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.

Shri Shri Ajay Kumar Agrawal, Ambikapur (Cg) vs. The the Income Tax Officer, Ambikapur (Cg)

Appeals of the assessee are allowed in terms of our aforesaid terms, with no order as to cost

ITA 260/BIL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D. Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 260 & 261/Rpr/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Shri Ajay Kumar Agrawal, Juna Gaddi Road, Po: Ambikapur (C.G.) Pan : Acqpa 4988 B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Office, Kharsia Road, Po: Ambikapur (C.G) .……""थ" / Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Shri G. S. Agrawal Revenue By : Shri G. N. Singh सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 04/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 14/03/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Jamlappa D. Battull, Am; The Present Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The First Appellate Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax - Appeals, Bilaspur [For Short “Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Vide Order Dt 21/03/2016, Which In Turn Sprung From The Assessment Order [For Short “Ao”] Dt 04/03/2013 & 23/01/2014 Passed For Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2010- 2011 & 2011-2012 By The Ld Assessing Officer [For Short “Ld Ao”] U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”].

For Appellant: Shri G. S. AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri G. N. Singh

Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 250Section 40

…erson has deducted and paid the tax on such sum on the date of furnishing of return of income by the resident payee. 6.8. In the aforesaid 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 ac…

M/S. Seagull Clearing & Forwarding Agencies P. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward - 6 (2), Chennai

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

ITA 418/CHNY/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Dr. M.L. Meena

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri. AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 194Section 40

…o tax and for that the assessee will file relevant details as prescribed under the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act before the AO. The AO by virtue of judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ansal Land Mark Township (P) Ltd., 377 ITR 635 will consider the claim of assessee and accordingly decide the same. In view of the above, we set aside the orders of lower authorities on 4 I.T.A. No.418/Chny/2020 this issue on merit and restore the issue back to the file of the AO in term of the above directions. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statis…

Gpt Marecom (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT-2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 449/KOL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am ]

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40

…icable legal position. I find that the plea of the ld. counsel with regard to retrospectivity of second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act was indeed well taken. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CI`T vs. Ansal Land Mark Township (P) Limited (2015) 377 ITR 635 has approved a decision of the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Rajeev Kumar Agarwal vs. ACIT, 149 ITD 363 holding so. Their Lordships have held that “reasoning of the Agra Bench of ITAT (in the above case) as regards the rationale behind the insertion of the second proviso to section 40(a)ia) of the Act and its conclusion that t…

S. Shivraj Reddy Constructions, Hyderabad, Secunderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-4(1), Hyderabad

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 177/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Dec 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Shivrajreddy Vs. The Acit, Circle 4(1), Constructions, Hyderabad. Secunderabad. Pan : Aanfs4155M. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: M.V. Anil Kumar Revenue By: Shri Subbaraju Penmetsa Date Of Hearing: 14/12/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 16/12/2021 O R D E R Per S. S. Godara, J.M. This Assessee’S Appeal For A.Y 2009-10 Arises From The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Hyderabad’S Order Dated 15.11.2016, In Case No.0081/Cit(A)-1/Hyd/2015-16/2-16-17, Involving Proceedings Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 263 Of Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, “The Act”).

For Appellant: M.V. Anil KumarFor Respondent: Shri Subbaraju Penmetsa

Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

…Officer in light of section 40(a)(ia) 2nd proviso inserted in the Act by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01.04.2013 held curative in nature having retrospective effect as per hon’ble Delhi high court’s judgment in PCIT Vs. Ansal Landmark Township (P) Ltd (2015) 377 ITR 635. We thus find that although section 251(1)(a); as amended w.e.f. 01.06.2001, has taken away the CIT(A)’s jurisdiction “to set aside” the issue back to the Assessing Officer, the fact remains that the clinching aspect as to whether the corresponding payee(s) stands assessed or not qua the same, indeed requires factual verification. We thus reverse…

M/S. Haldiram Snacks Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3789/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sandip Kumar Mishra, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 10(20)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 196Section 201Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘D’ NEW DLEHI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Haldiram Snacks Pvt. Ltd., vs. Addl. CIT, Range-11, B-1/H-3, Mohan Co-operative New Delhi. Indl. Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi. PAN : AAACH0061R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Ajay Wadhwa, Adv. Respondent by: Sh. Sandip Kumar Mishra, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 02.11.2021 Date of order : 08.12.2021 ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, J.M. Aggrieved by the order dated 21.05.2015 passed by the learned Commissioner of…

The ITO, Ward-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Bajaj Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal preferred by the Revenue is, thus, allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1088/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Mohd. Usman, CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 194A(1)Section 194A(3)Section 40

…on 40(a)(ia) would not survive. ITO vs. M/s. Bajaj Herbals Pvt. Ltd. Asst.Year –2012-13 6. On this aspect the Ld. Senior Counsel appearing for the assessee relied upon the judgment passed in the matter of CIT vs. Ansal Land Mark Township (P) Ltd. reported in, 377 ITR 635 (Delhi) passed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. It was further contended by the Ld. Senior Counsel that insertion of second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is declarative and curative in nature and has retrospective from 01.04.2005 and in that event since the recipients have already paid tax on such sum, no disallowance under Section 40(a…

Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 6(3), Pune vs. Chhaganlal Shamlal Kirad, Pune

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

ITA 98/PUN/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Nov 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal & Shri Chandra Mohan Gargआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 98/Pun/2018 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kumar Singh Yadav

Section 194CSection 271(1)(c)Section 40

…019 has set aside the quantum additional to the file of the AO to decide the issue afresh of disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act in view of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court’s decision rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Ansal Landmark Township (P). Ltd. reported in 377 ITR 635. The impugned penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act has been levied on the aforesaid disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia). We are therefore of the view that since the quantum addition itself has been set aside, the question of levy of penalty on account of concealment of income of such addition also be set aside. Accordingly, we set aside the order of penalty o…

ACIT 3 (1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Devkrupa Build Tech Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6736/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh: A.Y : 2013-14 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Devkrupa Build Tech Ltd., Tax – 3(1)(1), Mumbai. (Appellant) Raheja Chamber, Office No. 317, 3Rd Floor, Free Press Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021. Pan : Aaccd5467B (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vivek PerampurnaFor Respondent: Shri Viral Doshi

Section 143(3)Section 40

…f the Tribunal in assessee’s group concern, M/s. Urvi Build Tech Ltd. in ITA No. 3252/Mum/2016 dated 28.12.2016 for Assessment Year 2012-13 and also other decisions, particularly of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ansal Landmark Township Private Ltd. (377 ITR 635), deleted the disallowance vide his observations in paragraph 3.1.3 of his order. Aggrieved, Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Now, before us the learned counsel for the assessee filed copy of Tribunal’s order in assessee’s own case being ITA No. 4323/Mum/2018 dated 12.03.2020 for Assessment Year 2012-13 wherein the Tribunal on exactl…

Poonam Haresh Budhrani, Mumbai vs. CIT(A) 39, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1040/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 50C(1)Section 54E

…provision was introduced". Referring to this decision, and extensively reproducing from the same, including the portion extracted above, Hon'ble Delhi High Court, in the case of CIT v. Ansal Landmark Township (P.) Ltd. [2015] 61 taxmann.com 45/234 Taxman 825/377 ITR 635 (Delhi), has approved this approach and observed that "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…

ACIT 14(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1394/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Acit-14(2)(1), M/S Maharashtra State Power Room No. 432, 4Th Floor Vs. Generation Company Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Plot No. G-9, Prakashgad, 2Nd Mumbai – 400 020 Floor, Anant Kanekar Marg, Station Road, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400 051 Pan No. Aaecm2935R (Revenue) (Assessee) Assessee By : Shri Ketan Ved, A.R Revenue By : Shri Rahul Raman, D.R Date Of Hearing : 28/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/09/2021

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman, D.R

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 145Section 14ASection 201(1)Section 40Section 40(1)(ia)

…ly w.e.f. 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 ITA No.1394/Mum/2015 A.Y. 2010-11 7 ACIT -14(2)(1) Vs. M/s Maharashtra State Power Generation Com. Ltd. from the main proviso 40(a)(ia) itself was in…

The ACIT, 4(1), Indore vs. Shri Sanjay Lunawat, Indore

ITA 396/IND/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 201(1)Section 40Section 68

…ce Act, 2012 with effect from 1st April, 2013 is declaratory and curative in nature and it shall have retrospective effect from 01-04-2005. This view is supported by the following judicial pronouncements: CIT-1 v. Ansal Land Mark Township (P.) Ltd. – [2015] 377 ITR 635 (Delhi) Rajeev Kumar Agarwal v. ACIT, Range-3, Mathura - [2014] 45 taxmann.com 555 (Agra - Trib.) DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad v. Esaote India (NS) Ltd. - [2018] 96 taxmann.com 624 (Ahmedabad - Trib.) DCIT, Circle 1, Udupi v. Ananda Marakala - [2014] 48 taxmann.com 402 (Bangalore - Trib.) ITO v. Dr. Jaideep Kumar Sharma – [2014] 34 ITR(T) 565…

DCIT, Cirlce-2(1), Hyd, Hyderabad vs. Janapriya Properties Pvt.Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 417/HYD/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Sept 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri A. Srinivas, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sunku Srinivas, DR

Section 143(3)Section 201(1)Section 40Section 80

…4.2013 that the impugned disallowance does not come into play in case the assessee / deductor concerned is not the assessee- in-default in view of section 201(1) first proviso of the Act. And that case law CIT Vs. Ansal Land Market Township Limited in (2015) 377 ITR 635 (Del) holds the foregoing proviso to be having retrospective effect being curative in nature. We therefore reverse this CIT(A)’s order on the foregoing legal issue and restore the issue back to the Assessing Officer for his necessary factual verification in light of Sec.40(a)(ia) 2nd proviso in order to cross check as to whether the assessee’…

DCIT, Cirlce-2(1), Hyd, Hyderabad vs. Janapriya Properties Pvt.Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 416/HYD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Sept 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri A. Srinivas, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sunku Srinivas, DR

Section 143(3)Section 201(1)Section 40Section 80

Shri B. Purushothaman, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ncc-10(1), Chennai

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

ITA 200/CHNY/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 200/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri B. Purushothaman, The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 12, Redhills Road, Kolathur, Vs. Income Tax, Chennai 600 099. Non Corporate Circle 10(1), Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Ahipp9984F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.08.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.08.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 12, Chennai Dated 28.11.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The First Effective Ground Raised In The Appeal Of The Assessee Relates To Confirmation Of Disallowance Of Employee’S Contribution Amount To ₹.21,77,123/- Towards Epf.

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Addl. CIT

Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…above certificates were not produced before the authorities below, we direct the assessee to produce the same before the Assessing Officer for verification and allow the deduction in view of the decision in the case of CIT v. Ansal Land Mark Township P. Ltd. 377 ITR 635 (Del). Thus, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on the 31st August, 2021 in Chennai. [जी. मऺजुनाथा,लेखा सद"] [धु"ु" आर.एल रे"ी, "ाियक सद"] (G. MANJUNATHA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated, 31.08.2021 V…

Srinu Babu Gedela, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

Appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 511/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri T.Chaitanya Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, DR

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

…on to rival pleadings against and in support of the impugned Section 40(a)(ia) disallowance. It is made clear that although the legislature had inserted foregoing proviso in the Act w.e.f. 01-04-2013, case law CIT Vs. Ansal Landmark Townships (P) Ltd., (2015) 377 ITR 635 (Del) holds it as having retrospective effect being curative in nature. We therefore deem it appropriate to restore the instant sole issue of Section 40(a)(ia) disallowance back to the Assessing Officer for his necessary factual verification. Learned counsel undertakes that the assessee shall file all the detailed evidence(s) to this effect befor…

Vishnukanta Laxminiwas Modani, Mumbai vs. ACIT 32 (3), Mumbai

ITA 7666/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Anuj KishnadwalaFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay J. Sethi

Section 40

…t the amount has been offered to tax. The ld. AR pointed that though second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) was inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01.04.2013, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v/s Ansal Land Mark Township (P) Ltd. reported as 377 ITR 635(Del.) and the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Perfect Circle India Pvt. Ltd. in Income Tax Appeal No. 707 of 2016 decided on 07.01.2019 has held that the second proviso is declaratory and curative in nature and would operate retrospectively w.e.f. 01.04.2005 i.e. the date from which sub-clause (ia) of section 40(a) was inserted…

Essence Landmarks Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 12 (2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both appeals of the assessee allowed as indicated above

ITA 386/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Essence Retail Ventures Pvt. Ltd., V. Income Tax Officer – 12(2)(2) 119, Crystal Paradise Mall Room No. 146A, 1St Floor 1St Floor, Kfc Lane Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Off. Linking Road, Bandra (W) Mumbai – 400020 Mumbai – 400050 Pan: Aabce5971E (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Essence Landmarks Pvt. Ltd., V. Income Tax Officer – 12(2)(2) 119, Crystal Paradise Mall Room No. 146A, 1St Floor 1St Floor, Kfc Lane Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Off. Linking Road, Bandra (W) Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 050 Pan: Aacck8724A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Smt Janvi PamnaniFor Respondent: Shri Usha Gaikwad

Section 139Section 201(1)Section 40

…see. It was also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Bevarages Pvt. Ltd., v. CIT [293 ITR 226] and the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Ansal Land Mark Township (P) Ltd [377 ITR 635] and the Coordinate Bench decision of this Tribunal in the case of E-Commerce Magnum Solutions Ltd., v. DCIT in ITA.No. 3179/Mum/2016 dated 07.07.2016 in support of the above contentions. 7. Identical issue in these appeals has been decided in favour of the assessee by various Tribunals as well as Hon'ble High Courts. In the case of E-Commerce M…

Essence Retail Ventures Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 12 (2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both appeals of the assessee allowed as indicated above

ITA 385/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Smt Janvi PamnaniFor Respondent: Shri Usha Gaikwad

Section 139Section 201(1)Section 40

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad vs. Neueon Towers Limited (Formerly Known As Sujana Towers Limited ), Medak

ITA 1794/HYD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 May 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohana Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.Dipak, DR

Section 143(3)Section 201(1)Section 251(1)Section 251(1)(a)Section 40

…iving a finding on the merits of the disallowance made u/s40(a)(ia) by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 8,69,11,284/-. 3. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to verify and allow as per the Delhi High Court decision in the case of M/s. Ansal Land Mark Township 377 ITR 635(Delhi) (2015) ignoring the Hon'ble Apex Court decision in case of Palam Gas Service. vs Commissioner of Income Tax 394 ITR 300 (2017). 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law by ignoring the fact that the assessee failed to satisfy the first proviso (inserted by the Finance Act,2012 w.e.f. 01-07-2012) to sec. 201(1)of the Income Tax Act. 5. Any other grou…

Express Drilling Systems Llc, Noida vs. DCIT International Taxation, Dehradun

In the result ground number 2 of the appeal is dismissed

ITA 6630/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun04 May 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishiexpress Drilling Systems Llc, Vs. Dict International Taxation, C/O. Nangia & Co, Circle-1, Dehradun A-109, Sector-136, Noida Pan: Aabce6891R (Appellant (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Arora, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. C. Uppadhay, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 144CSection 201(1)Section 40

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DEHRADUN CIRCUIT BENCH: DEHRADUN BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Express Drilling Systems LLC, Vs. DICT International Taxation, C/o. Nangia & Co, Circle-1, Dehradun A-109, Sector-136, Noida PAN: AABCE6891R (Appellant (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Amit Arora, CA Shri Itesh Dodhi, CA Revenue by : Shri N. C. Uppadhay, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 04/03/2021 Date of pronouncement 08/06/2021 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT (A)-2, Noida dated 31.10.…