Chief Treasury Officer v. Union of India

355 ITR 484High Court2013#15748 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2014 to 2019.

Judgments citing Chief Treasury Officer v. Union of India

THE KARUR VYSYA BANK LTD,BELLARY vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS CIRCLE, HUBLI-DHARWAD

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

ITA 2886/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R.N Siddappapji, Addl. CIT (DR)

Section 12ASection 133ASection 194ASection 197ASection 201Section 201(1)

…third party on payment other than the seller and the purchaser of goods or when the recipient of the benefit markets goods as "agent" of the owner and not as independent dealer." 11. Allahabad High Court in Chief Treasury Officer versus Union of India (2013) 355 ITR 484 has held that the words "by a person acting on behalf of another person" imply element of agency and must be present in all such services or transactions in order to fall within the expression "commission" and "brokerage". Reference was made to definition of the term "agent" in the Indian Contract Act and the implication thereof and it was observ…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SPICEJET LTD., GURGAON

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1496/DEL/2017[2013-14 (F.Y. 2012-13)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2019

Bench: Shri O.P.Kant & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Advocate

Section 194Section 194HSection 201(1)Section 271C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’NEW DLEHI BEFORE SHRI O.P.KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.No.1496/Del/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 ACIT, Circle 77(1), vs M/s Spice Jet Ltd., New Delhi. 319, Udyog Vihar, Phase-IV, Gurgaon. PAN: AACCR1459F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT-DR Respondent by: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Advocate Date of hearing: 18/7/2019 Date of order : /7/2019 ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, J.M. Aggrieved by the order dated 26.12.2016passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-41, New Delhi(“Ld. CIT(A)”…

DCIT 9(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. FUTURA VALUE RETAIL LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA no

ITA 6705/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6705/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिाम/ Acit-9(3)(2), M/S. Future Value 418, 4Th Floor, Retail Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Knowledge House, V. Mumbai-400020 Shyam Nagar, Off Jogeshwari Vikhroli Link Road, Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai-400060 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaecp3041P (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri. Sushil Kumar Poddar (Dr) Assessee By: Ms. Dinkle Hariya सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 12.06.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.07.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 6705/Mum/2016, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 23.08.2016, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16,Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”) In Ita No. Cit(A)/ I.T.305/Dcit-9(3)(2)/2015-16, For Assessment Year 2012-13, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 29.03.2015 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2012-13. I.T.A. No.6705/Mum/2016

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle HariyaFor Respondent: Shri. Sushil Kumar Poddar (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 194HSection 194JSection 40

…of a third party on payment other than the seller and the purchaser of goods or when the recipient of the benefit markets goods as "agent" of the owner and not as independent dealer." 11. Allahabad High Court in Chief Treasury Officer v. Union of India [2013] 355 ITR 484/[2014] 220 Taxman 403/[2013] 37 taxmann.com 391 has held that the words "by a person acting on behalf of another person" imply element of agency and must be present in all such services or transactions in order to fall within the expression "commission" and "brokerage". Reference was made to definition of the term "agent" in the Indian Contract A…

HERO MOTOCORP LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1545/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishihero Motocorp Limited, Jcit, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Range-1, New Delhi Vs. Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0812J (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community Vs. New Delhi Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. NC Sawain, CIT DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…has been held that the provisions of section 194H are not applicable where the payment is made to a dealer or distributor in a principal to principal contract: i) CIT v. Ahmedabad Stamp Vendors Association: 348 ITR 378 (SC) ii) Chief Treasury Officer v. UOI: 355 ITR 484 (All. HC) iii) Roorkee Stamp Vendor Association v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors: WP No. 422/2013 (Uttkd.) iv) Kerala State Stamp Vendors Associations Vs. Office Of The Accountant-general and Others: 282 ITR 7 (Ker.) v) CIT v. Mother Dairy Ltd. (Del.)(HC): 249 CTR 559 (Del.) vi) CIT v Intervet India (P) Ltd.:268 CTR 429 (Bom.) vii) CIT v. Mother Dai…

ACIT, MANGALORE vs. M/S CORPORATION BANK, MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1264/BANG/2013[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2015AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Abraham P George

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.K.Srihari, Addl.CIT

Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viiia)

…)/13 party on payment other than the seller and the purchaser of goods or when the recipient of the benefit markets goods as "agent" of the owner and not as independent dealer." 11. Allahabad High Court in Chief Treasury Officer versus Union of India (2013) 355 ITR 484 has held that the words "by a person acting on behalf of another person" imply element of agency and must be present in all such services or transactions in order to fall within the expression "commission" and "brokerage". Reference was made to definition of the term "agent" in the Indian Contract Act and the implication thereof and it was observ…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II vs. JDS APPARELS PRIVATE LIMITED

ITA/608/2014HC Delhi18 Nov 2014

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 194DSection 194HSection 260ASection 40

…party on payment other than the seller and the purchaser of goods or when the recipient of the benefit markets goods as “agent” of the owner and not as independent dealer.” 11. Allahabad High Court in Chief Treasury Officer versus Union of India (2013) 355 ITR 484 has held that the words “by a person acting on behalf of another person” imply element of agency and must be present in all such services or transactions in order to fall within the expression “commission” and “brokerage”. Reference was made to definition of the term “agent” in the Indian Contract Act and the implication thereof and it was…