DCIT (OSD)(TDS)-2(3), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL ENERGIES MARKETING INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

68,046 201 (1A) of ₹ 2,403,145 131/M/2023 2017 – 18 Failure to Failure to Failure to deduct tax at deduct tax at deduct tax if source on source on source on year employee discount and and provisions share best rebates of ₹ of ₹ payment of ₹ 135,9000/- on 30,92,02,890/– 1,79,73,114 which TDS on which

DCIT (OSD)(TDS)-2(3) , MUMBAI vs. TOTAL ENERGIES MARKETING INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

68,046 201 (1A) of ₹ 2,403,145 131/M/2023 2017 – 18 Failure to Failure to Failure to deduct tax at deduct tax at deduct tax if source on source on source on year employee discount and and provisions share best rebates of ₹ of ₹ payment of ₹ 135,9000/- on 30,92,02,890/– 1,79,73,114 which TDS on which

DCIT (OSD)(TDS)-2(3), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL ENERGIES MARKETINGS INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

68,046 201 (1A) of ₹ 2,403,145 131/M/2023 2017 – 18 Failure to Failure to Failure to deduct tax at deduct tax at deduct tax if source on source on source on year employee discount and and provisions share best rebates of ₹ of ₹ payment of ₹ 135,9000/- on 30,92,02,890/– 1,79,73,114 which TDS on which

DCIT (OSD)(TDS)-2(3), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL ENERGIES MARKETING INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

68,046 201 (1A) of ₹ 2,403,145 131/M/2023 2017 – 18 Failure to Failure to Failure to deduct tax at deduct tax at deduct tax if source on source on source on year employee discount and and provisions share best rebates of ₹ of ₹ payment of ₹ 135,9000/- on 30,92,02,890/– 1,79,73,114 which TDS on which

DCIT (OSD)(TDS)-2(3), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL ENERGIES MARKETING INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

68,046 201 (1A) of ₹ 2,403,145 131/M/2023 2017 – 18 Failure to Failure to Failure to deduct tax at deduct tax at deduct tax if source on source on source on year employee discount and and provisions share best rebates of ₹ of ₹ payment of ₹ 135,9000/- on 30,92,02,890/– 1,79,73,114 which TDS on which

DCIT (OSD)(TDS)-2(3), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL ENERGIES MARKETING INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

68,046 201 (1A) of ₹ 2,403,145 131/M/2023 2017 – 18 Failure to Failure to Failure to deduct tax at deduct tax at deduct tax if source on source on source on year employee discount and and provisions share best rebates of ₹ of ₹ payment of ₹ 135,9000/- on 30,92,02,890/– 1,79,73,114 which TDS on which

DCIT (OSD)(TDS)-2(3) , MUMBAI vs. TOTAL ENERGIES MARKETING INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

68,046 201 (1A) of ₹ 2,403,145 131/M/2023 2017 – 18 Failure to Failure to Failure to deduct tax at deduct tax at deduct tax if source on source on source on year employee discount and and provisions share best rebates of ₹ of ₹ payment of ₹ 135,9000/- on 30,92,02,890/– 1,79,73,114 which TDS on which

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

Section 115JB of the I.T.Act, 1961 are not \napplicable in the case of the assessee. \n9. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in \nlaw, the Ld. CIT(A) was right in deleting the disallowance \nof Rs.776,13,61,000/- on account of reserve for \nunexpired risk without appreciating the fact the said \nreserved was created

ESSEL MINING & INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Essel Mining & Industries Ltd., Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1(4), Industry House, 18Th Floor, 10, 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Building, Camac Street, Vs. Mk Road, Kolkata-700017. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaace 6607 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Jcit, Central Circle-1(4), M/S Essel Mining & Industries Room No. 902, Pratishtha Ltd., Bhavan, 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Vs. Industry House, 18Th Floor, 10, Building Annexe, Camac Street, Mumbai-400020. Kolkata-700017. Pan No. Aaace 6607 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Essel Mining & Industries Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1(4), Ltd., 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Building, Vs. Industry House, 18Th Floor, 10, Mk Road

68 on account of unexplained gifts received from the family members of unexplained gifts received from the family members of unexplained gifts received from the family members of Mr. B. R. Agarwal, the arguments have been noted. of Mr. B. R. Agarwal, the arguments have been noted. of Mr. B. R. Agarwal, the arguments have been noted. 28. The Special

ESSEL MINING & INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Essel Mining & Industries Ltd., Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1(4), Industry House, 18Th Floor, 10, 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Building, Camac Street, Vs. Mk Road, Kolkata-700017. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaace 6607 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Jcit, Central Circle-1(4), M/S Essel Mining & Industries Room No. 902, Pratishtha Ltd., Bhavan, 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Vs. Industry House, 18Th Floor, 10, Building Annexe, Camac Street, Mumbai-400020. Kolkata-700017. Pan No. Aaace 6607 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Essel Mining & Industries Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1(4), Ltd., 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Building, Vs. Industry House, 18Th Floor, 10, Mk Road

68 on account of unexplained gifts received from the family members of unexplained gifts received from the family members of unexplained gifts received from the family members of Mr. B. R. Agarwal, the arguments have been noted. of Mr. B. R. Agarwal, the arguments have been noted. of Mr. B. R. Agarwal, the arguments have been noted. 28. The Special

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 37(1) of the Act.We have perused the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in that case it was stated, during the assessment proceeding, the assessing officer noted that as per material available on record, the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Chennai Zone (DGCEI) had carried out investigation in respect of certain auto dealers and intermediaries. In course

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 37(1) of the Act.We have perused the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in that case it was stated, during the assessment proceeding, the assessing officer noted that as per material available on record, the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Chennai Zone (DGCEI) had carried out investigation in respect of certain auto dealers and intermediaries. In course

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 37(1) of the Act.We have perused the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in that case it was stated, during the assessment proceeding, the assessing officer noted that as per material available on record, the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Chennai Zone (DGCEI) had carried out investigation in respect of certain auto dealers and intermediaries. In course

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 37(1) of the Act.We have perused the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in that case it was stated, during the assessment proceeding, the assessing officer noted that as per material available on record, the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Chennai Zone (DGCEI) had carried out investigation in respect of certain auto dealers and intermediaries. In course

DY. CIT CIRCLE 3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ASIAN PAINTS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by assessee and Revenue for A

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

201 7-1 8 AY 2018-19 No. Grounds of appeal 20 Sundry Ground No. I balances written off M/s. Asian Paints 21 Colour Idea Ground No. II Ground No. I Ground No. I Stores expenditure providing enduring benefit thereby capital in nature 22 Disallowance Ground No. 11 of foreign tax credit claim

MAHENDRA H. SHAH ,MUMBAI vs. ITO - WARD- 4 (1)(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon’Bleshri Mahendra H. Shah V. Income Tax Officer – 4(1)(3) 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan C/O. The Presscopper Industries M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 175, Kika Street Mumbai – 400004 Pan: Aafps0929R (Appellant) (Respondent)

68 of assessee- company (ii) In the case of CIT vs. Creative World Telefilms Ltd. [2011](333 ITR 100)(Bombay) the court has held as under:- "In the case in hand, it was not disputed that the assessee had given the details of name and address of the shareholder, their PAN/GIR number and had also -given the die que number

DCIT CC 7(2).MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MAN INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2020-2021

201(1)/201(1A) of the Act. Hence, we set aside the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to consider th file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to consider the issue afresh in light e issue afresh in light of the evidences filed by the assessee and pass a proper order

M/S.GEETANJALI SPACE PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY. CIT CC-1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2010-11

68 of the Act by framing assessment under section 143(3) read with section 153A vide order dated 27.12.2016. 5. In the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by deleting the addition to the tune of Rs.22,32,00,000/- by holding that the addition can not be made de hors

DCIT(TDS), CIRCLE_1(2),, MUMBAI vs. M/S. FUTURE ENTERPRISES LTD., MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Shri Amarjit Singh () Dcit (Tds), Circle-1(2) M/S Future 8Th Floor, R. No. 813, Vs. Enterprises Limited (Earlier Known As Future Smt. K.G. Mittal Retail India Pvt. Ltd.) Ayurvedic Hospital Bldg Ground Floor, Charni Road W), Knowledge House, Off Mumbai – 400002 Jogeshwari Vikhroli Link Road, Shyam Nagar, Jogeshwari East, Mumbai 400 060

section 201(3) as amended by Finance Act No. 2 of 2014 came into force.” , and in the case of Troikaa Pharmaceutical ltd. Vs. Union of India (2010) 68