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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

194J, 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

APURVA NATVAR PARIKH & CO. PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI-6, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is\ndismissed

reassess the income after due opportunity of the\nassessee.\nPage 4\nITA No. 2646/Mum/2024\nΑ.Υ. 2018-19\nApurva Natvar Parikh & Co. Pvt. Limited\n4. Before us, the ld.DR has supported the revision order while the\nld.AR has vehemently argued that the said order may be set aside as the\nAO made due enquiries during assessment proceedings as evident from

RAJENDRA BHALCHANDRA MOKASHI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 27(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14

194J TDS Return -Professional or 7 3,90,000/- Technical Fees TDS-194A TDS-Return-Other Interest 15 29,11,232/- TOTAL 33,01,232/- 3.1. Case of assessee was thus taken up for reopening u/s. 147 r.w.s. 148. Notice u/s.148 was thus issued on 27.03.2021. Assessee filed his return of income in response to notice u/s.148 on 28.01.2022 reporting

ACIT-24(1), MUMBAI, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT vs. RAJ CLEARING AGENCY, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is ALLOWED

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judicialmember Acit – 24(1), Raj Clearing Agency, Vs. Room.No.601, 6Th Floor, 303/D Wing, Piramal Chambers, Jayant Apartment, Lalbaug, Parel, Sahar Cargocomplex, Mumbai – 400012. Andheri(East), Mumbai-40099. Pan/Gir No. Aaifr0443E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

reassessment proceedings as well as before the Ld. CIT(A). 6 (f) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.2,46.07.278/- without appreciating the fact that extracts of the 26AS of M/s. Capricorn Logistics Pvt. Ltd. submitted by the assessee before 3 Raj Clearing Agency, Mumbai