Chandigarh (iii) Meeraj Estate & Developers v. DCIT

116 ITD 301Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2009#2494 most cited

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

The case is cited for its relevance to provisions concerning Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) and Tax Collected at Source (TCS), particularly in relation to amendments introduced by the Finance Bill, 2012, including Section 234E.

46

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Meeraj Estate & Developers v. DCIT · 116 ITD 301 · ITAT Chandigarh · Section 234E · Finance Bill 2012 · TDS provisions · TCS provisions · rationalization of TDS · rationalization of TCS

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

Govt. Girls Sr. Secondary School, Agroha, Hisar vs. ACIT, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 5818/DEL/2018[2014-15 (Q 1)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234ESection 271Section 271H

…ions:- (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 I T. Act. The rationale for such amendments in TDS/TCS related provisions…

Rajindra Gagan Wine Enterprises, Hisar vs. ITO, Ward- 3, Hisar

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

ITA 5584/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Sandeep Mehtani, CAFor Respondent: Ms Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

…ions:- (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) ITA Nos.5571 to 5573/Del/2018 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 L T. Act. The rationale for such amendments…

Rajender Singh, Hisar vs. ITO, Ward- 3, Hisar

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

ITA 5571/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Sandeep Mehtani, CAFor Respondent: Ms Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

…ions:- (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) ITA Nos.5571 to 5573/Del/2018 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 L T. Act. The rationale for such amendments…

Ebnoy Homes Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 74(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 1101/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020AY 2015-16

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

Section 200Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234Section 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) 4. 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…

Additional Digp, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, TDS, Gurgaon

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

ITA 7559/DEL/2017[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020AY 2015-16

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

Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234Section 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…

N.R.Elango, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 2135/CHNY/2015[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Mar 2016AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri. G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. T. Banusekar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. A.V. Sreekanth, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…amount from clients for services to be rendered in future. Such advance are shown as liability to be adjusted against services to be rendered. The ld. Authorised Representative relied on the decision of Delhi Bench Tribunal in the case of K.K. Khullar (2009) 116 ITD 301 and also Jurisdictional Tribunal decision in the case of R.S. Suriya vs. DCIT in ITA Nos.596 & 597/Mds/2009 and substantiated his arguments that the Assessing :- 4 -: Officer has made addition as the explanations furnished by the assessee are not satisfactory. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) verified the Bank account credits and…