What is CIT v. Ansal Land Mark Township (P) Ltd. authority for?

The second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia), introduced by the Finance Act, 2012, is curative and applies retrospectively from April 1, 2005. Consequently, if the recipient of a payment has filed their return and paid taxes on the amount from which tax was not deducted at source, the payer's expenditure cannot be disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia).

How many judgments cite CIT v. Ansal Land Mark Township (P) Ltd.?

369 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Ansal Land Mark Township (P) Ltd. (377 ITR 635), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Ansal Land Mark Township (P) Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 40(a)(ia), Section 194A, Section 201(1), Section 142(1), Section 143(1).

CIT v. Ansal Land Mark Township (P) Ltd. (377 ITR 635)

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-2, Lucknow vs. Ms. Zubeida Shahanshah, Lucknow

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

ITA 519/LKW/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2014-15

Section 50CSection 50C(1)

…s effective from the date on which the law, containing such an undue hardship or incongruity, was introduced. In support of this proposition, I find support from Hon’ble Delhi High Court’s judgment in the case of CIT Vs Ansal Landmark Township Pvt Ltd [(2015) 377 ITR 635 (Del)], wherein approving the reasoning adopted an order authored by me during my tenure at Agra bench [i..e Rajeev Kumar Agarwal Vs ACIT (2014) 149 ITD 363 (Agra)] which centred on the principle that when legislature is reasonable and compassionate enough to undo the undue hardship caused by the statute “such an amendment in law, in view of the…

M/S. Shivratna Motors, Solapur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Solapur

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

ITA 1313/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali

Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 201(1)Section 40

…tax on such interest. In such a situation, we are of the view that no 4 disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act is not called for in view of the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ansal Land Mark Township Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2015) 377 ITR 635, wherein it has held that insertion of second proviso to Sec.40(a)(ia) of the Act is declaratory and curative in nature and has retrospective effect from 01.04.2005. It has further held that as long as payee or resident has filed its return of income disclosing the payment received by and in which the income earned by it is embedded and has also…

Deepak Rajaram Patil, Kolhapur vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1040/PUN/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jan 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri P.S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali

Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 201Section 263Section 40

…return of income by the resident payee referred to in the said proviso.” 6. Though the said proviso has been inserted w.e.f. 01-04-2013, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ansal Land Mark Township (P) Ltd. reported as 377 ITR 635 and subsequently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Calcutta Export Company (supra) has held that the amendment by Finance Act, 2010 to the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) are curative in nature and hence applies retrospectively from the date of insertion of said provision i.e. from the assessment ye…

Sh. Ashok Kumar Jain, Ludhiana vs. ITO, W-V(1), Ludhiana

The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 901/CHANDI/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. N.D.Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 201Section 250(6)Section 40

…m 1.7.2012. That the aforesaid provisions cannot be applied retrospectively. In rebuttal, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ‘CIT Vs. Ansal Land Mark Township Private Limited’ [2015] 377 ITR 635 (Delhi)., 5. I have considered the rival submissions and have also gone through the record. As per the amended provision of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, if the assessee is not deemed to be assessee in default as per the provisions of section 201 of the Act, the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act is not attracted in respect of payments made…

Sh. Ashok Kumar Jain, Ludhiana vs. ITO, W-V(1), Ludhiana

The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 900/CHANDI/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. N.D.Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 201Section 250(6)Section 40

…m 1.7.2012. That the aforesaid provisions cannot be applied retrospectively. In rebuttal, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ‘CIT Vs. Ansal Land Mark Township Private Limited’ [2015] 377 ITR 635 (Delhi)., 5. I have considered the rival submissions and have also gone through the record. As per the amended provision of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, if the assessee is not deemed to be assessee in default as per the provisions of section 201 of the Act, the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act is not attracted in respect of payments made…

DCIT, Circle, Patiala vs. M/S Hindustan Wire Products Ltd., Patiala

ITA 1609/CHANDI/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1609/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Dcit, Vs. M/S Hindustan Wire Products Ltd., Factory Area, Patiala Circle, Patiala बनाम

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Chandrakanta, Sr.DR

Section 201Section 40

…account the sum received and has paid due taxes as payable as per his return of income. 4. The assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of ‘CIT Vs. Ansal Land Mark Township Private Limited’ [2015] 377 ITR 635 (Delhi), wherein, Delhi High Court has held that the second proviso inserted by Finance Act 2012 is declaratory and curative in nature and has retrospective effect w.e.f. 1.4.2005. The Ld. CIT(A) considering the submissions of the assessee and the relevant case laws held that since in this case the payees had taken into account the sums recei…