Allied Motors (P) Ltd. v. CIT

224 ITR 677Supreme Court of India1997#182 most cited

What is Allied Motors (P) Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Amendments to the Income-tax Act that are curative, clarificatory, or beneficial in nature apply retrospectively from the date the original statutory provision was introduced, even if not explicitly stated.

398

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,164 Indian tax judgments — from 2005 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Allied Motors (P) Ltd. v. CIT · retrospective application · curative amendment · clarificatory amendment · beneficial amendment · Section 43B · Section 50C · Section 194N · date of introduction · statutory interpretation

Also reported as

3 SCC 47291 Taxmann 205

Sections most often in play

Section 40(a)(ia)Section 43BSection 143(3)Section 194CSection 195Section 50CSection 147Section 250
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 43(b)section 3(b)section 36(va)section 43b(b)section 34(1)(iv)actual payment basissection 34(1)section 2(c)section 36(1)(iv)section 36(l)section 40a(2)section 2(24)(x)

Judgments citing Allied Motors (P) Ltd. v. CIT

M/S Millenium Consultants& Service Providers, Allahabad vs. DCIT, Allahabad

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

ITA 138/ALLD/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Sept 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…n 2010 to the existing provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) should be given retrospective effect from the date of insertion and in support of this contention learned senior counsel relied on a decision of this Court in Allied Motors (P.) Ltd v. CIT, Delhi - [1997] 224 ITR 677/91 Taxman 205. 12. Learned counsel for the Respondent finally submitted that the decision of the High Court is well within the parameters of law and requires no interference. Discussion:— 13. The dispute in the present case revolves around the fact that whether the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2010 to the provisions of Section 40 (a) (ia) o…

M/S. Ratan Conductors, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-4, Jaipur

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

ITA 1259/JPR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1259/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Ratan Conductors, Cuke A.C.I.T., Vs. H-377(B), Road No. 17, Vki Area, Circle-4, Jaipur. Jaipur. Pan No.: Aabfr 8166 P Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Ashok Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Jcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 05/08/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Jaipur Dated 21/08/2019 For The A.Y. 2012-13 Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. Disallowance Of Interest Of Rs. 17,73,769/- On Account Of Non Tds:- That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Law & Facts In Confirming Disallowance Of Interest Of Rs.17,73,769/- Paid To M/S Barelays Investment & Loan (India) Ltd. (Rs. 298826/-) & M/S Future Capital (Rs. 1474943/-) On Account Of Non Deduction Of Tds Thereon By Invoking Provisions Of Section 40(A)(Ia) Of The It Act 1961. (A) The Assessee Firm Paid, Interest Of Rs. 2,98,826/- To Nbfc. M/S Barelays Investment & Loan (India) Ltd. & Rs.14,74,943/- To M/S Future Capital Another Nbfc. The Assessee Firm Raised Loan

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kr. Gupta (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 40

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “A”, JAIPUR Jh lanhi x®lkÃa] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1259/JP/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s Ratan Conductors, cuke A.C.I.T., Vs. H-377(B), Road No. 17, VKI Area, Circle-4, Jaipur. Jaipur. PAN No.: AABFR 8166 P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Ashok Kr. Gupta (Adv) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Heari…

DCIT, Circle-II, Allahabad vs. Bharat Pumps & Compressors Ltd, Allahabad

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue for ay: 2007-08 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 148/ALLD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad12 Aug 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Ms. Tanu Singhal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Shantanu Dhamija, CIT (DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(va)

…which is made applicable by the Parliament only with effect from 1-4-2004, would become curative in nature, hence, it would apply retrospectively with effect from 1-4- 1988. Secondly, it may be noted that, in the case of Allied Motors (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 224 ITR 677(SC), the scheme of section 43B of the Act came to be examined. In that case, the question which arose for determination was, whether sales tax collected by the assessee and paid after the end of the relevant previous year but within the time allowed under the relevant Sales Tax law should be disallowed under section 43B of the Act while computing…

DCIT, Circle-II, Allahabad vs. Bharat Pumps & Compressors Ltd, Allahabad

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue for ay: 2007-08 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 147/ALLD/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad12 Aug 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Ms. Tanu Singhal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Shantanu Dhamija, CIT (DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(va)

…which is made applicable by the Parliament only with effect from 1-4-2004, would become curative in nature, hence, it would apply retrospectively with effect from 1-4- 1988. Secondly, it may be noted that, in the case of Allied Motors (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 224 ITR 677(SC), the scheme of section 43B of the Act came to be examined. In that case, the question which arose for determination was, whether sales tax collected by the assessee and paid after the end of the relevant previous year but within the time allowed under the relevant Sales Tax law should be disallowed under section 43B of the Act while computing…

Manimegalai Ganesan, Chennai vs. DCIT Non Corp Range 10, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in I

ITA 1331/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1328, 1329, 1330 & 1331/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Smt. Manimegalai Ganesan, The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 1, Millers Road, Kilpauk, Vs. Income Tax, Chennai 600 010. Non Corporate Range 10, [Pan: Aaepm4356K] Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri C. Subramanian, C.A. : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Ms. R. Anita, Jcit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 15.07.2021 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 12, Chennai, All Dated 21.03.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised Following Common Grounds For Adjudication: 1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12 In Confirming The Additions Is Against The Weight Of Evidence & Probabilities Of The Case. 2. Ground 1-Disallowance Of Commission Paid To Dr.S.P.Ganesan

Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40aSection 69C

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘डी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी. दुगा" राव, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी जी. मऺजुनाथा, लेखा सद" के सम" । Before Shri V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member & Shri G. Manjunatha, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1328, 1329, 1330 & 1331/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Smt. Manimegalai Ganesan, The Deputy Commissioner of No. 1, Millers Road, Kilpauk, Vs. Income Tax, Chennai 600 010. Non Corporate Range 10, [PAN: AAEPM4356K] Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant by Shri C…

Manimegalai Ganesan, Chennai vs. DCIT Non Corp Range 10, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in I

ITA 1330/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1328, 1329, 1330 & 1331/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Smt. Manimegalai Ganesan, The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 1, Millers Road, Kilpauk, Vs. Income Tax, Chennai 600 010. Non Corporate Range 10, [Pan: Aaepm4356K] Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri C. Subramanian, C.A. : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Ms. R. Anita, Jcit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 15.07.2021 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 12, Chennai, All Dated 21.03.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised Following Common Grounds For Adjudication: 1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12 In Confirming The Additions Is Against The Weight Of Evidence & Probabilities Of The Case. 2. Ground 1-Disallowance Of Commission Paid To Dr.S.P.Ganesan

Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40aSection 69C

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘डी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी. दुगा" राव, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी जी. मऺजुनाथा, लेखा सद" के सम" । Before Shri V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member & Shri G. Manjunatha, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1328, 1329, 1330 & 1331/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Smt. Manimegalai Ganesan, The Deputy Commissioner of No. 1, Millers Road, Kilpauk, Vs. Income Tax, Chennai 600 010. Non Corporate Range 10, [PAN: AAEPM4356K] Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant by Shri C…

Manimegalai Ganesan, Chennai vs. DCIT Non Corp Range 10, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in I

ITA 1329/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1328, 1329, 1330 & 1331/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Smt. Manimegalai Ganesan, The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 1, Millers Road, Kilpauk, Vs. Income Tax, Chennai 600 010. Non Corporate Range 10, [Pan: Aaepm4356K] Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri C. Subramanian, C.A. : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Ms. R. Anita, Jcit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 15.07.2021 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 12, Chennai, All Dated 21.03.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised Following Common Grounds For Adjudication: 1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12 In Confirming The Additions Is Against The Weight Of Evidence & Probabilities Of The Case. 2. Ground 1-Disallowance Of Commission Paid To Dr.S.P.Ganesan

Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40aSection 69C

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘डी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी. दुगा" राव, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी जी. मऺजुनाथा, लेखा सद" के सम" । Before Shri V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member & Shri G. Manjunatha, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1328, 1329, 1330 & 1331/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Smt. Manimegalai Ganesan, The Deputy Commissioner of No. 1, Millers Road, Kilpauk, Vs. Income Tax, Chennai 600 010. Non Corporate Range 10, [PAN: AAEPM4356K] Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant by Shri C…

Manimegalai Ganesan, Chennai vs. DCIT Non Corp Range 10, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in I

ITA 1328/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1328, 1329, 1330 & 1331/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Smt. Manimegalai Ganesan, The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 1, Millers Road, Kilpauk, Vs. Income Tax, Chennai 600 010. Non Corporate Range 10, [Pan: Aaepm4356K] Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri C. Subramanian, C.A. : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Ms. R. Anita, Jcit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 15.07.2021 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 12, Chennai, All Dated 21.03.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised Following Common Grounds For Adjudication: 1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12 In Confirming The Additions Is Against The Weight Of Evidence & Probabilities Of The Case. 2. Ground 1-Disallowance Of Commission Paid To Dr.S.P.Ganesan

Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40aSection 69C

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘डी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी. दुगा" राव, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी जी. मऺजुनाथा, लेखा सद" के सम" । Before Shri V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member & Shri G. Manjunatha, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1328, 1329, 1330 & 1331/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Smt. Manimegalai Ganesan, The Deputy Commissioner of No. 1, Millers Road, Kilpauk, Vs. Income Tax, Chennai 600 010. Non Corporate Range 10, [PAN: AAEPM4356K] Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant by Shri C…

Shaista Irphan Mogul, Mumbai vs. Central Circle-5(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 4916/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2021AY 2016-17
Section 54Section 54FSection 56

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” Bench, Mumbai Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) & Shri Pavankumar Gadale (JM) I.T.A. No. 4916/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year 2016-17) Vs. ACIT,CC-5(3) Shaista Irphan Mogul Flat No. 1001, 10th Floor Air India 578, 5th Floor, Old Khar Building Road, Khar West Nariman Point Mumbai-400 052. Mumbai-21. PAN : AIFPM4088B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Girish Jain Department by Shri Vijaykumar Menon Date of Hearing 05.05.2021 Date of Pronouncement 01.07.2021 O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya (AM) :- This is an appeal by the assessee directed against the order of learned CIT(A) dated 21.5…

Surendra Kumar Mathur, Jodhpur vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Jodhpur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 426/JODH/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur28 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalsurendra Kumar Mathur, Vs. I.T.O., Kuldip Vihar, Pal Road, Ward 3(1) Jodhpur. Jodhpur. Pan No. Akbpm 1606 K Assessee By Shri Amit Kothari Ca & Shri Abhinav Kothari Ca Revenue By Shri K.C. Badhok, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 06.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 29/01/2021 O R D E R Per Bench : This Is The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Jodhpur Dated 16/07/2018 For The A.Y. 2012-13, Wherein The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Partly Not Allowing Deduction For Cost Of Improvement Incurred In Fy 1991-92 At 2,12,500/- Out Of Total Claim Of Rs. 8,50,000/-. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Further Erred In Partly Not Allowing Deduction For Cost Of Improvement Incurred In Fy 2001-02 At 1,06,250/- Out Of Total Claim Of Rs. 4,25,000/-. 3. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Sustaining The Addition Of Rs. 3,35,554/- On Account Of Fair Market Value U/S 50C Of The Act. The Declared Sale Consideration Deserved To Be Taken For Computing Long Term Gain.

Section 50C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Surendra Kumar Mathur, Vs. I.T.O., Kuldip Vihar, Pal Road, Ward 3(1) Jodhpur. Jodhpur. PAN No. AKBPM 1606 K Assessee by Shri Amit Kothari CA & Shri Abhinav Kothari CA Revenue by Shri K.C. Badhok, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 06.11.2020 Date of Pronouncement 29/01/2021 O R D E R PER BENCH : This is the appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-1, Jodhpur dated 16/07/2018 for the A.Y. 2012-13, wherein the assessee has raised following grounds of ap…

Income Tax Officer (International Taxation) 4(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Vijaykumar K Soparkar, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 303/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon’Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Bleincome Tax Officer (I.T)-4(2)(1) V. Shri Vijaykumar K. Soparkar F-7, Lakshmi Mills Room No. 1728, 17Th Floor Shakti Mills Lane Air India Building, Nariman Point Mahalakshmi Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai - 400011 Pan: Bgtps4176D

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Iyengar
Section 4Section 45Section 48Section 5(1)Section 5(2)Section 54Section 54(1)

…clarificatory in nature as is apparent from the phrase 'the benefit was intended for investment in one residential house within India’ used in the Memorandum to the Finance Bill, and that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Allied Motors Pvt. Ltd., v. CIT (224 ITR 677) has already held that when a proviso is inserted to remedy unintended consequences and to make the provision workable, it could be read as retrospective, and which has been followed by the Hon'ble ITAT 'F' Bench in ITA No.321/Mum/2013 for AY 2009- 10, in the case of Fiduciary Shares & Stock P. Ltd. vs. ACIT." 3 Shri Vijaykumar K. Soparkar 7) "W…

Gail (India) Ltd vs. Addl. CIT, Range-12

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 859/DEL/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv.; MsFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT(DR)
Section 14A

…es out of the said payment tax amounting to Rs. 6.67 crores has been paid by the assessee before the due date of filing of return. Therefore, to this extent, no disallowance should be made as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Allied Motors 224 ITR 677. We further find that assesee suo moto disallowed Rs. 1,19,56,547/- u/s. 43B of the Act, therefore, no further disallowance need to be made. This additional ground is accordingly allowed. 13. The other additional grounds related to claim of deduction on account of prior period adjustments. Before us, the counsel for the assessee stated that certa…

Gail (India) Ltd vs. Addl. CIT, Range-12

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 858/DEL/2006[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv.; MsFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT(DR)
Section 14A

…es out of the said payment tax amounting to Rs. 6.67 crores has been paid by the assessee before the due date of filing of return. Therefore, to this extent, no disallowance should be made as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Allied Motors 224 ITR 677. We further find that assesee suo moto disallowed Rs. 1,19,56,547/- u/s. 43B of the Act, therefore, no further disallowance need to be made. This additional ground is accordingly allowed. 13. The other additional grounds related to claim of deduction on account of prior period adjustments. Before us, the counsel for the assessee stated that certa…

Mr. Rajan Mahajan Dgm (F&A) vs. Addl. CIT, Range-12

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 301/DEL/2006[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv.; MsFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT(DR)
Section 14A

…es out of the said payment tax amounting to Rs. 6.67 crores has been paid by the assessee before the due date of filing of return. Therefore, to this extent, no disallowance should be made as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Allied Motors 224 ITR 677. We further find that assesee suo moto disallowed Rs. 1,19,56,547/- u/s. 43B of the Act, therefore, no further disallowance need to be made. This additional ground is accordingly allowed. 13. The other additional grounds related to claim of deduction on account of prior period adjustments. Before us, the counsel for the assessee stated that certa…

Srinivasa Fashins Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. ITO Corporate Ward-6(4), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1396/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Duvvuru R.L.Reddy)नधा+रण वष+ /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Heard Through Video Conferencing V. M/S.Srinivasa Fashions Pvt. Ltd., The Income Tax Officer, No.57G, Sidco Industrial Estate, Corporate Ward-6(4), Ambattur, Chennai. Chennai-600 098. [Pan: Aaics 9511 R] (अपीलाथ./Appellant) (/0यथ./Respondent) : अपीलाथ. क1 ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.N.Vijay Kumar, Ca : Mr.Ar.V.Sreenivasan, Jcit /0यथ. क1 ओर से /Respondent By : 28.09.2020 सुनवाई क1 तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 28.09.2020 घोषणा क1 तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar:

For Respondent: 28.09.2020
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 68

…made applicable by the Parliament only with effect from 1-4-2004, would become curative in nature, hence, it would apply retrospectively with effect from 1-4-1988. :- 16 -: Secondly, it may be noted that, in the case of Allied Motors (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 224 ITR 677(SC), the scheme of section 43B of the Act came to be examined. In that case, the question which arose for determination was, whether sales tax collected by the assessee and paid after the end of the relevant previous year but within the time allowed under the relevant Sales Tax law should be disallowed under section 43B of the Act while computing…

Exlservice.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT (Ltu), New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 1708/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Dcit(Ltu), Vs. Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Circle-1, Ltd, Nbcc Plaza Pusph Vihar, 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Tower-B, New Delhi Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi Pan: Aaace5174C (Appellant) (Respondent) Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit(Ltu), 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Tower-B, Plot Circle-1, No. 10 & 11, Dda District Nbcc Plaza Pusph Vihar, Centre, Jasola, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaace5174C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Pal, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92D

…curative in nature, being introduced to reduce the undue hardship caused to assessee on disallowance of entire amount of expenditure. Accordingly, the same would, have retrospective operation, relying upon the following cases: i. Allied Motors (P) Ltd vs CIT: 224 ITR 677 (SC) ii. CIT vs Alom Extrusions Ltd: 319 ITR 306 (SC) iii. CIT, Kolkata vs Calcutta Export Company: 404 ITR 654 (SC) Page 16 of 23 Specific reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions, where it has been held that amendment to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act restricting the disallowance to 30% of expenditure, being clarificatory/…

DCIT (Ltu), New Delhi vs. M/S. Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 1482/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Dcit(Ltu), Vs. Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Circle-1, Ltd, Nbcc Plaza Pusph Vihar, 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Tower-B, New Delhi Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi Pan: Aaace5174C (Appellant) (Respondent) Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit(Ltu), 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Tower-B, Plot Circle-1, No. 10 & 11, Dda District Nbcc Plaza Pusph Vihar, Centre, Jasola, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaace5174C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Pal, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92D

…curative in nature, being introduced to reduce the undue hardship caused to assessee on disallowance of entire amount of expenditure. Accordingly, the same would, have retrospective operation, relying upon the following cases: i. Allied Motors (P) Ltd vs CIT: 224 ITR 677 (SC) ii. CIT vs Alom Extrusions Ltd: 319 ITR 306 (SC) iii. CIT, Kolkata vs Calcutta Export Company: 404 ITR 654 (SC) Page 16 of 23 Specific reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions, where it has been held that amendment to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act restricting the disallowance to 30% of expenditure, being clarificatory/…

M/S Dreamax Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 160/JPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Aug 2020AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.C. Gupta, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 145(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

…kari Sangh Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 163 (Raj) (ii) CIT Vs State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur [2014] 363 ITR 70 (Rajasthan) (iii) Commissioner of Income-tax v. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited [2014] 49 taxmann.com 540 (Rajasthan) (iv) Allied Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT 224 ITR 677 (SC); 298 ITR 141 (Kar) (v) 2015 (1) TMI 974 – Gujarat high court in the case of CIT V/s Noble Detective & Security Services Pvt. Ltd Appeal No. 251 of 2007 and (vi) CIT v/s Aimil Ltd & Ors (2010) 229 CTR (Del) 418. (vii) The Hon’ble ITAT Jaipur Bench in the case of ACIT Circle-6, Jaipur Vs Kanhaiya Lal Kalyanmal ITA No 135,760 & 136/JP/2013 vide…

Ramesh Govindbhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-6(1)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 64/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Parin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dilip Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 50C

…ive in nature, hence, it would apply retrospectively w.e.f. 1st April, 1988 (i.e. the date on which the related legal provision was introduced). Secondly, it may be noted that, in the case of Allied Motors (P) Ltd. Etc. vs. CIT (1997) 139 CTR (SC) 364: (1997) 224 ITR 677 (SC), the scheme of s. 43B of the Act came to be examined. In that case, the question which arose for determination was, whether sales-tax collected by the assessee and paid after the end of the relevant previous year but within the time allowed under the relevant sales-tax law should be disallowed under s. 43B of the Act while computing the busi…

West Bengal Trade Promotion Organisation Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO (Exemption), Ward - 1(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 36/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jul 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.36/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri B. R. Dutta, CA, Shri Saurabh Bagaria, Advocate & Shri RiteshFor Respondent: Shri I. Jamir, CIT, Sr. DR & Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 144Section 25

…r exemption under section 11 & 12 as mentioned in section 12A provided for registration u/s 12AA as a pre-condition for applicability of section 12A. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions :- Allied Motors P ltd vs CIT reported in (1997) 224 ITR 677 (SC) – Judgement by three judges of the Supreme Court (Page 686). The departmental understanding also appears to be that section 43B, the proviso and Explanation 2 have to be read together as expressing the true intention of section 43B. Explanation 2 has been expressly made retrospective. The first proviso, however, cannot be isolated from Expl…