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 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 367,154 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 194A Section 201(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 234B

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 211 full value of consideration domestic company section 21 section 48 date of transfer section 40(a)(ia)put to use section 50 section 194c section 40(a)section 40

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

M/S Peerless Hospitex Hospital and Reserch Centre Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-11(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1107/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Jul 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1107/Kol/2014 Assessment Years : 2009-10 M/S Peerless Hospitex Hospital & Research Centre Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-11(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aabcp 7225 L ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Adv. (AR)For Respondent: Shri P. K. Srihari, CIT(DR)

Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 197(1)Section 40

…the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act would come to the rescue of the assessee. This proviso has been held to be retrospective in operation by the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ansal Land Mark Township P Ltd reported in 377 ITR 635 (Del). Hence in any case, no disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) 8 9 M/s Peerless Hospitex Hospital & Research Centre Ltd. A.Yr.2009-10 of the Act could be inflicted in the hands of the assessee payer. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the Court on…

Sanjit Ghosh, Howrah vs. ITO, Ward - 47(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 577/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 577/Kol/2018 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Sanjit Ghosh -Vs- Ito, Ward-47(3), Kolkata [Pan: Adupg 5217 A ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pijush Mukherjee, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 194CSection 40a

…er. It is now well settled that the amendment brought in second proviso to section 40a(ia) of the act have been held to be retrospective in operation by the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ansal Land Mark Township Pvt. Ltd. reported in 377 ITR 635 (Del) and also by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High 3 4 Sanjit Ghosh A.Yr. 2012-13 Court in the case of CIT vs. Tirupati Construction in GA No. 2146 of 2016 ITAT No. 287 of 2016 dated 23.08.2016. Accordingly, ground nos. 3 and 4 raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed fo…

M/S. Hira Enterprises, Satara vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 103/PUN/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.102/Pun/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jha

Section 133Section 133ASection 143Section 40Section 69

…ive return of income. As regards retrospective applicability of newly inserted proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, the ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ansal Land Mark Township (P) Ltd reported as 337 ITR 635. 5.2 In respect of ground No. 4, the ld. AR submitted that he is not pressing the same on account of smallness of the amount involved. 6. On the other hand, Shri Mukesh Jha representing the Department vehemently defended the order of Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) in confirming the additions made by the Assessing Officer. The ld. DR submi…

M/S. Hira Roller & Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Satara vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 102/PUN/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.102/Pun/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jha

Section 133Section 133ASection 143Section 40Section 69

Asst CIT 9(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Citygold Investments P.Ld, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4160/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Bleasst. Cit – 9(2)(2) V. M/S. City Gold Investments P. Ltd., R.No. 665A, 6Th Floor, Akruti Trade Centre, Road No. 7, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Marol, Midc, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai – 400 093

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Ms S. Padmaja

Section 139Section 3Section 40

…return of income on which taxes due had been already paid by all the payees except M/s. ABP Realty Advisors P. Ltd. In the circumstances Ld.CIT(A) following the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Ansal Landmark Township P. Ltd., [377 ITR 635] and various other decisions of the Tribunals and also the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages P. Ltd. v. CIT [293 ITR 226] deleted the disallowance of expenditure except the payment made/credited to the account of M/s. ABP Realty Advisors P. Ltd for the reason that payees have already considered the amount pai…

Shri Vijay Kumar Roshan, Silvassa vs. The Income Tax Officer, Silvassa Ward, Vapi

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3153/AHD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.3153/Ahd/2016/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year :2007-08 Shri Vijay Kumar Roshan, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 4-First Floor, Shreeji Ward, Silvasa Apartment Kilavani, Naka Silvasa Pan: Aempr 1339 H अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 144Section 194CSection 254Section 40

…lvasa/I.T.A. No.3153/Ahd/2016/A.Y.:07-08 Page 4 of 8 3154/Ahd/2016 dtd. 18.04.2018] submitted that the ITAT has set- aside the issue to file of the AO to consider the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ansal Land Mark Township (P) Ltd. [2015] 377 ITR 635 (Del) /[2015] 61 taxmann.com 45 (Delhi). Since the facts of present case are identical, hence, the issue may be set-aside to the file of the AO. The learned counsel for the assessee further relying on the decision in the case of CIT v. Kotak Securities Ltd. [2012] 340 ITR 333 (Bombay) submitted that the assessee was not deducting TDS for last so…

M/S. Parbhat Heavy Forge Pvt. Ltd., Punjab vs. Addl. CIT, Karnal

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

ITA 5288/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla & Sh.O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2011-12 Prabhat Heavy Forge Pvt. Vs. Addl.Cit, Ltd., Karnal Range, Karnal V. Gupta & Associates, Cas, D-15, Calibre Market, Rajpur Punjab Pan :Aaccp6521A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Sandeep Sapra, Adv. Respondent By Sh. Atiq Ahmed, Sr.Dr

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)(b)

…rson responsible for deducting tax is required. 6.2.4 The Ld. counsel submitted that proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act has been held to be applicable retrospectively by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ansal Landmark Township P. Ltd., 377 ITR 635 . 6.2.5 In view of the submissions, the Ld. counsel requested that the matter of above disallowance may be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for verification and may be decided in view of the proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6.2.6 The Ld. DR relied on the order of the lower authorities, however, did not object for restoring th…

Shravasti Developers & Agro Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO- 9(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2639/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 40Section 40A(2)(b)

…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…

M/S Agrawal Infrabuild P. Ltd., Bilaspur(Cg) vs. Dy.. C.I.T. Circle-1(1), Bilaspur(Cg)

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

ITA 136/BIL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Agrawal Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner Of V.R. Plaza, Link Road, Income Tax-Circle 1(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) Mahima Complex, Vs. Vyapar Vihar, Pan: Aafcs6636C Bilaspur (C.G.) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri G.S. Agrawal (Ca) Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 09/03/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/06/2018

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Agrawal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar (DR)

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

…der the second proviso to section 40(a) (ia) and first proviso to section 201 of the Act. The Ld. counsel for the assessee relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. Ansel Landmark Township (P) Ltd. 377 ITR 635 (Del) submitted that second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) is declaratory and curative and it 4 Assessment Year: 2011-12 has retrospective effect from 01.04.2005. Since the payees have furnished their return of income and has taken into account the sum for computing income in the return of income and has paid the tax due to the income declared b…

M/S D.C Construction, Bilaspur(Cg) vs. Dy.. C.I.T. Circle-1(1), Bilaspur(Cg)

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

ITA 134/BIL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S D.C. Construction, The Dy. Commissioner Of B-1, Parijat Extension, Income Tax-Circle 1(1), Nehru Nagar, Mahima Complex, Bilaspur (C.G.) Vs. Vyapar Vihar, Pan: Aaffd8842E Bilaspur (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri G.S. Agrawal (Ca) Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 09/03/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/06/2018

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Agrawal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar (DR)

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

…er the second proviso to section 40(a) (ia) and first proviso to section 201 of the Act. The Ld. counsel for the assessee relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. Ansel Landmark Township (PP) Ltd. 377 ITR 635 (Del) submitted that second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) is declaratory and curative and it has retrospective effect from 01.04.2005. Since the payees have furnished their return of income and has taken into account the sum for computing income in the return of income and has paid the tax due to the income declared by them in such return of incom…

Pavitra Cruz Sisters Association, Ambikapur (Cg) vs. CIT, Bilaspur(Cg)

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

ITA 14/BIL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Agrawal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar (DR)

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

The Ratnakar Bank Ltd., Kolhapur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, the appeal of assessee for assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 502/PUN/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Aseem Sharma

Section 194ASection 40

…rest have disclosed the same in their respective return of income. In support of his submissions the ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of 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. 3.1 In respect of ground No. 2 of the appeal the ld. AR submitted that the assessee had advanced loans to Shah Group against Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) in the normal course of business. The said FDRs were attached by the Income Tax Department in 2001. The said loans have become bad. The assessee has created provision for the said loans includ…

The Ratnakar Bank Ltd., Kolhapur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, the appeal of assessee for assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 501/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Aseem Sharma

Section 194ASection 40

ACIT, Cir-11(2), Kol, Kolkata vs. M/S Vrishah Services Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1468/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1468/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Acit, Circle-11(2), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Vrishah Services Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aaccr 3949 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 40

…,53,467/- has been shown as income in the hands of the recipient company i.e. M/s Shalini Properties and Developers Pvt. Ltd, respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ansal Land Mark Township Pvt. Ltd. reported in 377 ITR 635, no disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act should be inflicted in the hands of the assessee payer. Aggrieved, the revenue is in appeal before us. 4. We have heard the rival submissions. It is not in dispute that the payment of guarantee commission/ SBLC charges had been duly reflected as income in the hands of the payee i.e. Shalini Properties an…

Devi Trading Corporation, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 4(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2800/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 May 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Mr.D.Anand,AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.B.Segadevan,JCIT,D.R

Section 40

…taken into account the sum referred to, being the sum paid by the assessee, when computing taxable income. It was a submission that in view of decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs.Ansal Lank Mark Township (P.) Ltd., reported in [2015] 377 ITR 635 (Del.), the issue may be restored to the file of ld. Assessing Officer for verification and re-adjudication. 8. In reply, ld.D.R vehemently supported the orders of lower authorities. 9. I have considered the rival submissions. It is noticed that the assessee has filed Form No.26A in respect of non-deduction of TDS in respect of payment made t…

Thirumagal Lungi Company, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 12(3), Chennai

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

ITA 2942/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 May 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Mr.B.Ramana Kumar,AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.B.Sagadevan,JCIT,D.R

Section 194CSection 40

…he assessee have also disclosed the income in their returns and have paid tax on the same. It was a submission that consequently in view of the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs.Ansal Lank Mark Township (P.) Ltd., reported in [2015] 377 ITR 635 (Del.), the assessee may be :- 3 -: granted an opportunity to produce evidences to show that the recipients have disclosed income in their returns and paid taxes. For this purpose, the assessee has produced Form No.26A certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant in respect of Selva Vinayagar Textile Processor. It was the prayer that the iss…

Kohinoor Tobacoo Company, Vadodara vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Baroda

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

ITA 1730/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1730/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Kohinoor Tobacco Company Ito, Ward-1(2)(1) Nr. Post Office Vs Baroda. G.J. Compound At & Po Bajwa, Vadodara. Pan : Aabfk 8173 H अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri T.P. Hemani, Ar Revenue By : Shri Prasson Kabra, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri T.P. Hemani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prasson Kabra, Sr.DR

Section 194ASection 40

…nd that no TDS was deducted. Appeal to the ld.CIT(A) did not bring any relief to the assessee. 4. On due consideration of the above facts and circumstances, I am of the view that Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ansal Landmark Township P.Ltd., 377 ITR 635 (Del) has held that second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) inserted by Finance Act, 2014 be construed as applicable from retrospective effect. According to this, if recipient has accounted for these receipts in their taxable income, disallowance will not be made in the hands of payer on account of non-deduction of tax. Considering this aspect, I dee…

Sri Kusha Apat, Keonjhar vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), Cuttack

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 447/CTK/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack08 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: The Cit(A), The Assessee Contended That It Has Filed Certificates Of Chartered Accountant In Respect Of 2 Nbfcs Namely;

Section 194ASection 201(1)Section 40

…ound that the first proviso was Asse ssment Year : 20 12- 201 3 inserted u/s.201(1) by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 1.4.2013 and was prospective in operation. 10. We find that Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ansal Land Mark Township (P Ld., 377 ITR 635 (Del) has held that the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) is declaratory and curative in nature and has retrospective effect from 1st April 2005. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the second proviso is applicable for the assessment year 2013-1…

ITO, Chennai vs. Krishnaswamy Ramdevan, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed and Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 927/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 927/Chny/2017 & C.O.No.122/Chny/2017 (In Ita No.927/Chny/2017)

For Appellant: Shri. V. Chandrasekaran, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. AR.V. Sreenivasan, IRS, JCIT

Section 139Section 201Section 201(1)Section 40

…s a certificate to this effect from an accountant in such form as may be prescribed “ The above proviso was inserted by the very Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 01.07.2012. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ansal Land Mark Township (P) Ltd.(377 ITR 635) has held that these provisos, being clarificatory in nature could be applied retrospectively. Thus, if the assessee is able to show that the recipient of interest had furnished their return of income, taking into account such interest for computing their income and paid tax due on such interest, then it cannot be visited with the rigours of Se…

Harsha Impex, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3351/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.3351/Chny/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 M/S. Harsha Impex, The Income Tax Officer, No. 28, Kattur Sadayappan Street, Vs. Non Corporate Ward 4(4), Periamet, Chennai 600 003. Chennai 600 006. [Pan: Aacfh0426K] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. B. Jaisheila, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. Sagadevan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.03.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.05.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 5, Chennai Dated 02.11.2016 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised Two Effective Grounds In Its Appeal, Viz., (I) The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Overseas Export Commission Of ₹.30,68,879/- Paid To Non Residents Under Section 40(A)(I) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] & (Ii), The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Expenses

For Appellant: Ms. B. Jaisheila, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Sagadevan, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 195(1)Section 40Section 9(1)(i)Section 9(1)(vii)

…untant under first proviso to sub-section (1) of section 201 of the Act, the ld. Counsel has submitted that the recipient has offered to income tax and thus, the issue is squarely covered by the decision in the case of CIT v. Ansal Land Mark Township (P) Ltd. 377 ITR 635. 7. On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the orders of authorities below. 8. We have heard rival contentions. Since TDS was not deducted by the assessee on the pollution treatment charges paid to Pallavaram Tanners Industrial Effluent Treatment Co., the Assessing Officer disallowed the same and brought to tax. By filing certificate from accou…