CIT v. Ansal Land Mark Township (P) Ltd.

377 ITR 635High Court2015#202 most cited

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).

369

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,164 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Ansal Land Mark Township (P) Ltd. · Section 40(a)(ia) second proviso · retrospective application · curative amendment · disallowance for TDS default · recipient files return · tax paid · Finance Act 2012 · Delhi High Court

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 40(a)(ia)Section 194ASection 201(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 234B
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 211full value of considerationdomestic companysection 21section 48date of transfersection 40(a)(ia)put to usesection 50section 194csection 40(a)section 40

Judgments citing CIT v. Ansal Land Mark Township (P) Ltd.

Yogendra Khandelwal, Jaipur vs. JCIT, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 735/JPR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Sept 2018AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri P. C. Jain (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri J. C. Kulhari (JCIT)
Section 201Section 40

…is not discernable from the said order. Accordingly, disallowance of payments to these two institutions is confirmed." 8. Taking into consideration, the decision rendered by the Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Ansal Land Mark Township Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2015) 377 ITR 635 which has been discussed by the tribunal in detailed, we are of the opinion that tribunal has not committed any error in allowing the appeal only for statistical purposes. 9. The view taken by the tribunal is just and proper. Therefore, no substantial question of law arises. 10. The appeal stands dismissed.” 10. Respectfully following the above…

The DCIT, Cen Circle, Tvm, Trivandrum vs. M/S.Kk Rocks & Granites India P. Ltd, Trivandrum

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 50/COCH/2018[2012-13]Status: FixedITAT Cochin24 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. T.M.Sreedharan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Santham Bose, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 40

…ion by placing reliance on the following judgments – (i) Punjab Goods Transport (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2017) Tax ITA No.46/Coch/2018 & Ors. 3 M/s.K.K.Rocks & Granites India Pvt.Ltd. Pub (DT) 0116 (Kol.Tri.). (ii) CIT v. Ansal Land Mark Township (I) (P) Ltd. (2015) 377 ITR 635 (Delhi) (iii) ITO v. Dr.Jaideep Kumar Sharma (2014) 52 Taxman.com 420 (Delhi-Trib.) (iv) CIT v. Rajinder Kumar (2013) Tax pub. (DT) 1875 (Delhi HC) (v) CIT v. Alom Extrusion Ltd. (2009) Tax Pub. (DT) 2109 (SC) - and observed that since the recipients of the income, i.e., Directors, declared the same as income in their respective returns and paid…

The DCIT, Cen Circle, Tvm, Trivandrum vs. M/S.Kk Rocks & Granites India P. Ltd, Trivandrum

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 49/COCH/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. T.M.Sreedharan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Santham Bose, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 40

…ion by placing reliance on the following judgments – (i) Punjab Goods Transport (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2017) Tax ITA No.46/Coch/2018 & Ors. 3 M/s.K.K.Rocks & Granites India Pvt.Ltd. Pub (DT) 0116 (Kol.Tri.). (ii) CIT v. Ansal Land Mark Township (I) (P) Ltd. (2015) 377 ITR 635 (Delhi) (iii) ITO v. Dr.Jaideep Kumar Sharma (2014) 52 Taxman.com 420 (Delhi-Trib.) (iv) CIT v. Rajinder Kumar (2013) Tax pub. (DT) 1875 (Delhi HC) (v) CIT v. Alom Extrusion Ltd. (2009) Tax Pub. (DT) 2109 (SC) - and observed that since the recipients of the income, i.e., Directors, declared the same as income in their respective returns and paid…

The DCIT, Cen Circle, Tvm, Trivandrum vs. M/S.Kk Rocks & Granites India P. Ltd, Trivandrum

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 48/COCH/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. T.M.Sreedharan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Santham Bose, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 40

…ion by placing reliance on the following judgments – (i) Punjab Goods Transport (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2017) Tax ITA No.46/Coch/2018 & Ors. 3 M/s.K.K.Rocks & Granites India Pvt.Ltd. Pub (DT) 0116 (Kol.Tri.). (ii) CIT v. Ansal Land Mark Township (I) (P) Ltd. (2015) 377 ITR 635 (Delhi) (iii) ITO v. Dr.Jaideep Kumar Sharma (2014) 52 Taxman.com 420 (Delhi-Trib.) (iv) CIT v. Rajinder Kumar (2013) Tax pub. (DT) 1875 (Delhi HC) (v) CIT v. Alom Extrusion Ltd. (2009) Tax Pub. (DT) 2109 (SC) - and observed that since the recipients of the income, i.e., Directors, declared the same as income in their respective returns and paid…

The DCIT, Cen Circle, Tvm, Trivandrum vs. M/S.Kk Rocks & Granites India P. Ltd, Trivandrum

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 47/COCH/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. T.M.Sreedharan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Santham Bose, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 40

…ion by placing reliance on the following judgments – (i) Punjab Goods Transport (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2017) Tax ITA No.46/Coch/2018 & Ors. 3 M/s.K.K.Rocks & Granites India Pvt.Ltd. Pub (DT) 0116 (Kol.Tri.). (ii) CIT v. Ansal Land Mark Township (I) (P) Ltd. (2015) 377 ITR 635 (Delhi) (iii) ITO v. Dr.Jaideep Kumar Sharma (2014) 52 Taxman.com 420 (Delhi-Trib.) (iv) CIT v. Rajinder Kumar (2013) Tax pub. (DT) 1875 (Delhi HC) (v) CIT v. Alom Extrusion Ltd. (2009) Tax Pub. (DT) 2109 (SC) - and observed that since the recipients of the income, i.e., Directors, declared the same as income in their respective returns and paid…

The DCIT, Cen Circle, Tvm, Trivandrum vs. M/S.Kk Rocks & Granites India P. Ltd, Trivandrum

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 46/COCH/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. T.M.Sreedharan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Santham Bose, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 40

…ion by placing reliance on the following judgments – (i) Punjab Goods Transport (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2017) Tax ITA No.46/Coch/2018 & Ors. 3 M/s.K.K.Rocks & Granites India Pvt.Ltd. Pub (DT) 0116 (Kol.Tri.). (ii) CIT v. Ansal Land Mark Township (I) (P) Ltd. (2015) 377 ITR 635 (Delhi) (iii) ITO v. Dr.Jaideep Kumar Sharma (2014) 52 Taxman.com 420 (Delhi-Trib.) (iv) CIT v. Rajinder Kumar (2013) Tax pub. (DT) 1875 (Delhi HC) (v) CIT v. Alom Extrusion Ltd. (2009) Tax Pub. (DT) 2109 (SC) - and observed that since the recipients of the income, i.e., Directors, declared the same as income in their respective returns and paid…

Royal India Gems & Jewels Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO Corporate Ward 5(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for 7

ITA 683/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Sept 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. B. Sagadevan, IRS, JCIT
Section 201(1)Section 40

…had paid due taxes and returned the interest income. The proviso as per the ld. Authorised Representative had to be construed retrospectively by virtue of the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ansal Land Mark Township P. Ltd (2015) 377 ITR 635. Per contra, ld. Departmental Representative strongly 5. supported the orders of the lower authorities. ITA No.683/CHNY/2018. :- 4 -: 6. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the authorities below. Disallowance u/s.40(a)(i) of the Act was fastened on the assessee for its failure to furnish Form 26A for the interes…

DCIT 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Canlinx Logistics (I) P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee as well as appeal filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 506/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ramlal Negi (Jm)

Section 40Section 68

…Finance Act, 2012, but the AO has taken the view that the said proviso shall be applicable from AY 2014-15 only. Before us Ld A.R placed reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ansal Land mark Township P Ltd (2015)(377 ITR 635) and submitted that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held that the second proviso inserted in sec. 40(a)(ia) by Finance Act 2012 is declaratory and curative in nature and hence would apply retrospectively. The Ld A.R fairly submitted that a contrary view has been expressed by Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Prudential Logistics and Trans…

Chandubhai Somabhai Patel, Mumbai vs. ACIT 31(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2208/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 2208/Mum/2017 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2011-12) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 2207/Mum/2017 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2012-13) Shri Chandubhai Somabhai Patel, …… (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) 4, Shakti Indl. Estate, Piramal Nagar, Off. S.V. Road, Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 063 Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 31(1), C-13, Pratyakhsa Kar Bhawan, …… (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400 051 स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aawpp4844K अपीलाथी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri Ravikant Pathak, Ar प्रत्यथी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri Abi Rama Karthikeyan, Dr ुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21-08-2018 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 21-08-2018 Aadosa / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant Pathak, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abi Rama Karthikeyan, DR
Section 143(3)Section 190Section 194CSection 4Section 40ASection 40a

…l for the assessee stated the second proviso to section 40a(ia) of the Act as introduced by the Finance Act 2012 is retrospective in nature in view of the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High court in the case of CIT vs. Ansal Land Mark Township (P) Ltd. vs. [2015] 377 ITR 635 (Delhi) and hence, he only requested that the assessee is ready to file all the details of the parties to whom these payments have been made and expenses claimed. The learned Counsel for the assessee undertook to comply with the provisions of second proviso to section 40a(ia) of the Act. When the same was confronted to the learned Sr. Departmenta…

Chandubhai Somabhai Patel, Mumbai vs. ACIT 31(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2207/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 2208/Mum/2017 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2011-12) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 2207/Mum/2017 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2012-13) Shri Chandubhai Somabhai Patel, …… (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) 4, Shakti Indl. Estate, Piramal Nagar, Off. S.V. Road, Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 063 Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 31(1), C-13, Pratyakhsa Kar Bhawan, …… (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400 051 स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aawpp4844K अपीलाथी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri Ravikant Pathak, Ar प्रत्यथी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri Abi Rama Karthikeyan, Dr ुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21-08-2018 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 21-08-2018 Aadosa / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant Pathak, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abi Rama Karthikeyan, DR
Section 143(3)Section 190Section 194CSection 4Section 40ASection 40a

…l for the assessee stated the second proviso to section 40a(ia) of the Act as introduced by the Finance Act 2012 is retrospective in nature in view of the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High court in the case of CIT vs. Ansal Land Mark Township (P) Ltd. vs. [2015] 377 ITR 635 (Delhi) and hence, he only requested that the assessee is ready to file all the details of the parties to whom these payments have been made and expenses claimed. The learned Counsel for the assessee undertook to comply with the provisions of second proviso to section 40a(ia) of the Act. When the same was confronted to the learned Sr. Departmenta…

M/S Patidar Hospital & Research Centre, Ujjain vs. The ITO 2(1), Ujjain

In the result, ITA No.1007/Ind/2016 is partly allowed, is allowed and ITA

ITA 1541/IND/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 40Section 80I

…case, would be triggered, only when the deductees failed to pay their taxes directly to the government. The department ought to have verified that the deductees had paid the tax directly or not. The same is supported by : a. Ansal Land Mark Township (P.) Ltd 377 ITR 635 Second Proviso to section 40(a)(ia) is declaratory and curative and it has retrospective effect from 1-4-2005. Thus it is applicable for our appeal which is for A.Y. 2010-11. b. Malwa Education [ITA No. 917/ IND/ 2016 Order dt. 10.01.2018] Following the judgment of Delhi High Court in Ansal Land Mark (supra), the matter was remanded to the ld Ass…

M/S. Patidar Hospital & Research Centre, Ujjain vs. The ITO 2(1), Ujjain

In the result, ITA No.1007/Ind/2016 is partly allowed, is allowed and ITA

ITA 1008/IND/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 40Section 80I

…case, would be triggered, only when the deductees failed to pay their taxes directly to the government. The department ought to have verified that the deductees had paid the tax directly or not. The same is supported by : a. Ansal Land Mark Township (P.) Ltd 377 ITR 635 Second Proviso to section 40(a)(ia) is declaratory and curative and it has retrospective effect from 1-4-2005. Thus it is applicable for our appeal which is for A.Y. 2010-11. b. Malwa Education [ITA No. 917/ IND/ 2016 Order dt. 10.01.2018] Following the judgment of Delhi High Court in Ansal Land Mark (supra), the matter was remanded to the ld Ass…

M/S. Patidar Hospital & Research Centre, Ujjain vs. The ITO 2(1), Ujjain

In the result, ITA No.1007/Ind/2016 is partly allowed, is allowed and ITA

ITA 1007/IND/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 40Section 80I

…case, would be triggered, only when the deductees failed to pay their taxes directly to the government. The department ought to have verified that the deductees had paid the tax directly or not. The same is supported by : a. Ansal Land Mark Township (P.) Ltd 377 ITR 635 Second Proviso to section 40(a)(ia) is declaratory and curative and it has retrospective effect from 1-4-2005. Thus it is applicable for our appeal which is for A.Y. 2010-11. b. Malwa Education [ITA No. 917/ IND/ 2016 Order dt. 10.01.2018] Following the judgment of Delhi High Court in Ansal Land Mark (supra), the matter was remanded to the ld Ass…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Maharani Enterprises, Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and Cross- Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5806/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

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

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 194CSection 40

…e hands of the assessee for failure to deduct tax . The above contention is based on the premise that the above amendment in section 40a(la) is retrospective and applies to old cases also as held by the Delhi High Court in CIT Vs Ansal Landmark Township P Ltd 377 ITR 635. 7. As regards Department’s appeal and Cross Objection, the Ld. AR submitted that the Tribunal in case of Divya Creation Vs. ACIT being ITA No. 10 5603/Del/2014 Assessment Year 2010-11 order dated 14/9/2017 categorically discussed this issue regarding commission paid to the non- resident. The Ld. AR submitted that the issue is decided in favour…

Lodha Builders Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Cir- 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by

ITA 1572/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta-ARFor Respondent: Sh. N.S. Jangpangi CIT-DR
Section 139Section 14ASection 201Section 40

…esentative for the assessee submitted that Ground No.2 of the appeal is also covered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. In support of his submission Ld. Representative for the assessee relied upon the case of Ansal Landmark Township P. Ltd.(377 ITR 635) (Del.) decision of Mumbai Tribunal in the 4 I.T.A. No.1572/Mum/2015 Assessment Year: 2008-09 ; I.T.A. No.1748/Mum/2015 Assessment Year: Lodha Builders Private Limited case of ACIT vs. M/s. City Gold Investments P.Ltd. (In this appeal, No.4160/Mum/2016 dated 27/06/2018 dtd. 27/06/2018) and the case of ACIT vs. M/s. Hule Construction Pvt. Ltd.…

Dhara Singh, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Ghaziabad

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 2213/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri T.S. Kapooray: 2012-13 Dhara Singh Ito, Ward 1(2), C/O Rupinder Kumar Vs. Ghaziabad Aggarwal, Uttar Pradesh Advocate, Ab-1A/22, Sector-51, Noida -201301 (Pan: Czjps0155A) (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv., ShFor Respondent: Sh. V.K. Jiwani, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234CSection 48Section 50CSection 54F

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AY: 2012-13 DHARA SINGH ITO, WARD 1(2), C/O RUPINDER KUMAR Vs. GHAZIABAD AGGARWAL, UTTAR PRADESH ADVOCATE, AB-1A/22, SECTOR-51, NOIDA -201301 (PAN: CZJPS0155A) (ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv., Sh. Piyush Kr. Kamal, Adv. & Sh. Lalit Mohan, Adv.) Department by : Sh. V.K. Jiwani, Sr. DR O R D E R PER H.S. SIDHU, JM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), 2, Noida on 23.1.2018 in relation to…

Shri Deepak Suresh Gadge, Nagpur vs. Joint. CIT, Cir.- I, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2010-2011

ITA 104/NAG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Deepak Suresh Gadge, The Joint Commissioner Of Pranav Apartments, Iind Lane, Income Tax- Circle-I, Behind The Hitvada, Dhantoli, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Nagpur Vs. Bhavan, Fifth Floor, Mecl Building, Seminary Hills, Pan : Abzpg6643H Nagpur- 440006

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Dewani (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri Gitesh Kumar (DR)
Section 139Section 143Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (AM) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Deepak Suresh Gadge, The Joint Commissioner of Pranav Apartments, IInd Lane, Income Tax- Circle-I, Behind the Hitvada, Dhantoli, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Nagpur Vs. Bhavan, Fifth Floor, MECL Building, Seminary Hills, PAN : ABZPG6643H Nagpur- 440006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri K.P. Dewani (Advocate) Revenue by : Shri Gitesh Kumar (DR) Date of Hearing: 10/05/2018 Date of Pronouncement: 30/07/2018 O R D E R PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM This appeal has been preferr…

M/S Prestige International, Panchkula vs. Addl. CIT, Panchkula Range, Panchkula

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 208/CHANDI/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Guptam/S Prestige International, Vs. The Addl.Cit, 267, Industrial Area, Panchkula Range, Phase-1, Panchkula. Panchkula. Pan: Aaifp3677L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Sukhwinder Sharma
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 40

…e recipient had disclosed the professional charges payment in his income for the year under consideration and paid taxes on the same and therefore in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ansal Land Mark Township (P) Ltd., 377 ITR 635, the proviso to section 40(a)(ia) would be applicable with retrospective effect, calling for no disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The assessee therefore carried the matter in appeal before the I.T.A.T., who set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) with the direction to decide the issue in the light of the aforestated contention of the assess…

H.Sarker & Co., Howrah vs. ACIT, Cir-47, Kolkata

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

ITA 98/KOL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh.P.M.Jagtap & Sh. S.S.Viswanethra Ravi[Assessment Year: 2007-08] Vs Acit, H. Sarkar & Co., Balitikuri, P.O. Bakultala, Circle-46, Kolkata Howrah-711113. (Presently With Acit, Pan-Aabfh6378K Circle-47, Kolkata), 3, Govt. Place (West), Kolkata-700001. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Miraj D. Shah, Ar Respondent By Sh. S.Dasgupta, Addl. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 02.07.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 11.07.2018

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 210Section 40

…d recipients disclosed the said amounts in their accounts for taxation or not and placed reliance in the case of M/s Tirupati Construction Pvt.Ltd. of Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta and in the case of CIT-1 vs Ansal Land Mark Township (P.) Ltd. Reported in 377 ITR 635 (Del.) of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. Ld.AR further submits that regarding the applicability of second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi held that the assessee cannot be viewed as a person in default and further, insertion of second proviso was intended to benefit the assessee. Ld.CIT DR did not controve…

M/S Samar & Samar, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-33, Kolkata

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 538/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Jul 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganeshassessment Year :2010-11 M/S Samar & Samar V/S. Acit, Circle-33 103/B, Beliaghata Main 10, Middleton Row, Road, Kolkata-10 Kolkata [Pan No.Aamfs0210 N] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri A. Bhattacherjee, Addl. Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 12-06-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 11-07-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2010-11 Arises Against Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Kolkata’S Order 23.01.2015 In Case No.67/Cit(A)-9/Circle-33/2014-15/Kol Upholding Assessing Officer’S Action Disallowing / Adding Amount(S) Of ₹16,01,158 @ 10% Of Labour Charges Payments, Interest Of ₹13,26,873/- U/S. 36(1)(Iii), Miscellaneous Cash Purchases Of ₹6,80,842/-, Sales Promotion Expense Of ₹2,34,810/- & Payment Made To Certain Individuals Of ₹3,82,000/-; Respectively In Assessment Order Dated 25.03.2013. 2. We Advert To First Issue Of Estimated Disallowance Amounting To ₹16,01,158/- @ 10% Of The Total Labour Charges Paid Amounting To ₹1,60,11,582/- There Does Not Appear To Be Much Dispute About The Fact That Both The Lower Authorities Have Made The Impugned Disallowance On Account Of Assessee Having Paid This Labour Charges In Cash Without Being Supported

Section 36(1)(iii)

…Kol/2015 A.Y.2010-11 M/s Samar & Samar Vs. ACIT, Cir-33, Kol. Page 5 its payees in question have already been assessed to tax qua the corresponding income in their hands. It quotes hon'ble Delhi high court’s decision in CIT vs. Ansal Landmark Township P. Ltd. 377 ITR 635 (Del) upholding this tribunal’s decision in Rajiv Kumar Agarwal vs. JCIT in ITA No.338/Agra/2013 dated 29.05.2014 that section 40(a)(ia) does not apply in case the payer assessee is not an assessee in default as per second proviso thereto inserted in the Act by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 01.04.2013 r.w.s section 201(1) first proviso.…