Bharti Shipyard Ltd. v. DCIT

141 TTJ 129Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#19111 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2020.

Judgments citing Bharti Shipyard Ltd. v. DCIT

Panchami Developers, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-6(3)(2), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 91/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shree B. S. Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139Section 201Section 40

…contend that the object of the amendment made was that though the assessee has not deducted TDS but there has been no loss to the Revenue, as such the disallowance under Section 40(a) (ia) should not be invoked. "In the case of Bharti Shipyard Ltd vs. DCIT (141 TTJ 129), and that of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Rajinder Kumar wherein it was held that any amendment of a provision which is aimed at removing unintended consequences with the intention to make the provisions operative should be treated as retrospective no matter whether the same has been given effect prospectively. The Tribunal carefully…

Panchami Developers, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-6(3)(2), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 90/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shree B. S. Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139Section 201Section 40

…contend that the object of the amendment made was that though the assessee has not deducted TDS but there has been no loss to the Revenue, as such the disallowance under Section 40(a) (ia) should not be invoked. "In the case of Bharti Shipyard Ltd vs. DCIT (141 TTJ 129), and that of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Rajinder Kumar wherein it was held that any amendment of a provision which is aimed at removing unintended consequences with the intention to make the provisions operative should be treated as retrospective no matter whether the same has been given effect prospectively. The Tribunal carefully…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Smt. Deepti Agarwal, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and Cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3609/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit, Vs. Deepti Agarwal, Circle-31(1), Room No. 1405, Prop M/S. Superior Fabrics, 14Th Floor, E-2, Block, Maharaja Lane, Civil Lines, Prataykshkar Bhawan, Dr. New Delhi Shyama Prasad, Mukherjee Civc Pan: Aampa0573C Centre, Jn Nehru Marg, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR
Section 145(3)Section 40Section 80I

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S.SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DCIT, Vs. Deepti Agarwal, Circle-31(1), Room No. 1405, Prop M/s. Superior Fabrics, 14th Floor, E-2, Block, Maharaja Lane, Civil Lines, Prataykshkar Bhawan, Dr. New Delhi Shyama Prasad, Mukherjee Civc PAN: AAMPA0573C Centre, JN Nehru Marg, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) CO No. 234/Del/2013 (In ITA No. 3609/Del/2013) (Assessment Year: 2009-10) Deepti Agarwal, Vs. DCIT, Prop M/s. Superior Fabrics, Circle-31(1), Room No. 1405, 14th Floor, E-2, Maharaja Lane, Civil Lines,…

M/S. Shree Balaji Grit Udyog, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Rewari

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 5476/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Shree Balaji Grit Ito, Udyog, Near Sbi, Ward-3, बनाम/ Rao Prasad Sadan, Rewari Vs. Nh8, Dharuhera Dist. Rewari-123106 ("नधा%&रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.-Abmfs6461N

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194Section 194ASection 40

…5, being the date from which sub clause (ia) of section 40(a) was inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004”. None of these submissions, however, impressed the learned CIT(A). Relying upon a Special Bench decision in the case of Bharati Shipyard Ltd Vs. DCIT (141 TTJ 129), herejected this plea and concluded that insertion of second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) cannot be held to have retrospective effect. The disallowance was thus confirmed by the learned CIT(A). The assessee is aggrieved and is in appeal before us. 3. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material on record and duly considered factual…

Bharti Shipyard Ltd. v. DCIT (141 TTJ 129) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax