally requested to allow the Assessee to cross examine the Directors of VIPL or VPPL. However, the AO, without giving any opportunity to the Assessee to cross-examination has made

POONAM SANTOSH GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 41(4)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt. Renu Jauhri

Reassessment proceedings bad-in-law i. On the facts and circumstances of case and in law the Ld AO erred In passing the assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of income tax Act which is passed against the principal of natural justice and is bad in law. P a g e | 2 ii. On the facts and circumstances