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 367,154 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.

Shashikala Ramkumar, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Hyderabad

ITA 824/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Apr 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuappellant Respondent

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey, DR
Section 143(3)Section 201(1)Section 40

…ct, 2012 w.e.f.01-04-2013, that the impugned disallowance would not apply in case of an not held as the assessee in default as per Section 201(1) 1st proviso of the Act. Hon'ble Delhi high court’s decision in CIT Vs. Aansal Landmark Townships (P) Ltd. (2015) [377 ITR 635] (Delhi) holds the above proviso as a curative one having retrospective effect. We thus restore the instant first common issue back to the Assessing Officer to be examined in light of Section 40(a)(ia) said proviso in consequential proceedings as per law. The assessee’s former appeal ITA No.824/Hyd/2018 raising the sole issue is treated as allowe…

Subhash Chandra Bose Hanumara, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-14(1), Hyderabad

ITA 352/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Apr 2021AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri S.Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey, DR
Section 143(3)Section 201(1)Section 40

…ance. There is no dispute on the clinching fact that the assessee had indeed not deducted any TDS on the impugned interest payments on vehicle loan finances. Next is the hon’ble Delhi high court’s decision in CIT Vs. Ansal Landmark Townships (P) Ltd., (2015) [377 ITR 635] (Del) holds that the above proviso carries retrospective effect being curative in nature. Faced with this situation, we deem it appropriate to restore the instant former issue back to the Assessing Officer for his necessary factual verification as per law in light of Section 40(a)(ia), 2nd proviso as to whether assessee payees stand assessed qua…

Shashikala Ramkumar, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Hyderabad

ITA 825/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuappellant Respondent

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey, DR
Section 143(3)Section 201(1)Section 40

…ct, 2012 w.e.f.01-04-2013, that the impugned disallowance would not apply in case of an not held as the assessee in default as per Section 201(1) 1st proviso of the Act. Hon'ble Delhi high court’s decision in CIT Vs. Aansal Landmark Townships (P) Ltd. (2015) [377 ITR 635] (Delhi) holds the above proviso as a curative one having retrospective effect. We thus restore the instant first common issue back to the Assessing Officer to be examined in light of Section 40(a)(ia) said proviso in consequential proceedings as per law. The assessee’s former appeal ITA No.824/Hyd/2018 raising the sole issue is treated as allowe…

M/S Johnson Watch Company Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1719/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. K. N. Charydr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 1719/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 M/S Johnson Watch Company Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Pvt. Ltd., L-21, Connaught Tax, Circle-13(2), Place, New Delhi-110001 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcj9807G Assessee By : Sh. Tilak Talwar, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Sohail Malik, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.02.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.03.2021

For Appellant: Sh. Tilak Talwar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sohail Malik, Sr. DR
Section 40

…llment plan. During the hearing, the assessee submitted that the interest paid by the assessee has been duly accounted by the payee. Hence, owing to the judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ansal Land Mark Township Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 377 ITR 635 (Del.), we hold in principle that no disallowance is called for in such situation. The assessee is directed to submit the certificate in Form 26AS to the Assessing Officer to claim the relief. 5. Regarding the disallowance of interest on late deposit of TDS of Rs.6,515/-, since, the decision of the ld. CIT (A) is based on the judgment in the cas…

Shri Govindbhai G. Bharwad, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-6, Ahmedabad

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2436/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2436/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Govindbhai G. Bharwad, D.C.I.T., 1, Vushwas Residency, Vs. Circle-6, Opp. Malav Kutir, Ahmedabad. B/H Hitarth Party Plot, Sola, Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divetia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr..D.R
Section 50CSection 68

…“ 9.5 We also find support and guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Agra ITAT Rajiv Kumar Agarwal v. ACIT [IT Appeal No. 337 (Agra) of 2013] which was followed by the Hon’ble Delhi High court in case of CIT vs. Ansal Land Mark Township (P) Ltd. reported in 377 ITR 635 where the Hon’ble bench of ITAT Agra held as under: Asstt. Year 2011-12 6 'On a conceptual note, primary justification for such a disallowance is that such a denial of deduction is to compensate for the loss of revenue by corresponding income not being taken into account in computation of taxable income in the hands of the recipients of the paym…

M/S Kundali Jewel (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO - 12(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby partly allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 3511/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3511/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Kundali Jewels (India) बिधम/ The Income Tax Officer 12 Pvt. Ltd. (3)(1) Vs. Room No.147 A, 1St Floor, 1/1705, Challenger Tower, Thakur Village, Kandivali Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. (E), Mumbai. Marg, Mumbai-400020. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 4337/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) The Income Tax Officer 12 बिधम/ M/S. Kundali Jewels (India) (3)(1) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Room No.147 A, 1St Floor, 1/1705, Challenger Tower, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Thakur Village, Kandivali Marg, Mumbai-400020. (E), Mumbai. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Pnek10340B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rashmikant C. Modi Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke Revenue By: Shri Gurbinder Singh (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/02/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/02/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Jm) The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 29.03.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -21, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2012-13. Ita. No.3511/Mum/2019 4337/Mum/2019 A.Y. 2012-13 2. The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 29.03.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -21, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2012- 13. 3. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant C. ModiFor Respondent: Shri Gurbinder Singh (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32Section 40

…may herein observe that though the second proviso had been made available on the statute vide the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f 01.04.2013, however, the same as held by the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Ansal Land Mark Township (P) Ltd. (2015) 377 ITR 635 (Del) shall be applicable retrospectively, i.e even for the years prior to A.Y 2013-14. Further, we find that a similar view had also recently been taken by the Hon‟ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of PCIT Vs. Mobisoft Telesolutions Pvt. Ltd. (2019) 411 ITR 607 (P&H) while disposing off the appeal of the assessee before them for A.Y…

Kimberly Clark Lever P.Ltd., Pune vs. ACIT, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2481/PUN/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2481/Pun/2012 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Kimberly Clark Lever P. Ltd., Gat No.934 To 937, Village Sanaswadi Off Nagar Road, Ta- Shirur, Pune-412208. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaack4647E बनाम / V/S. Acit, Circle-Xi(I), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwalla Revenue By : Shri Sandeep Garg सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 22.02.2021 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Final Assessment Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short) Of The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-11(1), Pune (‘The Assessing Officer’ For Short) Dated 29.10.2012 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “The Appellant Objects To The Order Dated 29 October 2012 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 11(1), Pune [‘Acit’ Or ‘Ao’] Following The Directions Issued By The Dispute Resolution Panel (‘Drp’) In Respect Of The Aforesaid Assessment Year On The Following Among Other Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Garg
Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 194JSection 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…taxes including cost receipts as income, the benefit of second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act should be granted. The ld. Sr. Counsel also placed reliance on the following decisions in support of this contention :- (i) CIT vs. Ansal Landmark Township, 377 ITR 635; (ii) Rajeev Kumar Agarwal vs. Addl. CIT, 149 ITD 363; (iii) CIT vs. S.M. Anand, 422 ITR 209; (iv) PCIT vs. Perfect Circle India Pvt. Ltd., 104 CCH 8; (v) Calcutta Export Company, 93 taxman 51; (vi) G. Shankar vs. ACIT, 41 CCH 309; and, (vii) Vardhvinayak Township Development, 168 ITD 456. 15. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR submitted that the…

M/S. K.N. Diamond, Bilimora vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Navsari Circle, Navsari

ITA 1788/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 Feb 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1788/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S K.N.Diamond, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Soniwad, Bilimora, Of Income Tax, Navsari Navsari – 396 321. Circle, Navsari. [Pan: Aadfk 3167 H] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओर से /Assessee By Shri Parimalsinh Parmar – Advocate राज"वक"ओर से /Revenue By Smt. Anupama Singla – Sr.Dr

Section 194JSection 40Section 40A(2)(b)

…on such sum no disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) is called for in prayer’s hands. Reliance is placed in case laws in Janak Bhupatrai Parekh – HUF vs. ITO in ITA No.2891/Ahd/2011 wherein Hon'ble ITAT has followed CIT vs. Ansal Land Mark Township Pvt. Ltd., 377 ITR 635 (Del) wherein Hon'ble Delhi High Court has affirmed the view taken in “Rajiv Kumar Agarwal vs. ACIT 45 taxmann.com 555 (Agra Tribunal). 9. On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative relied on the orders of Lower Authorities. The Ld. DR for the revenue further submits that the assessee has to established that the services rendered by Focus…

The DCIT, Circle-1, Ahmedabad vs. Aia Engineering Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, ITA Appeals 1766/Ahd/12, 2342/Ahd/15, 2343/Ahd/2015,

ITA 1766/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Jan 2021AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri T.P. Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr. D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH (Virtual Court) Before: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice President And Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant Member Sl. ITA No. Appellant Respondent A.Y. No. 1 1766/Ahd/2012 Dy. CIT, AIA 2008-09 Circle-1, Ah’d Engineering Ltd. Ah’d 2 2342/Ahd/2015 Dy. CIT, AIA 2009-10 Circle-1(1)(1), Engineering Ah’d Ltd. Ah’d 3 2343/Ahd/2015 Dy. CIT, AIA 2010-11 Circle-1(1)(1), Engineering Ah’d Ltd. Ah’d 4 1112/Ahd/2017 Dy. CIT, AIA 2011-12 Circle-1(1)(1), Engineering Ah’d Ltd. Ah’d 5 1835/Ahd/2017 Dy. CIT, AIA 2012-13 Circle-1(1)(1), Engineering Ah’d Ltd. Ah’d 6 2805/Ahd/2017 Dy. CIT,…

Aia Engineering Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, ITA Appeals 1766/Ahd/12, 2342/Ahd/15, 2343/Ahd/2015,

ITA 1757/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Jan 2021AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri T.P. Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr. D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH (Virtual Court) Before: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice President And Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant Member Sl. ITA No. Appellant Respondent A.Y. No. 1 1766/Ahd/2012 Dy. CIT, AIA 2008-09 Circle-1, Ah’d Engineering Ltd. Ah’d 2 2342/Ahd/2015 Dy. CIT, AIA 2009-10 Circle-1(1)(1), Engineering Ah’d Ltd. Ah’d 3 2343/Ahd/2015 Dy. CIT, AIA 2010-11 Circle-1(1)(1), Engineering Ah’d Ltd. Ah’d 4 1112/Ahd/2017 Dy. CIT, AIA 2011-12 Circle-1(1)(1), Engineering Ah’d Ltd. Ah’d 5 1835/Ahd/2017 Dy. CIT, AIA 2012-13 Circle-1(1)(1), Engineering Ah’d Ltd. Ah’d 6 2805/Ahd/2017 Dy. CIT,…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Nitesh Estates Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and the appeal of the assessee for AY 2012-13 are dismissed

ITA 2005/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Dec 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranita Nos.1916 To 1918/Bang/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Nitesh Estates Ltd. 8Th Floor, Nitesh Timesquare, #8, M.G. Road Dcit Vs. Bengaluru Circle-5(1)(1) Pan No : Aabcn9267C Bangalore Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Nitesh Estates Ltd., Bangalore Acit, Range-12 Vs. Bangalore Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Nitesh Estates Ltd., Bangalore Acit, Circle-5(1)(1) Vs. Bangalore Appellant Respondent Assessment Years: 2012-13 Acit, Circle-5(1)(1) Vs. M/S. Nitesh Estates Ltd., Bangalore Bangalore Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Smt. R. Premi, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 09.12.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.12.2020

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, D.R
Section 14A

…pectively 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 (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 ca…

M/S Nitesh Estates Ltd, Bangalore vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Range-5(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and the appeal of the assessee for AY 2012-13 are dismissed

ITA 1918/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Dec 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranita Nos.1916 To 1918/Bang/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Nitesh Estates Ltd. 8Th Floor, Nitesh Timesquare, #8, M.G. Road Dcit Vs. Bengaluru Circle-5(1)(1) Pan No : Aabcn9267C Bangalore Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Nitesh Estates Ltd., Bangalore Acit, Range-12 Vs. Bangalore Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Nitesh Estates Ltd., Bangalore Acit, Circle-5(1)(1) Vs. Bangalore Appellant Respondent Assessment Years: 2012-13 Acit, Circle-5(1)(1) Vs. M/S. Nitesh Estates Ltd., Bangalore Bangalore Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Smt. R. Premi, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 09.12.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.12.2020

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, D.R
Section 14A

…pectively 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 (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 ca…

M/S. Nitesh Estates Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-12, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and the appeal of the assessee for AY 2012-13 are dismissed

ITA 1917/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranita Nos.1916 To 1918/Bang/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Nitesh Estates Ltd. 8Th Floor, Nitesh Timesquare, #8, M.G. Road Dcit Vs. Bengaluru Circle-5(1)(1) Pan No : Aabcn9267C Bangalore Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Nitesh Estates Ltd., Bangalore Acit, Range-12 Vs. Bangalore Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Nitesh Estates Ltd., Bangalore Acit, Circle-5(1)(1) Vs. Bangalore Appellant Respondent Assessment Years: 2012-13 Acit, Circle-5(1)(1) Vs. M/S. Nitesh Estates Ltd., Bangalore Bangalore Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Smt. R. Premi, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 09.12.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.12.2020

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, D.R
Section 14A

…pectively 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 (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 ca…

M/S Nitesh Estates Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and the appeal of the assessee for AY 2012-13 are dismissed

ITA 1916/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Dec 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranita Nos.1916 To 1918/Bang/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Nitesh Estates Ltd. 8Th Floor, Nitesh Timesquare, #8, M.G. Road Dcit Vs. Bengaluru Circle-5(1)(1) Pan No : Aabcn9267C Bangalore Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Nitesh Estates Ltd., Bangalore Acit, Range-12 Vs. Bangalore Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Nitesh Estates Ltd., Bangalore Acit, Circle-5(1)(1) Vs. Bangalore Appellant Respondent Assessment Years: 2012-13 Acit, Circle-5(1)(1) Vs. M/S. Nitesh Estates Ltd., Bangalore Bangalore Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Smt. R. Premi, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 09.12.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.12.2020

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, D.R
Section 14A

…pectively 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 (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 ca…

The DCIT, Circle-1(3), Ahmedabad vs. Edelweiss Broking Ltd., Ahmedabad

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

ITA 446/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Dec 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Respondent: Shri Dileep Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32Section 36Section 36(2)Section 37Section 48Section 73

…efers to case law of Rajeev Kumar Agarwal vs. ACIT, ITA No.337/Agra/2013 decided on 29.05.2013 (authored by one of us Pramod Kumar, Accountant Member) as considered by a recent decision of hon’ble Delhi high court in CIT vs. Ansal Landmark Townships Pvt Ltd, (377 ITR 635), upholding the same after reproducing the operative part in extempore to the effect that when a deductor-assessee is not an assessee in default u/s 201(1), it is deemed that it has deducted and paid the tax on such sums on the date of filing of return of income by the concerned payee as referred in the above stated proviso. The co-ordinate bench…

The DCIT, Circle-1(3), Ahmedabad vs. Edelweiss Financial Advisors Ltd., ( Formerly Known Anagram Stock Broking Ltd., Ahmedabad

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

ITA 445/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Respondent: Shri Dileep Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32Section 36Section 36(2)Section 37Section 48Section 73

…efers to case law of Rajeev Kumar Agarwal vs. ACIT, ITA No.337/Agra/2013 decided on 29.05.2013 (authored by one of us Pramod Kumar, Accountant Member) as considered by a recent decision of hon’ble Delhi high court in CIT vs. Ansal Landmark Townships Pvt Ltd, (377 ITR 635), upholding the same after reproducing the operative part in extempore to the effect that when a deductor-assessee is not an assessee in default u/s 201(1), it is deemed that it has deducted and paid the tax on such sums on the date of filing of return of income by the concerned payee as referred in the above stated proviso. The co-ordinate bench…

M/S. Edelweiss Broking Ltd. ( Amalgamating Company Edelweiss Financial Advisors Ltd.), Ahmedabad vs. The Jt. CIT, Range-3, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 318/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Respondent: Shri Dileep Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32Section 36Section 36(2)Section 37Section 48Section 73

…efers to case law of Rajeev Kumar Agarwal vs. ACIT, ITA No.337/Agra/2013 decided on 29.05.2013 (authored by one of us Pramod Kumar, Accountant Member) as considered by a recent decision of hon’ble Delhi high court in CIT vs. Ansal Landmark Townships Pvt Ltd, (377 ITR 635), upholding the same after reproducing the operative part in extempore to the effect that when a deductor-assessee is not an assessee in default u/s 201(1), it is deemed that it has deducted and paid the tax on such sums on the date of filing of return of income by the concerned payee as referred in the above stated proviso. The co-ordinate bench…

ACIT (Ltu), New Delhi vs. M/S Havells India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 466/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishihavells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Circle-12(1), Civil Lines, New Delhi Cr Building Ip Estate, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Havells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Ltu, Nbcc Plaza, Civil Lines, New Delhi Pusp Vihar, Sector-4, Saket, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit (Ltu), Vs. Havells India Ltd, Nbcc Plaza, Pusp Vihar, Sector- 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, 4, Saket, New Delhi Civil Lines, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0351E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 14ASection 80H

…amendment being declaratory and curative in nature, should be given retrospective effect from 1st April, 2005, being the date from which sub-clause (ia) of section 40(a) was inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004 – CIT vs. Ansal Land Mark Township (P) Ltd: 377 ITR 635 (Del) SSP P. Ltd. vs. ACIT: ITA No. 880/Del/2014 (Del Tri) Convergys India Services Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT: ITA No. 5451 of 2011 (Del) Rajeev Kumar Agarwal vs ACIT:149 ITD 363 (Agra) Shri G.Shankar vs. ACIT: ITA No.1832/Bang/2013 (Bang) It is respectfully submitted, that the aforesaid analogy provided by the Courts in relation to the retrospective op…

M/S Havells India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6073/DEL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishihavells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Circle-12(1), Civil Lines, New Delhi Cr Building Ip Estate, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Havells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Ltu, Nbcc Plaza, Civil Lines, New Delhi Pusp Vihar, Sector-4, Saket, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit (Ltu), Vs. Havells India Ltd, Nbcc Plaza, Pusp Vihar, Sector- 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, 4, Saket, New Delhi Civil Lines, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0351E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 14ASection 80H

…amendment being declaratory and curative in nature, should be given retrospective effect from 1st April, 2005, being the date from which sub-clause (ia) of section 40(a) was inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004 – CIT vs. Ansal Land Mark Township (P) Ltd: 377 ITR 635 (Del) SSP P. Ltd. vs. ACIT: ITA No. 880/Del/2014 (Del Tri) Convergys India Services Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT: ITA No. 5451 of 2011 (Del) Rajeev Kumar Agarwal vs ACIT:149 ITD 363 (Agra) Shri G.Shankar vs. ACIT: ITA No.1832/Bang/2013 (Bang) It is respectfully submitted, that the aforesaid analogy provided by the Courts in relation to the retrospective op…

M/S Havells India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6072/DEL/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishihavells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Circle-12(1), Civil Lines, New Delhi Cr Building Ip Estate, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Havells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Ltu, Nbcc Plaza, Civil Lines, New Delhi Pusp Vihar, Sector-4, Saket, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit (Ltu), Vs. Havells India Ltd, Nbcc Plaza, Pusp Vihar, Sector- 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, 4, Saket, New Delhi Civil Lines, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0351E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 14ASection 80H

…amendment being declaratory and curative in nature, should be given retrospective effect from 1st April, 2005, being the date from which sub-clause (ia) of section 40(a) was inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004 – CIT vs. Ansal Land Mark Township (P) Ltd: 377 ITR 635 (Del) SSP P. Ltd. vs. ACIT: ITA No. 880/Del/2014 (Del Tri) Convergys India Services Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT: ITA No. 5451 of 2011 (Del) Rajeev Kumar Agarwal vs ACIT:149 ITD 363 (Agra) Shri G.Shankar vs. ACIT: ITA No.1832/Bang/2013 (Bang) It is respectfully submitted, that the aforesaid analogy provided by the Courts in relation to the retrospective op…