MAHARASHTRA STATE PHARMACY COUNCIL,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-NATIONAL FACELESS, DELHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

68,493 5. However no return was filed by the assessee for all these assessment years as the prevailing opinion was that the income earned by the council is exempt from income tax and the assessee was not required to file return of income. 6. Notice u/s 148 dated 31.03.2018 was issued to assessee and assessee filed return in response

MAHARASHTRA STATE PHARMACY COUNCIL ,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-NATIONAL FACELESS, DELHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

68,493 5. However no return was filed by the assessee for all these assessment years as the prevailing opinion was that the income earned by the council is exempt from income tax and the assessee was not required to file return of income. 6. Notice u/s 148 dated 31.03.2018 was issued to assessee and assessee filed return in response

MAHARASHTRA STATE PHARMACY COUNCIL,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-NATIONAL FACELESS, DELHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

68,493 5. However no return was filed by the assessee for all these assessment years as the prevailing opinion was that the income earned by the council is exempt from income tax and the assessee was not required to file return of income. 6. Notice u/s 148 dated 31.03.2018 was issued to assessee and assessee filed return in response

MAHARASHTRA STATE PHARMACY COUNCIL,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-NATIONAL FACELESS, DELHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

68,493 5. However no return was filed by the assessee for all these assessment years as the prevailing opinion was that the income earned by the council is exempt from income tax and the assessee was not required to file return of income. 6. Notice u/s 148 dated 31.03.2018 was issued to assessee and assessee filed return in response

MAHARASHTRA STATE PHARMACY COUNCIL,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-NATIONAL FACELESS, DELHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

68,493 5. However no return was filed by the assessee for all these assessment years as the prevailing opinion was that the income earned by the council is exempt from income tax and the assessee was not required to file return of income. 6. Notice u/s 148 dated 31.03.2018 was issued to assessee and assessee filed return in response

APEX EDUCATION SOLUTIONS,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 33(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member)

68[ 69[fifty] lakh rupees] in any 70[previous year; or (c) carrying on the business shall, if the profits and gains from the business are deemed to be the profits and gains of such person under 71[section 44AE ] 72[or section 44BB or section 44BBB], as the case may be, and he has claimed

APEX EDUCATION SOLUTIONS ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 33(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member)

68[ 69[fifty] lakh rupees] in any 70[previous year; or (c) carrying on the business shall, if the profits and gains from the business are deemed to be the profits and gains of such person under 71[section 44AE ] 72[or section 44BB or section 44BBB], as the case may be, and he has claimed

APEX EDUCATION SOLUTIONS ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 33(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

68[ 69[fifty] lakh rupees] in any 70[previous year; or\n(c) carrying on the business shall, if the profits and gains from the business are deemed to be the profits and gains of such person under 71[section 44AE ] 72[or section 44BB or section 44BBB], as the case may be, and he has claimed

APEX EDUCATION SOLUTIONS ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 33(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

68[ 69[fifty]\nlakh rupees] in any 70[previous year; or\n(c) carrying on the business shall, if the profits and gains from the business are\ndeemed to be the profits and gains of such person under 71[section 44AE ] 72[or\nsection 44BB or section 44BBB], as the case may be, and he has claimed

APEX EDUCATION SOLUTIONS ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 3(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

68[ 69[fifty]\nlakh rupees] in any 70[previous year; or\n(c) carrying on the business shall, if the profits and gains from the business are\ndeemed to be the profits and gains of such person under 71[section 44AE ] 72[or\nsection 44BB or section 44BBB], as the case may be, and he has claimed

APEX EDUCATION SOLUTIONS ,MUMBAI vs. ITO 33(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

68[ 69[fifty]\nlakh rupees] in any 70[previous year; or\n(c) carrying on the business shall, if the profits and gains from the business are\ndeemed to be the profits and gains of such person under 71[section 44AE ] 72[or\nsection 44BB or section 44BBB], as the case may be, and he has claimed

CEVA LOGISTICS INDIA PRIVATE LIMTIED ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS)1(1)(4), MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No. 1 raised in each of the appeals is treated as allowed for statistical purposes while the all the other grounds are dismissed as having been rendered infructuous

Bench: Learned TDS Officer.

271C of the Act ought to be levied in view of the merits of the Appellant’s case as set out in the above grounds.” 3. The relevant facts in brief are that the Assessee is the private limited company. A survey under Section 133A (2A) of the Act was conducted at the premises of the Assessee on 03/01/2020

CEVA LOGISTICS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS)-1(1)(4), MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No. 1 raised in each of the appeals is treated as allowed for statistical purposes while the all the other grounds are dismissed as having been rendered infructuous

Bench: Learned TDS Officer.

271C of the Act ought to be levied in view of the merits of the Appellant’s case as set out in the above grounds.” 3. The relevant facts in brief are that the Assessee is the private limited company. A survey under Section 133A (2A) of the Act was conducted at the premises of the Assessee on 03/01/2020

CEVA LOGISTICS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS)-1(1)(4), MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No. 1 raised in each of the appeals is treated as allowed for statistical purposes while the all the other grounds are dismissed as having been rendered infructuous

Bench: Learned TDS Officer.

271C of the Act ought to be levied in view of the merits of the Appellant’s case as set out in the above grounds.” 3. The relevant facts in brief are that the Assessee is the private limited company. A survey under Section 133A (2A) of the Act was conducted at the premises of the Assessee on 03/01/2020

UBER INDIA SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. JT.CIT (TDS)(OSD)-2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

271C of the Act. Any consequential relief, to which the Appellant may be entitled under the law in pursuance of the aforesaid grounds of appeal, or otherwise, may thus be granted. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or at, the time of hearing

UBER INDIA SYSTEMS PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT (TDS)-2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhuber India Systems Vs. The Dcit(Tds)-2(3) Private Limited Smt. K.G. Mittal Unit 41/46, Floor 3 Ayurvedic Hospital Paragon, Phoenix Market Building, City, Lbs Marg, Charni Road (West) Kurla (W), Mumbai - 400002 Mumbai – 400070 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcu6223H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : J.D. Mistry & Hiten Chande Respondent By : Achal Sharma

68(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 provides that on specified services the service tax shall be paid by prescribed person. In March 2015, Central Board of Excise and Customs vide Notification No. 7/2015 dated 1.3.2015 notified that whenever an aggregator is involved in any manner in the transactions, then the person providing is not liable to pay service