FIRST GLOBAL STOCKBROKING PVT LTD,VASHI, NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4(1) (1), AAYEKAR BHAVAN MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2012-13 First Global Stockbroking Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Cit 4(1)(1), Ratnam Square, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Plot No. 38/39, Sector 19A, Vs. Mumbai-400001. Maharashtra-400703. Pan No. Aaacf 0661 K Appellant Respondent

40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act, 1961. First Global Stockbroking Pvt. Ltd First Global 2 2. At the outset, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that At the outset, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that At the outset, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has declined to condone the delay

DCIT, CIR 16(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S KPMG ASSURANCE AND CONSULTING SERVICES LLP, MUMBAI

Section 195 of the Act as the same were\nchargeable to tax in India in terms of Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act\nread with either Article 12 or Article 22/23 of the corresponding\nDTAAs as FTS or Other Income, respectively. Since the Assessee\nhad failed to deduct tax from the same in terms of Section

DCIT, CIR 16(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S KPMG ASSURANCE AND CONSULTING SERVICES LLP, MUMBAI

Section 195 of the Act as the same were\nchargeable to tax in India in terms of Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act\nread with either Article 12 or Article 22/23 of the corresponding\nDTAAs as FTS or Other Income, respectively. Since the Assessee\nhad failed to deduct tax from the same in terms of Section

KPMG ASSURANCE AND CONSULTING SERVICES LLP,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -16(2), MUMBAI

Section 40(a)(i) of the Act\nwas warranted.\nThe CIT(A) also allowed Assessee’s claim for deduction for\nremittance made to KPMG International Co-operative,\nSwitzerland by following, inter alia, the decision of the Mumbai\nBench of the Tribunal, dated 07/04/2017, in the case of\nAssessee for the Assessment Year 2001-2002 [ITA No.\n2493/Mum/2012].\nThe

KPMG ASSURANCE AND CONSULTING SERVICES LLP,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE-16(2), MUMBAI

Section 40(a)(i) of the Act\nwas warranted.\nThe CIT(A) also allowed Assessee’s claim for deduction for\nremittance made to KPMG International Co-operative,\nSwitzerland by following, inter alia, the decision of the Mumbai\nBench of the Tribunal, dated 07/04/2017, in the case of\nAssessee for the Assessment Year 2001-2002 [ITA No.\n2493/Mum/2012].\nThe

DCIT, CIR 16(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S KPMG ASSURANCE AND CONSULTING SERVICES LLP, MUMBAI

Section 40(a)(i) of the Act\nwas warranted.\nThe CIT(A) also allowed Assessee’s claim for deduction for\n\nITA No.2272-2276/Mum/2023 & CO No.123-128/Mum/2023\nITA No.2410-2415/Mum/2023 AYs 2012-2013 to 2017-2018\n\n9\n\nremittance made to KPMG International Co-operative,\nSwitzerland by following, inter alia, the decision of the Mumbai\nBench of the Tribunal, dated 07/04/2017

GETINGE MEDICAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

40 days. He submits that assessee when filed its return of income on 31.03.2021 opted for the 6 Getinge Medical India Private Limited concessional rate u/s 115BAA and also filed Form 10-IC on 01.04.2021. The Ld.AR thus submitted that assessee expressly indicated in its return of income that it was opting for the concessional rate as per Section 115BAA

ITO 22(3)(1), NAVI MUMBAI vs. CRESCENT CONSTRUCTION, NAVI MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06

section confines the duty to the disclosure of all primary and material facts necessary for the assessment, fully and truly. As to what are material or primary facts would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and no universal formula may be attempted. The legal or factual inferences from those primary or material facts are for the Assessing

CRESCENT CONSTRUCTION CO.,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 22(3), NAVI MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06

section confines the duty to the disclosure of all primary and material facts necessary for the assessment, fully and truly. As to what are material or primary facts would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and no universal formula may be attempted. The legal or factual inferences from those primary or material facts are for the Assessing