DCIT (TDS) 3(2), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE LIFE NSURANACE CO. LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

194J we find that the order of FAA is correct and needs to be upheld. Accordingly we dismiss the ground as raised by the revenue. 15. Ground nos.3 and 4 relate to applicability of TDS provisions u/s 194D of the Act on Service Tax element in respect of ‗insurance commission‘. Briefly stated relevant facts in this regard are that

DCIT (TDS) 3(2), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

194J we find that the order of FAA is correct and needs to be upheld. Accordingly we dismiss the ground as raised by the revenue. 15. Ground nos.3 and 4 relate to applicability of TDS provisions u/s 194D of the Act on Service Tax element in respect of ‗insurance commission‘. Briefly stated relevant facts in this regard are that

9X MEDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. JCIT RG 11(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

194J of the Act in view of retrospective amendment in the definition of Royalty U/s 9(1) (vi) of the Act by introduction of explanation [6] with effect from 1/6/1976. As assessee has failed to do so, the above sum was disallowed under Section 40a (ia) of the Act. x. The learned Assessing Officer noted that despite no exempt

ACIT 16(1), MUMBAI vs. 9X MEDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

194J of the Act in view of retrospective amendment in the definition of Royalty U/s 9(1) (vi) of the Act by introduction of explanation [6] with effect from 1/6/1976. As assessee has failed to do so, the above sum was disallowed under Section 40a (ia) of the Act. x. The learned Assessing Officer noted that despite no exempt

9X MEDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 16(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

194J of the Act in view of retrospective amendment in the definition of Royalty U/s 9(1) (vi) of the Act by introduction of explanation [6] with effect from 1/6/1976. As assessee has failed to do so, the above sum was disallowed under Section 40a (ia) of the Act. x. The learned Assessing Officer noted that despite no exempt

ACIT 16(1), MUMBAI vs. 9X MEDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

194J of the Act in view of retrospective amendment in the definition of Royalty U/s 9(1) (vi) of the Act by introduction of explanation [6] with effect from 1/6/1976. As assessee has failed to do so, the above sum was disallowed under Section 40a (ia) of the Act. x. The learned Assessing Officer noted that despite no exempt

MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (MMRDA),MUMBAI vs. ACIT (TDS) CIRCLE - 1(3), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5186 & 5187/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) बिाम/ Mumbai Metropolitan Region Acit (Tds) Cir-1(3) Development Authority R.No. 703, 7 T H Floor, K.G. (Mmrda) , Bkc, Bandra(E), Mittal Hospital Building, V. Mumbai-400051 Charni Road(W), Mumbai- 400002 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan :Aaatm7106R(Tds Mum16747D) (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

194J.(1) Any person, not being an individual or a Hinduundivided family, who is responsible for paying to a resident any sum by way of— 12 I.T.A. No.5186 & 5187/Mum/2016 (a) fees for professional services, or (b) fees for technical services, [or] [(c) royalty, or (d)any sum referred to in clause (va)of section 28,] shall, at the time

DCIT (TDS) 2(2), MUMBAI vs. SBI LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit-(Tds)-2(2), M/S Sbi Life Insurance Room No.1012, 10Th Floor, Company Ltd. “Natraj”, 5Th बनाम/ Smt. K.G. Mittal Ayurvedic Floor, M.V. Road & Western Vs. Hospital Building, Express High Way Charni Road, Junction, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400069 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aafcs2503P

68(2) of the Service Tax Act read with Rule 2(1)(d)(ii) of Service Tax Rules, 1994. The clause (iii) of Rule 2(1)(d) of the Service Tax Rules 1994 is as "person liable for paying the service tax" means- (iii) in relation to insurance auxiliary service by an insurance agent, any person carrying on the general

ITO (TDS) 2(3), MUMBAI vs. MANDKE FOUNDATION, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5776/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12)

section 194J of the Act. Similarly with respect to payment made by the assessee to M/s Lift Schindler India P Ltd., it was observed by the AO that the said concern provided services of Rs.29,68

DCIT (TDS) - 1(3), MUMBAI vs. JET LITE (INDIA) LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No. 2355/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13) बिाम/ Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Jet Lite (India) Ltd., Tax (Tds) 1(3), Siroya Centre, V. Room No. 604, 6 Th Floor, Sahar Airport Road, Smt. K.G. Mittal Ayurvedic Andheri (E), Hospital Bldg., Mumbai – 400 099. Charni Road (W), Mumbai – 400 002. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan Aadcs4480L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

section 194J of the Act. The A.O. issued notice u/s 201(1)/201(1A of the Act to the assessee. The assessee was asked to produce month-wise details of PSF and CHC charges, the tax deducted at source thereon and actual payment details which were filed by the assessee. It was observed by the A.O. that the assessee

JAWAHAR B. PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22XC, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

68 of the IT Act, without bringing any evidence on record.” 21. The learned Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the assessment order and stated that this disallowance of expenses is on account of assessee transferring these expenses to work in progress and accordingly, disallowance was made under section 40(b) and also

M.R. CONSTRUCTION,.,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

68 of the IT Act, without bringing any evidence on record.” 21. The learned Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the assessment order and stated that this disallowance of expenses is on account of assessee transferring these expenses to work in progress and accordingly, disallowance was made under section 40(b) and also

JAWAHAR B. PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22XC, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

68 of the IT Act, without bringing any evidence on record.” 21. The learned Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the assessment order and stated that this disallowance of expenses is on account of assessee transferring these expenses to work in progress and accordingly, disallowance was made under section 40(b) and also

JAWAHAR B. PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22XC, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

68 of the IT Act, without bringing any evidence on record.” 21. The learned Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the assessment order and stated that this disallowance of expenses is on account of assessee transferring these expenses to work in progress and accordingly, disallowance was made under section 40(b) and also

DCIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI vs. M.R. CONSTRUCTION, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

68 of the IT Act, without bringing any evidence on record.” 21. The learned Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the assessment order and stated that this disallowance of expenses is on account of assessee transferring these expenses to work in progress and accordingly, disallowance was made under section 40(b) and also

ASST CIT CC-22, MUMBAI vs. JAWAHAR PUROHIT, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

68 of the IT Act, without bringing any evidence on record.” 21. The learned Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the assessment order and stated that this disallowance of expenses is on account of assessee transferring these expenses to work in progress and accordingly, disallowance was made under section 40(b) and also

JAWAHAR B. PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22XC, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

68 of the IT Act, without bringing any evidence on record.” 21. The learned Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the assessment order and stated that this disallowance of expenses is on account of assessee transferring these expenses to work in progress and accordingly, disallowance was made under section 40(b) and also

JAWAHAR B. PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22XC, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

68 of the IT Act, without bringing any evidence on record.” 21. The learned Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the assessment order and stated that this disallowance of expenses is on account of assessee transferring these expenses to work in progress and accordingly, disallowance was made under section 40(b) and also

DCIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI vs. M.R. CONSTRUCTION, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

68 of the IT Act, without bringing any evidence on record.” 21. The learned Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the assessment order and stated that this disallowance of expenses is on account of assessee transferring these expenses to work in progress and accordingly, disallowance was made under section 40(b) and also