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

ACIT 19(1), Mumbai vs. Monish Builder, Mumbai

In the result, quantum appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue regarding penalty imposed u/s 271)(1) (c ) stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.8880/Mum/2010 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Monish Builders , बनधम/ Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 7B, Cenced Apartments, Tax Circle 19(1), Vs. 318, Union Park, 3Rd Floor, Piramal Chambers, Palihill Road, Khar, Parel, Mumbi-400052 Mumbai-400012. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.7068/Mum/2013 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Asstt. Commissioner Of बनधम/ M/S Monish Builders , Income Tax Circle 19(1), 7B, Cenced Apartments, Vs. R.No.322, 3Rd Floor, 318, Union Park, Piramal Chambers, Parel, Palihill Road, Khar, Mumbai-400012. Mumbi-400052. स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan : Aanfm6701F अपीऱार्थी ओर से / Assessee By Shri Niraj Sheth प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/ Revenue By Shri Sanjeev Jain सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 02.06.2016 घोषणा की तायीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.06.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Are Two Appeals Under Consideration. These Two Appeals Are Directed Against The Two Separate Orders Of Cit(A) Dated 3.9.2010 In Quantum

…f the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act as brought out by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 1.4.2013, which is held to be retrospective by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ansal Land Mark Township (P) Ltd (Delhi High Court) [2015] 377 ITR 635 (Delhi), wherein it is held no disallowance by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for failure to deduct TDS on payment/expenses, wherein the payee has offered this amount to tax in their return of income. Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act as inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e…

Monish Builders, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 19(1), Mumbai

In the result, quantum appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue regarding penalty imposed u/s 271)(1) (c ) stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.8880/Mum/2010 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Monish Builders , बनधम/ Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 7B, Cenced Apartments, Tax Circle 19(1), Vs. 318, Union Park, 3Rd Floor, Piramal Chambers, Palihill Road, Khar, Parel, Mumbi-400052 Mumbai-400012. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.7068/Mum/2013 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Asstt. Commissioner Of बनधम/ M/S Monish Builders , Income Tax Circle 19(1), 7B, Cenced Apartments, Vs. R.No.322, 3Rd Floor, 318, Union Park, Piramal Chambers, Parel, Palihill Road, Khar, Mumbai-400012. Mumbi-400052. स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan : Aanfm6701F अपीऱार्थी ओर से / Assessee By Shri Niraj Sheth प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/ Revenue By Shri Sanjeev Jain सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 02.06.2016 घोषणा की तायीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.06.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Are Two Appeals Under Consideration. These Two Appeals Are Directed Against The Two Separate Orders Of Cit(A) Dated 3.9.2010 In Quantum

…f the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act as brought out by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 1.4.2013, which is held to be retrospective by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ansal Land Mark Township (P) Ltd (Delhi High Court) [2015] 377 ITR 635 (Delhi), wherein it is held no disallowance by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for failure to deduct TDS on payment/expenses, wherein the payee has offered this amount to tax in their return of income. Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act as inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e…

Red Chillies Entertainment P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 29, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA no.5271/Mum./2013 (Assessment Year : 2010–11) Red Chillies Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. Plot no.612, Junction of Ram Krishna Mission Road & 15th Cross Road ……………. Appellant Santacruz (W), Mumbai 400 054 PAN – AACCR2518P v/s Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle–29, Aayakar Bhawan ……………. Respondent 101, M.K. Road, Mumbai 400 020 ITA no.1577/Mum./2013 (Assessment Year : 2009–10) Red Chillies Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. Plot no.612, Junction of Ram Krishna Mission Road &…

Late Sursh Parekh Through Legal Heir Smt. Bhavna, Suresh Parekh (Wife), Mumbai vs. ITO 13(3)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4849/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Late Suresh M. Parekh Through Legal Ito-13(3)(1), Heir Smt. Bhavna Suresh Parekh (Wife) Mumbai बनाम/ A/002, A-Wing, Shiv Sagar Palace, Plot Vs. No. 68, Tilak Nagar, Chembur, Mumbai-400 089 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aawpp 6687 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Mohd. Rizwan

…l payments, which the assessee was obliged to u/s. 194C of the Act, as listed at para 3 of the assessment order. The non-deduction of tax at source is not in dispute. So, however, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Ansal Landmark Township Pvt Ltd [(2015) 377 ITR 635 (Delhi), has clarified that the amendment by way of insertion of second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) by Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01.4.2013 is clarificatory and, thus, retrospective in nature. The same bears reference to the first proviso to section 201(1), also inserted by Finance Act, 2012, w.e.f. 01.7.2012, which therefore is also to be read re…

DCIT 7(2), Mumbai vs. Sealord Diving & Salvage P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and the assessee’s cross objection is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 701/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Dy. Cit-7(2), Sealord Diving & Salvage Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Room No. 624, M. K. Rd., Plot No. D-222/34, Ttc Industrial Mumbai-400 020 Area, Midc Shiravane, Nerul (E), Vs. Navi Mumbai-400 026 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aakcs 0916 Q (Revenue) (Assessee) : C.O. No. 160/Mum/2015 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 701/Mum/2013) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Sealord Diving & Salvage Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit-7(2), बनाम/ Plot No. D-222/34, Ttc Industrial Room No. 624, M. K. Rd., Area, Midc Shiravane, Nerul (E), Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Navi Mumbai-400 026 (Cross Objector) : (Assessee) Revenue By : Shri Mohammed Rizwan : Shri Shailesh N. Doshi Assessee By सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 17.05.2016 Date Of Hearing : 20.05.2016 Date Of Order आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Revenue & The Cross Objection (Co) By The Assessee Agitating The Part Allowance Of The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its Assessment U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) Dated

…rence was made by him during hearing, would submit that he, in deference to the statement of law as expressed therein, concedes to the same. However, at the same time, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ansal Land Mark Township P. Ltd. [2015] 377 ITR 635 (Del) has held the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) (inserted by Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01.4.2013) as clarificatory and, therefore, retrospective. The tribunal has, following the said decision, copies of some of which stand placed on record (as part of the paper-book), set aside the matter back to the file of the A.O. for compliance of the a…

Hiraco Jewellery (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) 15, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

…I.T.A. No.7297/Mum/2014 Assessment year: 2009-10 Page 1 of 19 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI ‘K’ BENCH, MUMBAI [Coram: Pramod Kumar AM and Pawan Singh JM] I.T.A. No.7297/Mum/2014 Assessment year: 2009-10 Hiraco Jewellery (India) Pvt. Ltd. .....……….………………….Appellant Unit No.501/502, Block-I, Seep++, SEZ, Andheri (E), Mumbai. [PAN: AABCH 5810 P] Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 8(2), Mumbai ….......…..…………….…Respondent Appearances by: Bharath Janarthanan, for the appellant Mallikarjun Utture, for respondent Date of concluding the hearing : January 12th, 2016 Date of pronouncing the order :…

DCIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai vs. Siro Clinpharm P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

…h effect from a particular date specified by the legislature, the judicial forums, including this Tribunal, at times read it as being effect from a date much earlier than that too. One such case, for example, is CIT v. Ansal Landmark Township (P.) Ltd. [2015] 377 ITR 635/234 Taxman 825/61 taxmann.com 45 (Delhi), wherein Hon'ble Delhi High Court confirmed the action of the Tribunal in holding that the provision, though stated to be effective from 1st April 2013 must be held to be effective from 1st April 2005. Whether such an exercise can be done in the present case is, of course, something to be examined and our…

Rusabh Diamonds, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 15(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed as infructuous

…ision of the Tribunal do read these provisions as effective from 1st April 2005, Hon’ble I.T.A. Nos.2840 & 2497/Mum/2014 C.O. No.110/Mum/2014 Assessment year: 2009-10 Page 29 of 30 Delhi High Court, in case of CIT Vs Ansal Landmark Townships Pvt Ltd [(2015) 377 ITR 635 (Del)], has observed as follows: 14. The Court is of the view that the above reasoning of the Agra Bench of ITAT as regards the rationale behind the insertion of the second proviso to Section 40(a) (ia) of the Act and its conclusion that the said proviso is declaratory and curative and has retrospective effect from 1st April 2005, merits accepta…

Siro Clinpharm P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

…h effect from a particular date specified by the legislature, the judicial forums, including this Tribunal, at times read it as being effect from a date much earlier than that too. One such case, for example, is CIT v. Ansal Landmark Township (P.) Ltd. [2015] 377 ITR 635/234 Taxman 825/61 taxmann.com 45 (Delhi), wherein Hon'ble Delhi High Court confirmed the action of the Tribunal in holding that the provision, though stated to be effective from 1st April 2013 must be held to be effective from 1st April 2005. Whether such an exercise can be done in the present case is, of course, something to be examined and our…

Gitanjali Exports Corpon. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 5(1), Mumbai

In the result, while appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

…I.T.A. Nos.7662/Mum/2013 & 142/Mum/2014 Assessment year: 2008-09 Page 1 of 21 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI ‘K’ BENCH, MUMBAI [Coram: Pramod Kumar AM and Pawan Singh JM] I.T.A. No.7662/Mum/2013 Assessment year: 2008-09 Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax .....……….………………….Appellant Central Circle-2, Mumbai. Vs. Gitanjali Exports Corporation Limited ….......…..…………….…Respondent 801-802, Prasad Chambers, Opera House, Mumbai. [PAN: AABCG 2804 N] I.T.A. No.142/Mum/2014 Assessment year: 2008-09 Gitanjali Exports Corporation Limited .....……….………………….Appellant 801-802, Prasad Chambers, Opera House, Mumbai.…

Firestone Diamond P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 8(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

…I.T.A. No.139/Mum/2014 Assessment year: 2008-09 Page 1 of 18 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI ‘K’ BENCH, MUMBAI [Coram: Pramod Kumar AM and Pawan Singh JM] I.T.A. No.139/Mum/2014 Assessment year: 2008-09 Firestone Diamond Pvt. Ltd. .....……….………………….Appellant (Now known as Firestar Diamond International Pvt. Ltd.), C/o. Karnavat & Co., 2A Kitab Mahal, 1st Floor, 192, Dr. D.N. Road Mumbai. [PAN: AABCJ 7268 H] Vs. Income Tax Officer, ….......…..…………….…Respondent Ward – 8(1)(4), Mumbai. Appearances by: Sunil K. Hirawat, for the appellant N.K. Chant, for respondent Date of concluding the hearing : January 1…

ACIT Cen Cir 2, Mumbai vs. Gitanjali Exports Corporation Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, while appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

…I.T.A. Nos.7662/Mum/2013 & 142/Mum/2014 Assessment year: 2008-09 Page 1 of 21 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI ‘K’ BENCH, MUMBAI [Coram: Pramod Kumar AM and Pawan Singh JM] I.T.A. No.7662/Mum/2013 Assessment year: 2008-09 Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax .....……….………………….Appellant Central Circle-2, Mumbai. Vs. Gitanjali Exports Corporation Limited ….......…..…………….…Respondent 801-802, Prasad Chambers, Opera House, Mumbai. [PAN: AABCG 2804 N] I.T.A. No.142/Mum/2014 Assessment year: 2008-09 Gitanjali Exports Corporation Limited .....……….………………….Appellant 801-802, Prasad Chambers, Opera House, Mumbai.…