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 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.

Mr.K E Gnanavelraj / Proprietor, Chennai vs. CIT[A], Chennai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for

ITA 403/CHNY/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.403/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Vs The Assistant Commissioner Of Shri K.E. Gnanavelraja, Old No.16, New No.13 Income Tax, Jagadeeshwari Road, Central Circle-1(2) T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017. Chennai. Pan :Agapg 5673M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. V.Vivek Rajan, C.A ""For Respondent: Mr. D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 153ASection 154Section 201Section 40

…sessing Officer and even before the CIT(A) , the assessee contended retrospective applicability to 2nd proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and relied on the following case laws in support of his claim:- i) CIT Vs. Ansal Land Mark Township P.Ltd. (2015) 377 ITR 635 (Del) ii) PCIT Vs Perfect Circle India Pvt. Ltd. (2019) 13 ITR-OL 78 (Bom) iii) CIT vs. S.M. Anand (2020) 422 ITR 209 (Karn) 6. We noted that the assessee’s only contention now before us is that in view of the 2nd proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, the assesse should not be held as assessee in default for non-deduction of TDS, as the asse…

M/S Ramavtar Krishanavtar, Kota vs. Income Tax Officer, Kota

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

ITA 214/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Saurav Harsh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, JCIT
Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 43Section 43(5)(e)

…he assessee and unjust in a specific situation is to be read as retrospective with effect from which the main section was inserted. 66. To the same effect is 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 decision of the Agra Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Rajeev Kumar Agarwal Vs Addl.CIT (2014) 34 ITR (T) 349 (Agr.) was confirmed wherein it was held that a curative amendment to avoid unintended consequences is to be treated as retrospective in nature even though it may not state so specifically by the statue. It was held that…

Neena Kaul, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 24(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1386/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalneena Kaul, Techniplex-2, Unit No.2, 10Th Floor, Opp. Hotel Grand Sarovar Park Premiere, Goregaon (W), Mumbai. Pan: Anapk4255A ...... Appellant Vs. Acit-24(3), Mumbai. ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil G. Rohra / J.K. Chavan, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Chetan M. Kacha, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 201(1)Section 40

…ively wef 1.4.2013. Various Courts, however, have seen this proviso as beneficial to the assessee and curative in nature. The leading judgment on this point was of the Division Bench of Delhi Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ansal Land Mark Township P Ltd, (2015) 377 ITR 635 (Delhi). The Court held that Section 40(a)(ia) is not a penalty and insertion of second proviso is declaratory and curative in nature and would have retrospective effect form 1.4.2005 i.e., the date from the main proviso 40(a)(ia) itself was inserted. Several High Courts have adopted the same lines. We may also note that the Supreme Court in the…

Addl.CIT, Special Range-1, New Delhi vs. Dinesh Kumar Mathur, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1016/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri R.B. Mathur, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Pranav, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 206ASection 260ASection 40

…cluded in the P&L account has not been taken into account for determination of taxable income. We thus see no merit in the aforesaid plea raised on behalf of the assessee. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ansal Land Mark Township Pvt. Ltd., 377 ITR 635 (Del.) has examined the nuances of 2nd proviso to Section I.T.A. No.1016/Del/2019 19 40(a)(ia) of the Act inserted w.e.f 1st April, 2013. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court explained the rationale behind the insertion of 2nd proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and held that 2nd proviso is declaratory and curative in nature and should be given retr…

M/S Soul Space Projects Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT (TDS), New Delhi

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

ITA 1084/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri C.M. Gargassessment Year: 2012-13 Soul Space Projects Ltd., Vs. Dcit (Tds), No.409, 4Th Floor, Dlf Tower-A, Circle-51 (1), Jasola, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aajcs7736F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Jain & Shri Deepesh Garg, Advocates; & Shri Shaurya Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri Abhishek Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2022 Order Per C.M. Garg, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.12.2016 Of The Cit(A)-41, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Read As Under:- “1. That On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding The Assessee In Default U/S 201(1) Of The Act In Respect Of Tds Liability Of Rs.2,01,30,477/-. 2. That On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding That The Appellant Is Liable To Pay Interest Of Rs.48,31,315/- U/S 201(1A) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 On The Aforesaid Tds Liability Of Rs.2,01,30,477/-. 3. The Appellant Reserves Their Right Without Prejudice To Add, Delete, Alter Modify Or Otherwise Present Any Grounds Of Appeal Either Before Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain &For Respondent: Shri Abhishek Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 191Section 194Section 194ASection 201Section 201(1)

…s orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi including the judgement in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage, 293 ITR 226 (SC) and the judgement of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ansal Land Mark Township, 377 ITR 635 (Del). 4. Replying to the above, the ld. CIT-DR strongly supported the assessment as well as the first appellate order and submitted that in the instant case, the tax u/s 194 of the Act against the interest was deducted on 31.03.2012 and accounted for in the books of account which was duly audited by the statutory auditor which remained payable…

Rajesh Mohanlal Bora, Nashik vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1 (1), Nashik

ITA 1609/PUN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1609/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Rajesh Mohanlal Bora, 401, Rushiraj House, Thatte Nagar, College Road, Nashik – 422 005 Pan : Abcpb5526F . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Ito Ward- 1(1) Nashik . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent द्वारा/ Appearances Assessee By : Shri Pramod Shingte Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani सपिवधई की तधरऩख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 03/10/2022 घोर्णध की तधरऩख / Date Of Pronouncement : 20/12/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; The Present Appeal Of The Assessee Is Assailed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Nashik [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 23/08/2019 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”] Which Dove Out Of Order Of Assessment Dt. 29/12/2016 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By Income Tax Officer 1(1), Nashik [For Short “Ao”] For The Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2014-15. Itat-Pune Page 1 Of 8

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani
Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 201Section 250Section 40Section 40A(3)

…the case in the light of settled legal position forewarned to either party. 4. In aforesaid context, it shall suffice to state that, the position of statute and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in “CIT Vs Ansel Landmark Township” reported at 377 ITR 635 and Hon’ble Apex Court in judgment in “M/s Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt Ltd Vs CIT” reported at 293 ITR 22 and in the context of circular number e Circular No. 275/201/95-IT(B) dt 29/1/1997 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes [for shot “CBDT”], the Hon’ble Lordships have observed that, once it is proved on record that, the payee has…

The ACIT, Circle-1(1), Thrrissur vs. Manjilas Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd., Thrissur

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 34/COCH/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Shri C V Varghese, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH : COCHIN BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S., ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. and Appellant Respondent Assessment Year 32/Coch/2022 Manjilas Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd., The Income Tax Officer, 2011-12 Sasthri Road, Nellikunnu, Ward 1(2), Thrissur – 680 005. Thrissur. PAN : AABCM 6595N 33/Coch/2022 -do- -do- 2012-13 34/Coch/2022 -do- ACIT, 2014-15 Circle - 1(1), Thrissur. Assessee by : Shri C V Varghese, CA Revenue by : Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR Date of hearing : 06.12.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 19.12.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, Accountant…

Manjilas Agro Food Pvt.Ltd., Thrissur vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2), Thrissur

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 33/COCH/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Shri C V Varghese, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH : COCHIN BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S., ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. and Appellant Respondent Assessment Year 32/Coch/2022 Manjilas Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd., The Income Tax Officer, 2011-12 Sasthri Road, Nellikunnu, Ward 1(2), Thrissur – 680 005. Thrissur. PAN : AABCM 6595N 33/Coch/2022 -do- -do- 2012-13 34/Coch/2022 -do- ACIT, 2014-15 Circle - 1(1), Thrissur. Assessee by : Shri C V Varghese, CA Revenue by : Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR Date of hearing : 06.12.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 19.12.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, Accountant…

Manjilas Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd, Thrissur vs. Thacit, Circle-1(1 ), Thrissur

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 32/COCH/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Shri C V Varghese, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH : COCHIN BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S., ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. and Appellant Respondent Assessment Year 32/Coch/2022 Manjilas Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd., The Income Tax Officer, 2011-12 Sasthri Road, Nellikunnu, Ward 1(2), Thrissur – 680 005. Thrissur. PAN : AABCM 6595N 33/Coch/2022 -do- -do- 2012-13 34/Coch/2022 -do- ACIT, 2014-15 Circle - 1(1), Thrissur. Assessee by : Shri C V Varghese, CA Revenue by : Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR Date of hearing : 06.12.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 19.12.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, Accountant…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(1) ), Raipur vs. Shri Santosh Jain, Raipur

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 44/RPR/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteिनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Dcit, Circle 3(1), Shri Santosh Jain Raipur Vs Prop. M/S. Arihant Mining Co., Raipur. Pan: Acmpj5971B Appellant Respondent Applicant By None Respondent By Shrig.N. Singh Date Of Hearing 02/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 12/12/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Isdirected Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-I, Raipur, Dated 22.11.2019For Assessment Year 2009-10 Emanating From The Assessment Order Dated 11.02.2015 Passed Under Section 143(3)R.W.S. 263Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Also Called As ‘The Act’). The Revenue Has Raised The Following Ground Of Appeal: “1. Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Not Erred In Law & In Fact Byadjudicating The Issue Of Retrospective Applicability Of The Secondproviso To Section 40(A)(Ia) Of The I. T. Act, Which Was Not Aground Of Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A)? 2. Whether The Ld.Cit(A) Not Erred In Law & In Facts By Ignoringthe Fact That The Order Of The Ao Was Erroneous & Prejudicial Tothe Interest Of Revenue In The Light Of The Fact The Ao Did Notexamine The Issue Of Non Deduction Of Tax At Source Andapplicability Of Provision U/S 40(A)(Ia) Of The I. T. Act?

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40

…of applicable legal position. I find thatthe plea of the Id. Counsel with regard to retrospectivity of second proviso tosection 40(a)(ia) of the Act was indeed well taken. Hon'ble Delhi High Court inthe case of CIT v. Ansal Land Mark Township (P) Ltd. (2015) 377 ITR 635 hasapproved a decision of the coordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case ofRajeev Kumar Agrawal vs. ACIT, 149 ITD 363 holding so. Their Lordshipshave held that "reasoning of the Agra Bench of ITAT (in the above case) asregards the rationale behind the insertion of the second proviso to section40(a)(ia) of the Act and its conclusion that the sa…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(1) ), Raipur vs. Shri Santosh Jain, Raipur

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is Dismissed

ITA 43/RPR/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. Ita No.43/Rpr/2020 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Dcit, Circle 3(1), Shri Santosh Jain Raipur Vs Prop. M/S. Arihant Mining Co., Raipur. Pan: Acmpj 5971 B Appellant/Revenue Respondent /Assessee Applicant By None Respondent By Shri G.N. Singh Date Of Hearing 02/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 12/12/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-I, Raipur, Dated 22.11.2019For Assessment Year 2008-09Emanating From The Assessment Order Dated 29.09.2015 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Also Called As ‘The Act’). The Revenue Has Raised The Following Ground Of Appeal: “1. Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Not Erred In Law & In Fact By Adjudicating The Issue Of Retrospective Applicability Of The Second Proviso To Section 40(A)(Ia) Of The I. T. Act, Which Was Not Aground Of Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A)? 2. Whether The Ld.Cit(A) Not Erred In Law & In Facts By Ignoring The Fact That The Order Of The Ao Was Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue In The Light Of The Fact The Ao Did Not Examine The Issue Of Non Deduction Of Tax At Source & Applicability Of Provision U/S 40(A)(Ia) Of The I. T. Act?

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 194ASection 263Section 40

…Hon’ble ITAT Raipur Bench had allowed the appeal in favour of the appellant vide ITAT Order No.87/RPR/2014 dated 21.06.2016. The Tribunal relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Ansal Landmark Township (P) Ltd. reported in 377 ITR 635. It was also stated that the interest has been paid to the following NBFCs:- (1) Ashok Leyland Finance Limited (New Entity :Indusind Bank Limited) Rs.22,03,174/-. (2) Tata Capital Limited Rs.83,077/- (3) Tata Motors Finance Limited Rs.8,64,116/- It was stated that Ashok Leyland Finance Limited has been merged with M/s Indusind Bank Limited with e…

DCIT-2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. The Indian Hotels Company Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3022/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Sh. Kanchan Kaushal, Sh. PratikFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40Section 92C

…Act was declaratory and curative in nature and therefore, applied retrospective with effect from 01.4.2005. The aforesaid decision of the Tribunal was approved by the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT-1 vs. Ansal Land Mark Township (P.) Ltd.: [2015] 377 ITR 635 (Delhi). In the case of PCIT vs. Perfect Circle India Pvt. Ltd. [ITA No. 707 of 2016, decided on 07.01.2019], the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court, has also held that the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act being beneficial to the assessee and declaratory/curative in nature, must be given retrospective effect. 51. In view of the above, we do…

The Indian Hotels Company Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir. 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2308/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Sh. Kanchan Kaushal, Sh. PratikFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40Section 92C

…Act was declaratory and curative in nature and therefore, applied retrospective with effect from 01.4.2005. The aforesaid decision of the Tribunal was approved by the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT-1 vs. Ansal Land Mark Township (P.) Ltd.: [2015] 377 ITR 635 (Delhi). In the case of PCIT vs. Perfect Circle India Pvt. Ltd. [ITA No. 707 of 2016, decided on 07.01.2019], the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court, has also held that the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act being beneficial to the assessee and declaratory/curative in nature, must be given retrospective effect. 51. In view of the above, we do…

Agasti Shakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, Ahmednagar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Ahmednagar Circle, Ahmednagar

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

ITA 5/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 40

…ssue to the file of AO for verification, as to whether the payee recognized the receipt from assessee as income in its income or not and placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Ansal Land Mark Township P. Ltd. reported in 377 ITR 635 (Delhi). He prayed that his appearance may be dispensed with on 13-10-2022 i.e. today, due to personal inconvenience. 3. Ground Nos. I and II raised by the assessee is against the addition on account of payment of excess cane price paid by the assessee to the members and non-members, i.e. the price over and above the Fair Remunerative Price (FRP…

The ACIT CC-1, Thane vs. M/S. Renaissance Infrastructure, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 76/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं. 75/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2011-12) आअसं. 76/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2012-13) Ita No.76/Mum/2021(A.Y.2012-13) The Acit Cc-1, Thane, Room No.40, A-Wing, 6Th Floor, Ashar I.T.Park, Road No.16-Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane (West) 400 604 ..... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. Renaissance Infrastructure, 501, Neelyog Square, Opp.Railway Station, Ghatkopar (East), Mumbai 400 077 Pan:Aajfr-8593-C ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent C.O. No.98 & 99/Mum/2022 (Arising Out Of Ita No.76& 75/Mum/2021,A.Y. 2012-13 & 2011-12) M/S. Renaissance Infrastructure, 501, Neelyog Square, Opp.Railway Station, Ghatkopar (East), Mumbai 400 077 Pan:Aajfr-8593-C ..... Cross Objector बनाम Vs. The Acit Cc-1, Thane, Room No.40, A-Wing, 6Th Floor, Ashar I.T.Park, Road No.16-Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane (West) 400 604 ... Appellant In Appeal

For Appellant: Shri Gautam ThackerFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair
Section 139Section 194JSection 201(1)Section 40

…a) it shall be deemed that the assessee has deducted and paid taxes on such sum. In such a case no disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is to be made. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ansal Landmark Township Pvt. Ltd. reported as 377 ITR 635 has held 2nd Proviso to section 40 (a)(ia) of the Act applies retrospectively w.e.f. 01/04/2005. The CIT(A) has granted relief to the assessee following the aforesaid decision rendered by Hon’ble Delhi High Court. In the facts of the case and law expounded in the case of Ansal Landmark Township Pvt. Ltd. (supra), we find no infirmity in the impug…

The ACIT CC-1, Thane vs. M/S Renaissance Infrastructure, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 75/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं. 75/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2011-12) आअसं. 76/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2012-13) Ita No.76/Mum/2021(A.Y.2012-13) The Acit Cc-1, Thane, Room No.40, A-Wing, 6Th Floor, Ashar I.T.Park, Road No.16-Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane (West) 400 604 ..... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. Renaissance Infrastructure, 501, Neelyog Square, Opp.Railway Station, Ghatkopar (East), Mumbai 400 077 Pan:Aajfr-8593-C ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent C.O. No.98 & 99/Mum/2022 (Arising Out Of Ita No.76& 75/Mum/2021,A.Y. 2012-13 & 2011-12) M/S. Renaissance Infrastructure, 501, Neelyog Square, Opp.Railway Station, Ghatkopar (East), Mumbai 400 077 Pan:Aajfr-8593-C ..... Cross Objector बनाम Vs. The Acit Cc-1, Thane, Room No.40, A-Wing, 6Th Floor, Ashar I.T.Park, Road No.16-Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane (West) 400 604 ... Appellant In Appeal

For Appellant: Shri Gautam ThackerFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair
Section 139Section 194JSection 201(1)Section 40

…a) it shall be deemed that the assessee has deducted and paid taxes on such sum. In such a case no disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is to be made. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ansal Landmark Township Pvt. Ltd. reported as 377 ITR 635 has held 2nd Proviso to section 40 (a)(ia) of the Act applies retrospectively w.e.f. 01/04/2005. The CIT(A) has granted relief to the assessee following the aforesaid decision rendered by Hon’ble Delhi High Court. In the facts of the case and law expounded in the case of Ansal Landmark Township Pvt. Ltd. (supra), we find no infirmity in the impug…

Asst. CIT-1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Tilaknagar Industries Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 1355/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Baskaran B.R & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 1355/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2009-10) Acit-1(3)(1), Room No.540, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. Tilaknagar Industries Limited. 3Rd Floor, Indl.Assurance Bldg. Jd Tata Marg, Churchgate, Mumbai 400 020 Pan:Aaact-6047-R ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Rajesh Damor ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Dr. K.Shivram, Sr. Advocate With Ms. Neelam Jadhav सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 04/07/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 29/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai [In Short ‘The Cit(A)] Dated 04/01/2021 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case As Emanating From Records Are: The Assessee Is Engaged In Manufacturing & Selling Of Indian Made Foreign Liquor. The 2 Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For A.Y 2009-10 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.29,19,12,503/- On 30/09/2009. The Assessment Order U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) Was Passed On 07/12/2011. Thereafter, The Assessing Officer Issued Notice U/S. 154 Of The Act Dated 18/03/2013 To Rectify The Alleged Mistake In Assessment Order On Two Counts:

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh DamorFor Respondent: Dr. K.Shivram, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Neelam Jadhav
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154Section 154(7)Section 40

…ot get attracted as the 6 parties to whom rent has been paid has offered the same to tax. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee in support of his submissions placed reliance on the decision in the case of CIT vs. Ansal Lankmark Township Pvt. Ltd., 377 ITR 635 (Del). 7. We have heard the submissions made by rival sides and have examined the orders of authorities below. The primary issue in appeal before us is : (i) whether the order passed under section 154 of the Act is barred by limitation; and (ii) whether the alleged rectification made by Assessing Officer in proceedings under section 154 of the…

Asst CIT Cir 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. The Indian Hotels Companies Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2408/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Sh. Kanchan Kaushal, Sh. PratikFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "K" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER The Indian Hotels Company Limited, Mandlik House, 3rd Floor, Mandlik Road, Colaba, Mumbai - 400001 ……………… Appellant [PAN:AAACT3957G] Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(2)(1), Aaykar Bhavan, ……………. Respondent M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(2)(1), Room No. 545, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 ……………… Appellant M/s The Indian Hotels Company Limited, Vs Mandlik House, 3rd Floor, Mandlik Road, Colaba, Mumbai - 40…

The Indian Hotels Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2348/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Sh. Kanchan Kaushal, Sh. PratikFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "K" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER The Indian Hotels Company Limited, Mandlik House, 3rd Floor, Mandlik Road, Colaba, Mumbai - 400001 ……………… Appellant [PAN:AAACT3957G] Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(2)(1), Aaykar Bhavan, ……………. Respondent M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(2)(1), Room No. 545, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 ……………… Appellant M/s The Indian Hotels Company Limited, Vs Mandlik House, 3rd Floor, Mandlik Road, Colaba, Mumbai - 40…

DCIT Circle- 15 (3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S 3I Infitech Consultancy Services Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 350/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharshi () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal () Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs 3I Infotech Consultancy Services Limited, Tower No.5, 3Rd To 6Th Floors, Tax, Circle-15(3)(1), Mumbai Room No.451, 4Th Floor, Aayakar International Infortech Park Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400 703 020 Pan : Aaacz3181E Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 201(1)Section 250Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARSHI (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) & SMT. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Deputy Commissioner of Income vs 3i Infotech Consultancy Services Limited, Tower No.5, 3rd to 6th Floors, Tax, Circle-15(3)(1), Mumbai Room No.451, 4th Floor, Aayakar International Infortech Park Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400 703 020 PAN : AAACZ3181E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Mr. Bhupendra Karkhanis, CA & Akash Department represented by Shri Nihar Ranjan Samal, Sr. AR Date of hearing 29/06/2022 Date of pronouncemen…