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

ACIT 25(2), Mumbai vs. Kantilal P. Shah, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10

…) in respect of 1st and 2nd ground of the instant appeal. Thus the 1st and 2nd ground of appeal filed by the revenue are dismissed. In respect of the 3rd ground of appeal, following the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Landmark Townships Pvt. Ltd. 377 ITR 635, we hold that in case the recipients have included ‘’interest income’’ in their return of income, then no disallowance should be made. Accordingly the AO is directed to verify the same and take remedial measures after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to produce the relevant documents be…

Iol Infotech (India) Latd, Thane vs. ACIT Cir 1, Mumbai

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

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

…unted the same and filed income tax return offering the same. In this regard, he placed reliance on the second proviso to sec. 40(a)(ia) and also 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). 4. The Ld D.R submitted that the factual details submitted by the assessee requires verification. 5. Having heard rival submissions, we are of the view that this issue requires to be set aside to the file of the AO, since factual details submitted by the assessee require verification. Accordingly we set aside the order passed by Ld CIT(A) on…

Kalpana Kutty, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 11(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am Ms. Kalpana Kutty Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax Flat No.1, Sunder House, Ground 11-1 Aayakar Bhavan, K.K. Floor, Shivaji Park, Keluskar Vs. Road, New Marine Lines, Road, Dadar(W), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400028 Pan No.Agipk4160H Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By .. Shri Sc Tiwari, Ar & Ms. Rutuja Pawar, Ar Revenue By .. Shri. Mv Rajguru, Dr Date Of Hearing .. 16-09-2016 Date Of Pronouncement .. 16-09-2016 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

…and hence, be quashed. He also stated that this issue is also covered by the proviso inserted by finance Act 2012 w. e. f. 01- 04-2013, which held to be retrospective by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ansal Landmark Townships Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 377 ITR 635 (Del) wherein, Hon’ble 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…

Aditya Birla Minacs Worldwide Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 8(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Shri Amit Shukla (Jm)

…its books of account and its assessment for the year under consideration has also been completed accepting the return of income. By placing reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ansal Land Mark Township (P) Ltd (377 ITR 635), the Ld A.R submitted that the second proviso to 40(a)(ia) is declaratory and curative in nature. He further submitted that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held in the above said case that the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) cannot be made if the payee had filed return of income and offered sum received from the assessee to tax. 6. On the contrary,…

Sonphankhi Shares & Securities P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 4(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, assessee company appeal in ITA No 7068/Mum/2012 for assessment year 2009-10 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

…ance Act 2014. It is a deeming provision and effect is to be given with retrospective effect. The learned counsel for the assessee company relied on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Ansal Land Mark Township Private Limited (2015) 377 ITR 635(Del. HC) whereby ITA 7068/Mum/2012 8 Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held that second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is declaratory and curative and has retrospective effect with effect from 01-04-2005 when the Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act was brought into the Statute. The learned counsel submitted that there was undue hardship which was…

E Commerce Magnum Solutions Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 5(1), Mumbai

…ection was applicable retrospectively. In our opinion, the core issue to be decided is as to whether the proviso is applicable from 1.4.2005 or from 01/04/2013.We find that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has, in the case of Ansal Landmark Township Private Ltd. (377 ITR 635)dealt the issue at length and has held as under: “Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act,1961,is aimed at ensuring that an expenditure should not be allowed as deduction in the hands of an assessee in a situation in which income embedded in such expenditure has remained untaxed due to tax withholding lapses by the assessee. It is not a penalty f…