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 366,470 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 Mitra Guha Builders (India) Co., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-33(3), Kolkata

In the result ITA NO.1594/Kol/2014 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and C

ITA 1558/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jul 2017AY 2009-2010

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

For Appellant: Shri J.M.Thard, Advocate

Section 133(6)Section 194CSection 201Section 40

…on the decision of the ITAT Kolkata in the case of Vas Electronics Vs. ACIT, ITAT Kolkata in I.T.A No. 662/Kol/2013 dated 24-11-2015 wherein following the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ansal Land Mark Township P. Ltd. (2015) 377 ITR 635 (Del), the AO is directed to verify whether the recipients have ITA No.1558 & 1594/Kol/2014&CO.113/K/2014 M/s. Mitra Guha Builders (India)Co. A.Y.2009-10 3 included the receipts paid by the assessee in their respective returns of income and also paid taxes on the same. 8. It was therefore submitted that the disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act…

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri.Satish Rajapur

Appeal stands allowed in part

ITA/100047/2016HC Karnataka18 Jul 2017

Bench: This Court Assailing The Order Dated 24.09.2015 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘The Tribunal’).

Section 260ASection 40

…: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY, 2017 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE A.S.BOPANNA AND THE HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE H.B. PRABHAKARA SASTRY INCOME TAX APPEAL No.100047/2016 BETWEEN: 1. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KALABURAGI. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, BALLARI. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI.Y.V.RAVIRAJ, ADV.) A N D : SRI. SATISH RAJAPUR, PROP:RAJAPUR MINERALS, III FLOOR, RAJAPUR INN, BELLARI ROAD, J.P NAGAR, HOSAPETE, PAN:AEZPR…

Magick Woods Exports P Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 2105/CHNY/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jun 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

Section 1Section 10BSection 10fSection 143(3)Section 2Section 250(6)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 438

…assessee will not be held to be in default if the recipient has disclosed in their return of income and paid tax accordingly. He further relied in the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case CIT vs. Ansal Landmark Township Pvt. Ltd. reported in 377 ITR 635, wherein it was held that second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is declaratory and curative in nature and therefore has retrospective effect from 01.04.2005. He therefore argued that the matter may be remitted back to the file of Ld.AO for verifying whether the recipients of the professional & consultancy charges have included the profe…

ACIT, Tiruppur vs. Quantum Knits P Ltd., Coimbatore

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

ITA 2164/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jun 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I T.A. No. 2164/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Quantum Knits P. Ltd., Income Tax, Company Circle, Vs. 181, Kollupalayam Village, Arasur Post, 121, 60 Feet Road, Tirupur-2. Coimbatore 641 407. [Pan:Aaacq1959K] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri A.V. Sreekanth, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A.S. Sriraman, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 04.04.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.06.2017 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) Ii, Coimbatore Dated 29.05.2014 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2010-11. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: “1. The Order Of The Learned Cit(Appeals)-Ii, Coimbatore Is Against Facts, Law & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Cit(A)-Ii, Coimbatore Has Erred In Holding That Since The Recipient Has Admitted The Sum Received As Income & Paid Taxes There On Then The 2

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Sreekanth, JCITFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Sriraman, Advocate

Section 143(2)Section 194CSection 40

…irmed by the Delhi Benches of the Tribunal in the case of Ansal Landmark Township Pvt. Ltd. v. Addl. CIT (supra), which was subsequently confirmed by the Hon’ble 11 I.T.A. No.2164/M/14 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 High Court. Thus, respectfully following the decision of the Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal in the case of Star Investments Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Ansal Landmark Township Pvt. Ltd. 377 ITR 635 (Del), the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is d…

ACIT, Circle-2(2), Bhubaneswar vs. M/S. Srb Consultancy Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 504/CTK/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Jun 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2010-2011

For Appellant: Shri D.K.Mohanty, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kunal Singh, CIT DR

…proviso to section 201(1) r.w.s. 40(a)(ia) were applicable from assessment year 2013-14. 27. Ld D.R. relied on the orders of lower authorities whereas ld A.R. submitted that Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ansal Land Mark Township (P) Ltd., 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. 28. After considering the rival submissions and perusing the orders of lower authorities, we find force in the submissions of the assessee that second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) is declaratory and…

Sri. B.V. Nagesh, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

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

ITA 568/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jun 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri S. Jayaramanassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Kamaladhar, Standing Counsel

Section 194CSection 40

…ction 40(a)(ia) no disallowance can be made on this account. In support of his contention he has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT Vs Naresh Kumar (362 ITR 256) as well as in case of CIT Vs Ansal Land Mark Township (P.) Ltd. (377 ITR 635). The ld. AR has submitted that the Hon’ble High Court has held that the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) is in the nature of clarity, declaratory and curative and therefore has retrospective effect from 01.04.2005. Hence the ld. AR has submitted that the disallowance made by the AO u/s. 40(a)(ia) is not sustainable and the same may be deleted…

Sh. Shiv Pujan Singh, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Faridabad

In the result the ground No

ITA 3891/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. NK Bansal, Sr. DR

Section 40Section 40a

…. The ld DR vehemently opposed the arguments of the assessee relying upon the order of the lower authorities. Page 3 of 5 8. We have carefully considered the rival contentions. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT-1 Vs. Ansal Landmark Township Pvt Ltd 377 ITR 635 (del) has held that second proviso to the above section is declaratory and curative in nature and it has retrospective effect from 01.04.2005. In view of this, we set aside this ground of the appeal back to the file of the ld AO with a direction to grant the assessee an opportunity to substantiate its claim of allowability with respect to the abo…

Shah Technical Consultants P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 2(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 2267/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am Shah Technical Consultants P. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ltd. Range 2(3), Aayakar Bhavan 407 Raheja Cnetre, Free Press M.K. Rd Journal Marg, Nariman Point Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 021 Pan No. Aadcs4968D Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By .. Dr.K Shivram & Mr. Rahul Hakani, Ar Revenue By .. Mr.Vishwas Mundhe, Dr .. Date Of Hearing 03-05-2017 Date Of Pronouncement .. 12-05-2017 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

Section 143(3)Section 194Section 40

…hrough the facts and 4. circumstances of the case. We find that let this issue be remitted back to the file of the AO who will decide the issue in term 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). Accordingly, this to inter connected issues are remitted back to the file of the AO and allowed for statistical purposes. The next two interconnected issues in this appeal of assessee is against the 5. order of CIT(A) confirming the addition of income from other sources at Rs.5,65,897/- and also confirming the addition of undisclosed inco…

New Holland Fiat (I) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dci RG 10(1), Mumbai

ITA 7574/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2017AY 2008-09

For Appellant: S/Shri Paras Savla & Harsh Kapadia-ARFor Respondent: S/Shri Mahesh Kumar & Suman Kumar -DR

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

…ehmann Bros and Advisors Private Limited (ITA 7688/Mumbai/2012). He further argued that in view of the second proviso to section 40 the assessee should be provided relief. In that regard he placed reliance on the cases of Ansal Landmark Township Private Ltd. (377 ITR 635), Hindustan Coca -Cola Beverages Private Ltd (293 ITR 226). It was also argued that the AO had not appreciated that out of the payment of Rs. 8.25 lakhs the assessee had claimed deduction of Rs. 32,887/-, that the balance amounts were not at all claimed as deduction. The DR left the issue to the discretion of the bench. 4.3.After considering the…

ITO 32(1)(4), Mumbai vs. D.J. Enterprises, Mumbai

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 973/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Kothari, ARFor Respondent: Shri J. Sravanan, DR

Section 143(3)Section 201Section 40

…r of the AO. 6. The learned counsel of the assessee files a paper book stating that the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) applies retrospectively. Reliance was placed by him on the decision in the case of (i) CIT vs. Ansal Land Mark Township P. Ltd. (2015) 377 ITR 635(Del.) (ii) Pr. CIT vs. Tirupati Construction (GA No. 2146 of 2016 (iii) Rajeev Kumar Agarwal vs. Addl. CIT (2014) 165 TTJ (Agra) 228 (iv) R.K.P. Company vs. ITO (ITA No. 106/RPR/2016)(ITAT- Raipur) (v) Mahesh Kr. Narula vs. JCIT (ITA No. 1094/Kol/2016)(ITAT- Kolkata) (f) DCIT vs. Jagjit Singh Sayal (ITA No. 2274/Mum/2014)(ITAT- Mumbai). The lear…

Amaravathy Textiles, Karur vs. DCIT, Trichy

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3381/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3381/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2009-2010. M/S. Amaravathy Textiles, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 9-D/5, Ramakrishnapuram, Income Tax, Karur 639 001. Circle 2(1) Tiruchirappalli. [Pan Aaffa 9673E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri. B. Sahadevan, IRS, JCIT

Section 201(1)Section 40

…to Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Retrospectivity of amendment to Section 40(a)(ia) and 201(1) of the Act made through Finance Act, 2012 was an issue which was dealt with by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. M/s Ansal Land Mark Township (P.) Ltd. (377 ITR 635). The view taken by the ITA No. 3381Mds//2016 :- 3 -: Hon'ble Delhi High Court was in favour of the assessee. There is no decision of jurisdictional High Court on this issue. This being the situation, we are of the opinion that the CIT(Appeals) was justified in taking a view that if the recipient had accounted the income and paid the tax, assess…

Kumari Priti Suraj Kumar, Mumbai vs. ITO 30(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above

ITA 4634/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannukumari Priti Suraj Kumar Alias Priti J. Kadakia, C-103, Evershine Mellenium Paradise, Thakur Village, Kandivali (E), Mumbai 400 101 Pan: Ahmpk 7142E ...... Appellant Vs. The Income Tax Officer – 30(2)(5), Mumbai 400 020 .... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh S. ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Beena Santosh

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

…01/04/2013 and, therefore, the same is not applicable for the instant assessment year. On this aspect, the Ld. Representative for the assessee has referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ansal Landmark Township(P) Ltd., 377 ITR 635(Del), wherein the said proviso has been understood to be even applicable to assessment years prior to 01.04.2013. It was therefore, contended that the additional evidence be admitted which is based on the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, and considered for adjudication. 4 4. On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative…

Tribe Investments and Services Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, assessee appeal in ITA No

ITA 929/CHNY/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos. 929 & 2196/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Tribe Investments & Services Pvt. The Deputy Commissioner Of Ltd. Vs. Income Tax, (Formerly Vijayshree Spinning Mills Corporate Circle Iii (4), Private Ltd.) Chennai - 600 034. New No.8, (Old No. 36), Arch Bishop Mathias Avenue, Chennai - 600 028. [Pan: Aaacv 2098Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Shri A.V. Sreekanth, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’ सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी चं" पूजार", लेखा सद"य एवं "ी जी. पवन कुमार, "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos. 929 & 2196/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Tribe Investments and Services Pvt. The Deputy Commissioner of Ltd. Vs. Income Tax, (Formerly Vijayshree Spinning Mills Corporate Circle III (4), Private Ltd.) Chennai - 600 034. New No.8, (Old No. 36), Arch Bishop Mathias Avenue, Chennai - 600 028. [PAN: AAACV 2098Q] (अपीलाथ"/Ap…

Tribe Investments and Services Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, assessee appeal in ITA No

ITA 2196/CHNY/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2017AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Shri A.V. Sreekanth, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

Shri Ram Niwas Goel, Asansol vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Asansol

In the result, addition made towards Rs

ITA 2833/KOL/2013[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Mar 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri U. Dasgupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Md. Ghayas Uddin, JCIT, Sr. DR

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

…(a)(ia) of the Act which was introduced in Finance Act, 2012. He also argued that the said provision was held to be retrospective in operation by the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ansal Landmark Township Pvt. Ltd. reported in 377 ITR 635. 5. With regard to other two payments made by the assessee to M/s. Maa Jagadamba Transport and M/s. Shiv Shakti Roadlines amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/- each by account payee cheques, he stated that even at this stage, the assessee is not able to procure the certificate from the said parties that it had disclosed the same in their income-tax return…

Syed Anwar Hussain, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-43(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 1377/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Section 133(6)Section 201Section 40

…the file of the AO to verify the same in view of the amendment made in section 201 of the I.T Act, 1961. In support of his contention he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ansal land Mark Township (P) Ltd reported in 377 ITR 635 (Del). 6. Heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the assessee having in the cloth business and engaged some selling agents to sell the goods to others and the commission paid without deducting TDS. But the CIT-A confirmed the impugned addition made by the AO only on the ground that the assessee could n…

Sushila Devi Jaiswal, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-48, Kolkata

In the result, appeal filed by the assesse on ground No

ITA 2064/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Feb 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2064/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-09) Sushila Devi Jaiswal, Vs. Dcit, Circle-48, C/O D J Shah & Co., Kolkata Kalyan Bhavan, 2 Elgin Road, Kolkata-700020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Acwpj 6786 G .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Miraj D Shah, Advocate Revenue By : None सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 13/01/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 22/02/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2008-09, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-14, Kolkata In Appeal No.223/Cit(A)-Xxx/Cir-487/2010-11, Dated 03.07.2015, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 27.12.2010. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2008-09 On 29.09.2008 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.16,70,339/- & The Same Was Processed U/S.143(1) Of The Act On 23.03.2009. Later On Assessee’S Case Was Selected For Scrutiny U/S.143(3) Of The Act & The Ao Has Completed The Assessment By Making The Disallowance U/S.40(A)(Ia) Of The Act At Rs.5,65,097/- & Disallowance Of Other Charges Rs.40,060/-. 3. Aggrieved From The Order Of Assessing Officer, The Assessee Filed

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D Shah, AdvocateFor Respondent: None

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 192CSection 194CSection 40

…sessee fairly conceded the grounds but requested only on the issue of applicability of second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, which is held to be retrospective by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ansal Land Mark Township P. Ltd. (2015) 377 ITR 635 (Del), wherein the AO is directed to verify whether the recipients have included the receipts paid by the assessee in their respective returns of income and also paid taxes on the same. When this plea of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee was confronted to Ld. Sr. DR, he fairly conceded the position and urged the bench to set aside the matter to th…

Bhagwanbhai Movalia (HUF), Mumbai vs. ITO 22(3)-1, Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 809/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Shri. Bhagwanbhai Movalia (Huf) Income Tax Officer 22(3) - 1, Tower No.6, 3Rd Floor, Vashi R. Sanghvi & Co. Charted Accountants 104, Rizvi Vs. Rly. Station Complex, Vashi, Chambers No. 2, Hill Road, Navi Mumbai Bandra (W), Mumbai-50 Pan No.Aahhm2846M Appellant .. Respondent .. Shri. Rajesh Sanghavi, Ar Assessee By Revenue By .. Shri. A.K. Dhondial, Dr .. Date Of Hearing 19-01-2017 Date Of Pronouncement .. 17-02-2017

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 40

…(ia) of the Act by way of insertion of second proviso by the finance Act 2012 with effect from 01-04-2013 which is held to be retrospective with effect from 01-04-2005 by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Ansal Landmark Townships Pvt. Ltd. [2015] 377 ITR 635 (Del), once the recipients has included the transportation receipt in their income and pay taxes on such income no disallowance by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) can be made. We find that Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ansal Landmark Townships Pvt. Ltd.(supra) has clearly held the insertion of second proviso of section 40(a…

Idcit 23(3), Mumbai vs. Sharad V Shah, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6614/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2017AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Hakani (AR)For Respondent: Ms. Beena Santosh (DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 253Section 254(1)Section 263Section 40Section 56(1)(vi)Section 69

…y disallowed by AO. On the other hand, ld. AR of the assessee argued that TDS has been paid before the due date of filing of return. Ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Ansal land Mark Township P. Ltd. (2015) 377 ITR 635. 4. We have considered the contention of the parties and gone through the order of authorities below. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs Ansal Land Mark Township (supra) held: “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…

Snowtemp Commercial Private Ltd., Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward-12(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2709/KOL/2013[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2017AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri G. R. Saha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 194JSection 40

…hat infact the details of ITR acknowledgement of these two payees were also filed before the revenue which were ignored by them. He placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Ansal Landmark Township P Ltd reported in 377 ITR 635 (Del) wherein it was held that the amendment in second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act had been held to be retrospective in operation. With regard to other payments made to various individuals, as argued earlier , the services rendered by them do not fall under the category of professional services as stated by the ld CIT(A). They are mer…