Chandigarh (iii) Meeraj Estate & Developers v. DCIT

116 ITD 301Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2009#2497 most cited

What is Chandigarh (iii) Meeraj Estate & Developers v. DCIT authority for?

The amount collected in advance for a specific purpose is not considered income under sections 4 and 5 of the Income-tax Act, unless the assessee performs the function for which the amount was collected and the associated liability is discharged. Consequently, the entire amount with an attached liability cannot be taxed as income.

46

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

K.K. Khullar v. Dy. CIT · Meeraj Estate & Developers v. DCIT · 116 ITD 301 · advance collection · income recognition · section 4 · section 5 · liability to be discharged · taxability of advance receipts · specific purpose collection · Delhi Tribunal

Sections most often in play

Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 220(2)Section 234ESection 271HSection 154Section 194IASection 201(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 271aabstatement under section 132(4)retracted statementdumb documentssection 271aasection 271asection 40a(3)on-moneytnmmsection 40aconcealment of incomerevenue expenditure

Judgments citing Chandigarh (iii) Meeraj Estate & Developers v. DCIT

SUPREME TRANSPORT COMPANY,INDORE vs. ITO TDS-II, INDORE

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

ITA 917/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 234E

…v. CIT [2008] 171 Taxman 147/306 ITR 242 (Delhi) (ii) Anup Sharma v. Addl CIT [IT Appeal No. 161(Chd.) of 2012, dated 10-9-2014] (iii) Meeraj Estate & Developers v. Dy. CIT [2014] 44 taxmann.com 431/148 ITD 166 (ITAT, Agra) (iv) K.K. Khullar v. Dy. CIT [2009] 116 ITD 301(Delhi) (v) Dwarkadas Kesardeo Morarka v. CIT [1962] 44 ITR 529 (SC) 6. The ld. DR drew the attention of the Bench to the Memorandum to the Finance Bill, 2012 which elaborates the rationale/explanatory notes with respect to amendments being brought in the provisions of the I.T Act. The rationale for such amendments in TDS/TCS related provisions h…

SUPREME TRANSPORT COMPANY,INDORE vs. ITO TDS-II, INDORE

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

ITA 914/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 234E

…v. CIT [2008] 171 Taxman 147/306 ITR 242 (Delhi) (ii) Anup Sharma v. Addl CIT [IT Appeal No. 161(Chd.) of 2012, dated 10-9-2014] (iii) Meeraj Estate & Developers v. Dy. CIT [2014] 44 taxmann.com 431/148 ITD 166 (ITAT, Agra) (iv) K.K. Khullar v. Dy. CIT [2009] 116 ITD 301(Delhi) (v) Dwarkadas Kesardeo Morarka v. CIT [1962] 44 ITR 529 (SC) 6. The ld. DR drew the attention of the Bench to the Memorandum to the Finance Bill, 2012 which elaborates the rationale/explanatory notes with respect to amendments being brought in the provisions of the I.T Act. The rationale for such amendments in TDS/TCS related provisions h…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. VARSHA VISWANATH PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2050/HYD/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms. TH. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 153A

…come. He further submitted that an amount of Rs.11,20,00,000/- as reduced by the sales admitted, has to be excluded from the receipts. 26. Referring to the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Delhi Tribunal in the case of KK Khullar vs. DCIT reported in 116 ITD 301, he submitted that when there is a liability to be discharged by the assessee, the income in its entirety cannot be taxed. He submitted that it has been held that in accordance with provisions of section 4 and 5 of the Act, the amount collected in advance for specific purpose cannot be considered as income, unless the assessee performs the functi…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. VARSHA VISWANATH PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2049/HYD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms. TH. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 153A

…come. He further submitted that an amount of Rs.11,20,00,000/- as reduced by the sales admitted, has to be excluded from the receipts. 26. Referring to the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Delhi Tribunal in the case of KK Khullar vs. DCIT reported in 116 ITD 301, he submitted that when there is a liability to be discharged by the assessee, the income in its entirety cannot be taxed. He submitted that it has been held that in accordance with provisions of section 4 and 5 of the Act, the amount collected in advance for specific purpose cannot be considered as income, unless the assessee performs the functi…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. VARSHA VISWANATH PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2048/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms. TH. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 153A

…come. He further submitted that an amount of Rs.11,20,00,000/- as reduced by the sales admitted, has to be excluded from the receipts. 26. Referring to the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Delhi Tribunal in the case of KK Khullar vs. DCIT reported in 116 ITD 301, he submitted that when there is a liability to be discharged by the assessee, the income in its entirety cannot be taxed. He submitted that it has been held that in accordance with provisions of section 4 and 5 of the Act, the amount collected in advance for specific purpose cannot be considered as income, unless the assessee performs the functi…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. VARSHA VISWANATH PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2047/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms. TH. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 153A

…come. He further submitted that an amount of Rs.11,20,00,000/- as reduced by the sales admitted, has to be excluded from the receipts. 26. Referring to the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Delhi Tribunal in the case of KK Khullar vs. DCIT reported in 116 ITD 301, he submitted that when there is a liability to be discharged by the assessee, the income in its entirety cannot be taxed. He submitted that it has been held that in accordance with provisions of section 4 and 5 of the Act, the amount collected in advance for specific purpose cannot be considered as income, unless the assessee performs the functi…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. VARSHA VISWANATH PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2046/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms. TH. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 153A

…come. He further submitted that an amount of Rs.11,20,00,000/- as reduced by the sales admitted, has to be excluded from the receipts. 26. Referring to the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Delhi Tribunal in the case of KK Khullar vs. DCIT reported in 116 ITD 301, he submitted that when there is a liability to be discharged by the assessee, the income in its entirety cannot be taxed. He submitted that it has been held that in accordance with provisions of section 4 and 5 of the Act, the amount collected in advance for specific purpose cannot be considered as income, unless the assessee performs the functi…

VARSHA VISWANATH PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1910/HYD/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms. TH. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 153A

…come. He further submitted that an amount of Rs.11,20,00,000/- as reduced by the sales admitted, has to be excluded from the receipts. 26. Referring to the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Delhi Tribunal in the case of KK Khullar vs. DCIT reported in 116 ITD 301, he submitted that when there is a liability to be discharged by the assessee, the income in its entirety cannot be taxed. He submitted that it has been held that in accordance with provisions of section 4 and 5 of the Act, the amount collected in advance for specific purpose cannot be considered as income, unless the assessee performs the functi…

VARSHA VISWANATH PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1909/HYD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms. TH. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 153A

…come. He further submitted that an amount of Rs.11,20,00,000/- as reduced by the sales admitted, has to be excluded from the receipts. 26. Referring to the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Delhi Tribunal in the case of KK Khullar vs. DCIT reported in 116 ITD 301, he submitted that when there is a liability to be discharged by the assessee, the income in its entirety cannot be taxed. He submitted that it has been held that in accordance with provisions of section 4 and 5 of the Act, the amount collected in advance for specific purpose cannot be considered as income, unless the assessee performs the functi…

VARSHA VISWANATH PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1908/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms. TH. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 153A

…come. He further submitted that an amount of Rs.11,20,00,000/- as reduced by the sales admitted, has to be excluded from the receipts. 26. Referring to the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Delhi Tribunal in the case of KK Khullar vs. DCIT reported in 116 ITD 301, he submitted that when there is a liability to be discharged by the assessee, the income in its entirety cannot be taxed. He submitted that it has been held that in accordance with provisions of section 4 and 5 of the Act, the amount collected in advance for specific purpose cannot be considered as income, unless the assessee performs the functi…

VARSHA VISWANATH PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1907/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms. TH. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 153A

…come. He further submitted that an amount of Rs.11,20,00,000/- as reduced by the sales admitted, has to be excluded from the receipts. 26. Referring to the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Delhi Tribunal in the case of KK Khullar vs. DCIT reported in 116 ITD 301, he submitted that when there is a liability to be discharged by the assessee, the income in its entirety cannot be taxed. He submitted that it has been held that in accordance with provisions of section 4 and 5 of the Act, the amount collected in advance for specific purpose cannot be considered as income, unless the assessee performs the functi…

VARSHA VISWANATH PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1906/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms. TH. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 153A

…come. He further submitted that an amount of Rs.11,20,00,000/- as reduced by the sales admitted, has to be excluded from the receipts. 26. Referring to the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Delhi Tribunal in the case of KK Khullar vs. DCIT reported in 116 ITD 301, he submitted that when there is a liability to be discharged by the assessee, the income in its entirety cannot be taxed. He submitted that it has been held that in accordance with provisions of section 4 and 5 of the Act, the amount collected in advance for specific purpose cannot be considered as income, unless the assessee performs the functi…

ACIT 28(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. NEEL SIDDHI DEVELOPERS, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1693/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleacit 28(2) Vs. M/S Neel Siddhi Room No. 307, 3Rd Floor Developers, Tower No. 6, Vashi Rly 2Nd Floor, Emerald, Stn Complex, Vashi Plot No. 195/B, Navi Mumbai – 400703 Sec-12, Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400 703. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagfn2744N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Chetan M. Kacha.Dr Respondent By : Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi.Ar Date Of Hearing 14.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24.11.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 26, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Chetan M. Kacha.DRFor Respondent: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi.AR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…ances cannot be treated a completion M/s. Neel Siddhi Developers, Mumbai. of the assessee until the risk and rewards are handed over to the purchasers of the flat. Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble ITAT in the case of K. K. Khullar Vs. DCIT (2009) 116 ITD 301 (Delhi) where a similar matter of whether the these received in advance could be considered as income has been considered Me Hon'ble ITAT Delhi Bench. In the said case, the assessee was an advocate. Has receiving retainer ship fees which was shown as advance in his books of accounts. The Hon'ble ITAT after considering the matter placed reliance o…

W SERVE TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1040/DEL/2020[2013-14 (26Q-Q-2)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2022

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. M. Baranwal, Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

…case-laws: i) Rohitasava Chand [2008] 306 ITR 242 (Delhi) ii) Anup Sharma vs Addl. CIT, ITA No.l61/CHD/2012, order dt.26.08.2014 of ITAT, Chandigarh iii) Meeraj Estate & Developers vs DCIT [2014] 44 taxmann.com 431 (ITAT, Agra) iv) K K Khullar vs DCIT [2009] 116 ITD 301(Delhi) v) Dwarkadas Kesardeo Morarka vs CIT [1962] 44 ITR 529 (SC) vi) C.K. Gangadharan vs CIT [2008] 304 ITR 61 (SC) vii) CIT vs Swapnaroy [2011] 331 ITR 367 (Allahabad) 4. Before we request Hon’ble Tribunal to take to elaborate discussions on the issue, it would be beneficial if we kindly ITA Nos. 1027 to 1038 & 1040/Del/2020 6 W Serve Techn…

W SERVE TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1027/DEL/2020[2015-16 24Q, (Q-1)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2022

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. M. Baranwal, Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

…case-laws: i) Rohitasava Chand [2008] 306 ITR 242 (Delhi) ii) Anup Sharma vs Addl. CIT, ITA No.l61/CHD/2012, order dt.26.08.2014 of ITAT, Chandigarh iii) Meeraj Estate & Developers vs DCIT [2014] 44 taxmann.com 431 (ITAT, Agra) iv) K K Khullar vs DCIT [2009] 116 ITD 301(Delhi) v) Dwarkadas Kesardeo Morarka vs CIT [1962] 44 ITR 529 (SC) vi) C.K. Gangadharan vs CIT [2008] 304 ITR 61 (SC) vii) CIT vs Swapnaroy [2011] 331 ITR 367 (Allahabad) 4. Before we request Hon’ble Tribunal to take to elaborate discussions on the issue, it would be beneficial if we kindly ITA Nos. 1027 to 1038 & 1040/Del/2020 6 W Serve Techn…

DCIT (LTU), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GAIL (INDIA) LTD., NEW DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 4642/DEL/2013[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Oct 2020AY 1996-97

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 80HSection 80I

…m 265 iii) Rohitasava Chand vs. CIT (2008) 306 ITR 242 (Del) iv) Anup Sharma vs. Addl. CIT (ITA No. 161/CHD/2012 order dated 26.08.2014, ITAT Chandigarh) v) Meeraj Estate & Developers vs. DCIT (2014) 148 ITD 166 (Agra Tri.) vi) K K Khullar vs. DCIT (2009) 116 ITD 301 (Del) vii) Dwarkadas Kesardeo Morarka vs. CIT (1962) 44 ITR 529 (SC) viii) C. K. Gangadharan vs. CIT (2008) 72 Taxman 87 (SC) ix) CIT vs. Swapna Roy (2011) 331 ITR 367 (Allah) 21. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. The CIT(A) accepted that benefit of deduction under Section 80I/ 80IA of t…

GAIL (INDIA) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT-LTU DELHI, NEW DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 4454/DEL/2013[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Oct 2020AY 1996-97

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 80HSection 80I

…m 265 iii) Rohitasava Chand vs. CIT (2008) 306 ITR 242 (Del) iv) Anup Sharma vs. Addl. CIT (ITA No. 161/CHD/2012 order dated 26.08.2014, ITAT Chandigarh) v) Meeraj Estate & Developers vs. DCIT (2014) 148 ITD 166 (Agra Tri.) vi) K K Khullar vs. DCIT (2009) 116 ITD 301 (Del) vii) Dwarkadas Kesardeo Morarka vs. CIT (1962) 44 ITR 529 (SC) viii) C. K. Gangadharan vs. CIT (2008) 72 Taxman 87 (SC) ix) CIT vs. Swapna Roy (2011) 331 ITR 367 (Allah) 21. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. The CIT(A) accepted that benefit of deduction under Section 80I/ 80IA of t…

BATHLINE INDIA (PVT.) LTD.,DELHI vs. ACIT, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

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

ITA 9341/DEL/2019[2013-14 (26Q,Q-4)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

Section 154Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 220(2)Section 234ESection 54

…:- (i) Rohitasava Chand [2008] 306 ITR 242 (Delhi) (ii) Anup Sharma vs Addl CIT, ITA No.l61/CHD/2012, order clt.26.08.2014 of ITAT, Chandigarh (iii) Meeraj Estate & Developers vs DCIT [2014] 44 taxraann.com 431 (ITAT, Agra) (iv) K K Khullar vs DCIT [2009] 116 ITD 301(Delhi) (v) Dwarkadas Kesardeo Morarka vs CIT [1962] 44 ITR 529 (SC) 8. The ld. DR drew the attention of the Bench to the Memorandum to the Finance Bill, 2012 which elaborates the rationale / explanatory notes with respect to amendments being brought in the provisions of the L T. Act. The rationale for such amendments in TDS/TCS related provisio…

BATHLINE INDIA (P) LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT - CPC, GHAZIABAD

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

ITA 9336/DEL/2019[2013-14 (24Q-Q1)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

Section 154Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 220(2)Section 234ESection 54

…:- (i) Rohitasava Chand [2008] 306 ITR 242 (Delhi) (ii) Anup Sharma vs Addl CIT, ITA No.l61/CHD/2012, order clt.26.08.2014 of ITAT, Chandigarh (iii) Meeraj Estate & Developers vs DCIT [2014] 44 taxraann.com 431 (ITAT, Agra) (iv) K K Khullar vs DCIT [2009] 116 ITD 301(Delhi) (v) Dwarkadas Kesardeo Morarka vs CIT [1962] 44 ITR 529 (SC) 8. The ld. DR drew the attention of the Bench to the Memorandum to the Finance Bill, 2012 which elaborates the rationale / explanatory notes with respect to amendments being brought in the provisions of the L T. Act. The rationale for such amendments in TDS/TCS related provisio…

AIRCON ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. TDS, CPC, GHAZIABAD

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

ITA 9069/DEL/2019[2014-15 (Qtr-4,26Q)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234ESection 271Section 271H

…- (i) Rohitasava Chand [2008] 306 ITR 242 (Delhi) (ii) Anup Sharma vs Addl CIT, ITA No.l61/CHD/2012, order clt.26.08.2014 of ITAT, Chandigarh (iii) Meeraj Estate & Developers vs DCIT [2014] 44 taxraann.com 431 (ITAT, Agra) (iv) K K Khullar vs DCIT [2009] 116 ITD 301(Delhi) (v) Dwarkadas Kesardeo Morarka vs CIT [1962] 44 ITR 529 (SC) 5. The ld. DR drew the attention of the Bench to the Memorandum to the Finance Bill, 2012 which elaborates the rationale / explanatory notes with respect to amendments being brought in the provisions of the L T. Act. The rationale for such amendments in TDS/TCS related provisi…

Showing 1–20 of 46 · Page 1 of 3

Chandigarh (iii) Meeraj Estate & Developers v. DCIT (116 ITD 301) — Cited in 46 Judgments | BharatTax