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 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.

Backbone Arss Jv, Bhubaneswar vs. ITO, Ward-4(3), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeals of the assessee i

ITA 88/CTK/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack27 Apr 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.81/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2012-2013) Hcil Adhikarya Arss Jv Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(1), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aaefh 3757 R & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.82 & 112/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2013-2014 & 2012-2013) M/S Arss Atlanta Jv Vs. Ito Ward-4(3), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aaqfa 8726 P & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.83 & 113/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2013-14 & 2012-13) M/S Arss Anpr Jv Vs. Ito Ward-4(3), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aabaa 1158 M & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.84 & 116/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2013-14 & 2012-13) M/S Arss Triveni Jv Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(1), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aabaa 1081 H & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.85/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2013-14) M/S Arss-Gvr Jv Vs. Ito Ward-4(3), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aacaa 1049 A & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.86 & 111/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2013-2014 & 2012-2013) M/S Niraj Arss Jv Vs. Ito Ward-4(3), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aaaan 5116 B

…on and partly allowed the appeal. We are of the opinion that the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) and section 201(1) have been dealt and we support our view on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ansal Land Mark Township (P) Ltd., . 377 ITR 635 (Delhi), wherein, the amended provisions have been considered as under: “It is seen that the second proviso to Section 40(a) (ia) was inserted by the Finance Act 2012 with effect from 1st April 2013. The effect of the said proviso is to introduce a legal fiction where an Assessee fails to deduct tax in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XV…

Patel-Arss Jv, Bhubaneswar vs. ITO, Ward-4(3), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeals of the assessee i

ITA 87/CTK/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack27 Apr 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.81/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2012-2013) Hcil Adhikarya Arss Jv Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(1), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aaefh 3757 R & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.82 & 112/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2013-2014 & 2012-2013) M/S Arss Atlanta Jv Vs. Ito Ward-4(3), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aaqfa 8726 P & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.83 & 113/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2013-14 & 2012-13) M/S Arss Anpr Jv Vs. Ito Ward-4(3), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aabaa 1158 M & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.84 & 116/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2013-14 & 2012-13) M/S Arss Triveni Jv Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(1), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aabaa 1081 H & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.85/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2013-14) M/S Arss-Gvr Jv Vs. Ito Ward-4(3), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aacaa 1049 A & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.86 & 111/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2013-2014 & 2012-2013) M/S Niraj Arss Jv Vs. Ito Ward-4(3), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aaaan 5116 B

…on and partly allowed the appeal. We are of the opinion that the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) and section 201(1) have been dealt and we support our view on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ansal Land Mark Township (P) Ltd., . 377 ITR 635 (Delhi), wherein, the amended provisions have been considered as under: “It is seen that the second proviso to Section 40(a) (ia) was inserted by the Finance Act 2012 with effect from 1st April 2013. The effect of the said proviso is to introduce a legal fiction where an Assessee fails to deduct tax in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XV…

Niraj-Arss Jv, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeals of the assessee i

ITA 86/CTK/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack27 Apr 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.81/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2012-2013) Hcil Adhikarya Arss Jv Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(1), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aaefh 3757 R & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.82 & 112/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2013-2014 & 2012-2013) M/S Arss Atlanta Jv Vs. Ito Ward-4(3), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aaqfa 8726 P & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.83 & 113/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2013-14 & 2012-13) M/S Arss Anpr Jv Vs. Ito Ward-4(3), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aabaa 1158 M & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.84 & 116/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2013-14 & 2012-13) M/S Arss Triveni Jv Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(1), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aabaa 1081 H & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.85/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2013-14) M/S Arss-Gvr Jv Vs. Ito Ward-4(3), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aacaa 1049 A & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.86 & 111/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2013-2014 & 2012-2013) M/S Niraj Arss Jv Vs. Ito Ward-4(3), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aaaan 5116 B

…on and partly allowed the appeal. We are of the opinion that the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) and section 201(1) have been dealt and we support our view on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ansal Land Mark Township (P) Ltd., . 377 ITR 635 (Delhi), wherein, the amended provisions have been considered as under: “It is seen that the second proviso to Section 40(a) (ia) was inserted by the Finance Act 2012 with effect from 1st April 2013. The effect of the said proviso is to introduce a legal fiction where an Assessee fails to deduct tax in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XV…

Arss-Gvr Jv, Bhubaneswar vs. ITO, Ward-4(3), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeals of the assessee i

ITA 85/CTK/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack27 Apr 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.81/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2012-2013) Hcil Adhikarya Arss Jv Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(1), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aaefh 3757 R & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.82 & 112/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2013-2014 & 2012-2013) M/S Arss Atlanta Jv Vs. Ito Ward-4(3), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aaqfa 8726 P & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.83 & 113/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2013-14 & 2012-13) M/S Arss Anpr Jv Vs. Ito Ward-4(3), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aabaa 1158 M & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.84 & 116/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2013-14 & 2012-13) M/S Arss Triveni Jv Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(1), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aabaa 1081 H & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.85/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2013-14) M/S Arss-Gvr Jv Vs. Ito Ward-4(3), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aacaa 1049 A & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.86 & 111/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2013-2014 & 2012-2013) M/S Niraj Arss Jv Vs. Ito Ward-4(3), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aaaan 5116 B

…on and partly allowed the appeal. We are of the opinion that the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) and section 201(1) have been dealt and we support our view on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ansal Land Mark Township (P) Ltd., . 377 ITR 635 (Delhi), wherein, the amended provisions have been considered as under: “It is seen that the second proviso to Section 40(a) (ia) was inserted by the Finance Act 2012 with effect from 1st April 2013. The effect of the said proviso is to introduce a legal fiction where an Assessee fails to deduct tax in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XV…

Arss Triveni Jv, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-4(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeals of the assessee i

ITA 84/CTK/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack27 Apr 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.81/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2012-2013) Hcil Adhikarya Arss Jv Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(1), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aaefh 3757 R & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.82 & 112/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2013-2014 & 2012-2013) M/S Arss Atlanta Jv Vs. Ito Ward-4(3), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aaqfa 8726 P & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.83 & 113/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2013-14 & 2012-13) M/S Arss Anpr Jv Vs. Ito Ward-4(3), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aabaa 1158 M & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.84 & 116/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2013-14 & 2012-13) M/S Arss Triveni Jv Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(1), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aabaa 1081 H & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.85/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2013-14) M/S Arss-Gvr Jv Vs. Ito Ward-4(3), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aacaa 1049 A & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.86 & 111/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2013-2014 & 2012-2013) M/S Niraj Arss Jv Vs. Ito Ward-4(3), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aaaan 5116 B

…on and partly allowed the appeal. We are of the opinion that the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) and section 201(1) have been dealt and we support our view on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ansal Land Mark Township (P) Ltd., . 377 ITR 635 (Delhi), wherein, the amended provisions have been considered as under: “It is seen that the second proviso to Section 40(a) (ia) was inserted by the Finance Act 2012 with effect from 1st April 2013. The effect of the said proviso is to introduce a legal fiction where an Assessee fails to deduct tax in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XV…

Vandana Dineshkumar Inani, Latur vs. Income-Tax Officer

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

ITA 124/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal
Section 143(2)Section 194ISection 40

…आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण “बी” न्यायऩीठ ऩुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE श्री डी. करुणाकरा राव, ऱेखा सदस्य, एवं श्री ववकास अवस्थी, न्याययक सदस्य के समक्ष । BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / ITA No.124/PUN/2016 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Vandana Dineshkumar Inani, Inani House, Main Road, Latur – 413512 PAN : AABPI2299G .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/s. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 1, Latur ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri M.K. Kulkarni Revenue by : Dr. Vivek Aggarwal सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 25-04-2018 घो…

Shri Joydeb Chandra, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-33, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee-ITA No

ITA 1642/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Apr 2018AY 2009-2010
For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate,ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl.CIT, ld.Sr.DR
Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 40

…turns of income in terms of 2nd proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. We find force in the submissions of the ld.AR and we find support from the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Ansal Landmark Township (P) Ltd. reported in 377 ITR 635(Del) in remanding the matter to the AO for the said purpose. Relevant findings of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Ansal Land Mark Township(P) Ltd is reproduced herein below:- “7. Having aggrieved by order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee before us prayed to restore the issue on hand to the file of AO and relied on Judgment dt. 26-8-201…

Amiya Sachindra Dey, Silvassa vs. The Income Tax Officer, Silvassa Ward, Vapi

ITA 3154/AHD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Apr 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meena

Section 139(1)(b)Section 144Section 40Section 40a

…Shri Amiya Sachindra Dey in ITA No.3154 of 2016 Page 1 of 5 आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण,सुरत"यायपीठ,सुरत INCOM TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNALSURAT-BENCH-SURAT "ीसी.एम.गग","याियकसद"यतथा"ीओ.पी.मीना, लेखासद"यकेसम" BEFORE SHRI C.M.GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.3154/Ahd/2016: Assessment Year:2007-08 Shri Amiya Sachindra Dey, Vs. Income Tax Officer, C/o. Balaji Industries, S.No.910/3, Silvassa Ward, Silvassa. Dokmardi, Amli, Silvassa. PAN: AGRPD 4653K अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee by Shri Ryan Saldanha, CA Shri J.K.Chandanani, Sr.DR राज"वक"ओरसे /Respondent by सुनवाईक"ता…

ACIT, Circle-8(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Nursing Vanijya Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2321/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Apr 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 2321/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri A. Bhattacharjee, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, FCA
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

…ction of the Ld. CIT(A) in this regard. This proviso has been held to be retrospective in 6 M/s Nursing Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. A.Yr. 2010-11 operation by 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. This decision has been subsequently followed by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Tirupati Construction in GA No. 2146/2016, ITAT No. 287 of 2016 dated 29.08.2016. Respectfully following the said decision wherein it has been held that second proviso to 40a(ia) is retrospective in operation, we do not find any infirmit…

Ran Vijay Singh, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-28, Kolkata

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

ITA 2223/KOL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Apr 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm I.T.A. No. 2223/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Ran Vijay Singh...............................………………………………….......................................Appellant 2, Hide Road, Kolkata – 700 043 [Pan: Amhps 8770 J] Dcit Cir 28....……………………………………………………...............................................Respondent 54/1, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road, 5Th Floor, Kolkata – 700 016 Appearances By: Shri M.D. Shah, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 15, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 04 , 2018 Order Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.03.2013 Passed By The Ld. Cit(Appeals) – Xiv, Kolkata For Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The Learned Ar Submits That The A.O. Made Addition Of Rs. 63,16,063/- For Non Deduction Of Tds By Invoking The Provisions Of Section 40(A)(Ia) Of The Act. The Cit(A) Deleted The Addition To An Extent Of Rs. 43,77,000/- Holding That The Provisions Of Section 40(A)(Ia) Is Not Applicable As The Said Payment Paid On Account Of Rent To M/S. Kolkata Port Trust In View Of The Certificate Issued U/S 197(1) Of The Act By The Income Tax Department & Confirmed The Balance Sheet Of Rs. 19,39,066/-. The Learned Ar Relied On The Decision Of Hon’Ble High Court Of Delhi In The Case Of Ansal Land Mark Township

Section 139Section 197(1)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 40

…ment and confirmed the balance sheet of Rs. 19,39,066/-. The learned AR relied on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Ansal Land Mark Township 2 I.T.A. No. 2223/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Ran Vijay Singh Pvt. Ltd. reported in 377 ITR 635 (Delhi) and argued to restore the matter to the file of the A.O. in respect of confirmation of addition to an extent of Rs. 19,39,066/- made by the CIT(A) to make necessary enquiries with the payee i.e. Tea Trading Corporation Ltd. to whom the assessee paid rent whether it is considered the payments received from the assessee to an extent of Rs.…

DCIT, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad vs. Acp Industries Limited, Hyderabad

ITA 590/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Mar 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai PrasadFor Respondent: Shri M. Naveen, DR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 201(1)Section 40

…e while inserting the second proviso between two classes of payers. The appellant placed Reliance on the following case laws for the proposition that proviso to section 40(a)(ia) is retrospective in application. • CIT vs. Ansal Land Mark Township P Ltd (2015) 377 ITR 635 (Del.HC) • PVRPL-APRCL (JV) vs. ITO (ITA No. 736/Hyd/2015) dated 09.10.2015, ITAT, Hyderabad.” 6. Ld. CIT(A) verified the fact that the Ambica Agarbathis Aroma & Industries Ltd., filed its return and, since the amount paid by the assessee has been offered to tax by the recipient, the Ld. CIT(A) was of the opinion that the same cannot be disallow…

Subir Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-2, Durgapur

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 683/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Mar 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: The Ao That Post Dated Cheques For Short As Pdcs Were Issued Against Such Loan To The Said Finance Company & Therefore, The Assessee Was Not In A Position To Deduct Tax At Source On Interest Payments. This Explanation Of The Assessee Was Not Acceptable To Ao & As Such Added Said Amount 1 Of Rs.6,74,976/- To The Total Income Of Assessee For Violation Of Section 194A Of The Act By Invoking The Provisions U/Sec 40(A)(Ia) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Smt. Swati Baid, CA, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri U.Dasgupta, Addl.CIT, ld.Sr.DR
Section 194ASection 194A(1)Section 40

…ipient ie. M/s. Sundram Finance declared the said receipt of interest income in its account and in support of this, she placed her reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT-1 Vs. Ansal Land Mark Township(P) Ltd reported in 377 ITR 635 (Del). 8. On the other hand, the ld.DR relied on the orders of the authorities below. 9. Heard rival submissions and perused material on record including the paper book details. We find that the certificate dt. 29- 09-2014 at page 22 as filed before the CIT-A, which clearly shows that the said Finance Company considered the impugned amount in i…

V-Tex Wvg & Mfg Mills Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 6703/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Pawan Singhita No. 6703 /Mum/2016 (Assessment Year- 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Sanghvi (AR)For Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 253Section 254(1)Section 40

…ection 40(a)(ia) is brought by Finance Act 2012 and is applicable w.e.f. 01.04.2013. The said proviso is held to be retrospective in nature by various decision of Tribunal and by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs Ansal Landmark Townships (P.) Ltd. [2015] (377 ITR 635). The Ld. AR of the assessee further submits that no disallowances warranted at the hand of assessee and the matter may be restored to the file of Assessing Officer for limited purpose for verification of payment on tax on such interest payment by the financer of the Car/ vehicles. The recipient has given certificate that they have paid the tax…

Palash Corporation, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 5(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 4920/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarm/S Palash Corporation Dcit, Central Circle-5(3) 19Th Floor, Air India Building, 205, Commerce House, 140, Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai-21. N.M. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400023 Pan:Aaafp8597K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Dinkle Hariya (Ar) Revenue By : Shri Ram Tiwari (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 19.03.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.03.2018 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Under Section 253 Of Income Tax Act (‘The Act’) Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle Hariya (AR)For Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 40

…n section 40(a)(ia) is brought by Finance Act 2012 and is applicable w.e.f. 01.04.2013. The said proviso is held to be retrospective in nature by various decision of Tribunal and by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs Ansal Landmark Townships (P.) Ltd. [2015] (377 ITR 635). The Ld. AR of the assessee further submitted that Tata Capital Ltd. has paid the tax on the interest income on payment of interest by assessee. The Ld. AR of the assessee further submits that no disallowances warranted at the hand of assessee and the matter may be restored to the file of Assessing Officer for limited purpose for verification of…

Pankaj Kanodia, Mumbai vs. ITO 18(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 258/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G. Manjunatha, Am Shri Pankaj Kanodia The Income Tax Officer - Samudra Tarang, Keluskar 18(2)(1), Piramal Vs. Road, Dadar (W), Mumbai-400 Chambers, Lalbaug 028 Mumbai-400 012 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Agppk7665Q

For Appellant: Satish Mody, ARFor Respondent: M.Hemalatha, DR
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 210Section 40Section 40a

…ion 201(1) of the Act and corresponding amendment to section 40a(ia) of the Act by inserting proviso by Finance Act 2012, which is retrospective in view of the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Ansal Landmark Townships Pvt. Ltd [2015] 377 ITR 635 (Del). Hon’ble Delhi High Court Held as under:- 3 “11. The first proviso to Section 210 (1) of the Act has been inserted to benefit the Assessee. It also states that where a person fails to deduct tax at source on the sum paid to a resident or on the sum credited to the account of a resident such person shall not be deemed to be an assessee in d…

DCIT 1(2)-2, Mumbai vs. Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (I) Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4411/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G. Manjunatha, Am Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Mahyco Monsanto Tax, Circle 1(2)(2), Biotech (I) Ltd. R.No. 535, 5Th Floor, Aayakar 5Th Floor, Ahura Centre, 96, Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mahakali Caves Road, Mumbai-400 020 Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 093 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aabcm0176B M/S Mahyco Monsanto Biotech Dy. Commissioner Of (I) Ltd. Income Tax, Circle 1(2)(2), 5Th Floor, Ahura Centre, 96, 5Th R.No. 535, Floor, Vs. Mahakali Caves Road, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 093 Road, Mumbai-400 020 Appellant .. Respondent Revenue By : Rajat Mittal, Dr Assessee By : Kirit Kamdar, Ar

For Appellant: Kirit Kamdar, ARFor Respondent: Rajat Mittal, DR
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 40

…ion 201(1) of the Act and corresponding amendment to section 40a(ia) of the Act by inserting proviso by Finance Act 2012, which is retrospective in view of the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Ansal Landmark Townships Pvt. Ltd [2015] 377 ITR 635 (Del).. Hon’ble Delhi High Court Held as under:- “11. The first proviso to Section 210 (1) of the Act has been inserted to benefit the Assessee. It also states that where a person fails to deduct tax at source on the sum paid to a resident or on the sum credited to the account of a resident such person shall not be deemed to be an assessee in de…

Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD) RG 1(2), Mumbai

ITA 4287/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G. Manjunatha, Am Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Mahyco Monsanto Tax, Circle 1(2)(2), Biotech (I) Ltd. R.No. 535, 5Th Floor, Aayakar 5Th Floor, Ahura Centre, 96, Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mahakali Caves Road, Mumbai-400 020 Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 093 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aabcm0176B M/S Mahyco Monsanto Biotech Dy. Commissioner Of (I) Ltd. Income Tax, Circle 1(2)(2), 5Th Floor, Ahura Centre, 96, 5Th R.No. 535, Floor, Vs. Mahakali Caves Road, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 093 Road, Mumbai-400 020 Appellant .. Respondent Revenue By : Rajat Mittal, Dr Assessee By : Kirit Kamdar, Ar

For Appellant: Kirit Kamdar, ARFor Respondent: Rajat Mittal, DR
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 40

…ion 201(1) of the Act and corresponding amendment to section 40a(ia) of the Act by inserting proviso by Finance Act 2012, which is retrospective in view of the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Ansal Landmark Townships Pvt. Ltd [2015] 377 ITR 635 (Del).. Hon’ble Delhi High Court Held as under:- “11. The first proviso to Section 210 (1) of the Act has been inserted to benefit the Assessee. It also states that where a person fails to deduct tax at source on the sum paid to a resident or on the sum credited to the account of a resident such person shall not be deemed to be an assessee in de…

ACIT, Circle-49(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Global Venture Corporation, Kolkata

In the result, appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 103/KOL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Mar 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Soumitra Chowdhury, Advocate
Section 139Section 194CSection 201(1)Section 40

…6-07 3 assessee in default u/s 201(1) of the Act and no disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act should be made. In this regard the assessee placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Ansal land Mark Township Pvt. Ltd. 377 ITR 635 (Del) wherein it was held that the aforesaid amendments to the proviso to section 201(1) and 40(a)(ia) of the Act were retrospective and were applicable right from the time when section 40(a)(ia) of the act were enacted. The details of the payees and the details of their filing income tax returns were filed before CIT(A). 5. The CIT(A) examined t…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Westgate Logistics Pvt Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1252/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I T.A. No. 1252/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Westgate Logistics Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Vs. New No. 15, Old No. 7, Demonte Corporate Circle 3(2), Colony, Off Ttk Road, Alwarpet, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 018. [Pan:Aacct1900B] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Mohd. Mustafa, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Y. Sridhar, C.A. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 31.01.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.02.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 11, Chennai Dated 16.02.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Only Effective Ground Raised In The Appeal Of The Revenue Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Made Under Section 40(A)(Ia) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] For Non Deduction Of Tds For Payment Of Rent/License Fees.

For Appellant: Shri S. Mohd. Mustafa, JCITFor Respondent: Shri Y. Sridhar, C.A
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 40

…cond proviso to section 40(a)(ia) is declaratory and curative in nature and has retrospective effect from 1st April, 2005. 6.3 The ld. DR could not controvert the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Ansal Landmark Township Pvt. Ltd. 377 ITR 635 (Del) and the same was not reverted by the Higher Court. Under the above facts and circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) and thus, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on the 27th February, 2018 at Chennai. (A…

ITO 25(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Mita Samir Shah, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 7382/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2018AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri T. A. KhanFor Respondent: Dr. K. Shivaram
Section 194CSection 37(1)Section 40

…on by M/s. Vanguard Jewels Ltd. and in such situation, the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act had been held to be having a retrospective application by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ansal Land Mark Township (P.) Ltd. [2015] 377 ITR 635 (Del.) The said proviso exonerates the assessee from liability of deduction at source if the recipient of payment has offered the same for taxation in terms of sub section (1) of section 201. 21. We further find that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has also considered the above payment as diversion of income by overriding title. He…