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).

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 635)

M/S.Magnum Buildtech, Alappuzha vs. The DCIT, Alappuzha

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 317/COCH/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 May 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 40

…ssing Officer vide proceedings u/s. 154 of the I.T. Act. He drew our attention to the following judgments: 1) CIT vs. Ansal Landmark Townships (P) Ltd. (ITA Nos.160 & 161/2015 dated 26th August, 2015 (Del.) 2) CIT vs. Shraddha & S.S. Kale, Joint Venture (377 ITR 635) (Bom.) 6.1 The Ld. AR submitted that the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Ansal Landmark Townships (P) Ltd. cited supra was the subject matter of litigation before the Supreme Court wherein the Supreme Court in Diary No. 24249/2017 dated 25th August, 2017 granted leave in respect of the judgment of the Delhi High Court cited su…

Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 2(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 382/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 May 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ravish Soodmahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of Mahindra Towers, Income Tax, Range-2(2) Vs. Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan – Aaacm3025E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri H.P. Mahajani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vivek A. Perampurna, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201Section 40Section 40a

…furnishing of return of income by the resident payees referred to in the said proviso. In support of his aforesaid contention the ld. A.R relied on the judgment of the Hon‘ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Ansal Land Mark Township (P) Ltd. (2015) 377 ITR 635 (Del). Apart there from, it was the claim of the ld. A.R that in case the assessee was still to be held as being in default under Sec.40(a)(ia) then the disallowance, if any, shall liable to be restricted to the extent of 30% only. Further, the ld. A.R in order to impress upon us that no disallowance under Sec. 40(a)(ia) was called for in the han…

Zenith Erectors Pvt. Ltd., Haldia vs. ACIT, Circle - 27, Haldia

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 2183/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2013-14

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

…ication of impugned statutory provision in case of the payees concerned having assessed to tax not making it as the assessee in default u/s 201(1) of the Act. Hon'ble Delhi high court’s decision in the case of CIT vs. Ansal Land Mark Township Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 377 ITR 635 (Del) holds that sec. 40(a)(ia) 2nd proviso inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01.04.2013 applies with retrospective effect being curative in nature. We draw support therefrom and restore the instant first issue back to the Assessing Officer for factual verification of the payees in issue as to whether they have duly recorded payments in is…

ITO, Ward - 6(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. India Infranirman Ltd., Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2049/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2014-15

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

…आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “B” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “B” KOLKATA Before Shri S.S.Godara, Judicial Member and Dr. A.L. Saini, Accountant Member Assessment Year :2014-15 Income Tax Officer, V/s. M/s India Infranirman Ward-6(2), P-7, Ltd., Stephen House, Chowringhee Square, Room No.45, 4, BBD 6th Floor, Kolkata-69 Bag (East), Kolkata-001 [PAN No.AABCI 4966 R] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Smt. Madhu Malti Ghosh, Addl CIT-SR-DR अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri S.M.Surana, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 16-04-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 26-04-2019…

Ifc Universal Express Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-8(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 4661/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4661/Mum/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2011-12) बनधम/ M/S. Ifc Universal Ito 8(2)(1) Room No. 477, Aayakar Express Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, 11, Adeshwar Arcade, Mumbai-400020. Andheri-Kurla Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabci8524P (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri Abirama Kartikiyen (Dr) Assessee By: Shri M. Subramanian (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05.03.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/04/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 03.03.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-17, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2011- 12. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Commissioner Of Income Lax (Appeals) Erred In Not Deleting Disallowance Of Expenses On Payments Of Freight Made To Jet Airways (India)Ltd Rs.7.15.765/- & To Kingfisher Airlines Ltd Rs.50,38,699/- U/S 40(A)(Ia) Of The Income Tax Act. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Not Appreciating The Submissions Tiled By The Appellant, That The Introduction To Proviso To Section 201(I)Is Explanatory/Clarificatory & Therefore Should Apply Retrospectively & Therefore Payments Of Freight Without Tds

For Appellant: Shri M. Subramanian (AR)For Respondent: Shri Abirama Kartikiyen (DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 201Section 40

…CIT(A) erred on the facts and in the peculiar circumstances of the case and looking to the nature of the provisions of Sec. 40 (a)(ia) with explanations and the view expressed by the Hon’ble Delhi high Court in case of Ansal Land Mark Townships P. Ltd. (2015) 377 ITR 635 (Del). which is in favor of the assesse, in not following the same and ought to have been followed by the learned CIT(A) as binding and in force till the Supreme Court decides the SLP in this matter. 4. The learned CIT (A) erred on the facts and in law in not appreciating the settled principle of law by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in th…

Hero Motocorp Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 11(1), New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1351/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Amount of Proposed international

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C

…considered as ‘ in default’ and no part of the expenditure can be disallowed under the said section. The said provision was inserted w.e.f. 1.4.2013, i.e., AY 2013-14 and onwards. The Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ansal Land Mark Township (P.) Ltd.: 377 ITR 635, has, however, held the aforesaid amendment to be retrospective in nature and applicable in earlier year(s). The decision in the case of Ansal Land Mark (supra) was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Calcutta Export Company: 404 ITR 654. Accordingly, in the present case since the recipient have discharged 167 their tax li…

Manjeet Kumar HUF Prop. Rawalpindi Jewellers, Karnal vs. ACIT, Haryana

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

ITA 2885/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillai & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Mittal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri P.V. Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 143Section 194ASection 201Section 250(6)Section 40

…0(a)(ia) of I.T. Act is prospective in application or is to be applied retrospectively. On the aforesaid question before us, we have the benefit of guidance from the order of Hon’ble Delhi High Court, in the case of CIT vs. Ansal Land Mark Township (P.) Ltd. 377 ITR 635 (Delhi) in which the Hon’ble High Court held that second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) of I.T. Act is declaratory and curative and it has retrospective effect from 01.04.2005. Revenue’s Special Leave Petition against this order of Hon’ble Delhi High Court has been dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Ansal Landmark Township (P.) Ltd. 24…

Shri Praful D. Thakkar, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2026/AHD/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Hon’Ble&Smt. Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं.Ita No. 2026/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-09 Sushilaben Prafulbhai Vs. Ito Thakkar, Ward-2(2) L/H Of Late Prafulbhai D. Ahmedabad. Thakkar, 40, Lad Society, B/H Akash Tower, Bodakdev, Ahmedabad- 380054

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shri H.L. Daxini,Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 194ASection 194CSection 40

…elied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Tribunal in the case of Janak Bhupatrai Parekh HUF vs. ITO in ITA No. 2891/Ahd/2011 wherein the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ansal Land Mark Township Pvt. Ltd. reported in 377 ITR 635 (Del) has been followed. 9. On the contrary the Ld. DR relied upon the order passed by the authorities below. 10. We have heard the rival contentions made by the parties, we have also perused the relevant materials available on record and also carefully considered the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench in ITA No. 2891/Ahd/2011 wherein taki…

The DCIT ( International Taxation ), Ahmedabad vs. Black Pearl Services Limited, G.S.E.C. Ltd., Ahmedabad

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2815/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2813-2815/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 To 2013-14 The D.C.I.T, Black Pearl Services Limited, (International Taxation), Vs. 2Nd Floor, Gujarat Chamber Of Ahmedabad Commerce Building, ‘’Sangram.’’ Ashram Road, Ahmedabad. Pan: Aaecb1176H

For Appellant: Shri

Section 36Section 40

…mitted that the amendment under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is retrospective. Thus the same is applicable for the year under consideration in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High court in case of the CIT Vs. Ansal Landmark Township Pvt Ltd. reported in 377 ITR 635 wherein held that the amendment was curative in nature and applicable retrospectively w.e.f April 2005. 14.1 The assessee further relied on the order of Allahabad bank Vs. ITO reported in 152 ITD 383 wherein ITAT held that if the payer makes available PAN to the AO, the onus lies on the department first to examine whether such payee has paid tax…

The DCIT ( International Taxation ), Ahmedabad vs. Black Pearl Services Limited, G.S.E.C. Ltd., Ahmedabad

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2814/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2813-2815/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 To 2013-14 The D.C.I.T, Black Pearl Services Limited, (International Taxation), Vs. 2Nd Floor, Gujarat Chamber Of Ahmedabad Commerce Building, ‘’Sangram.’’ Ashram Road, Ahmedabad. Pan: Aaecb1176H

For Appellant: Shri

Section 36Section 40

…mitted that the amendment under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is retrospective. Thus the same is applicable for the year under consideration in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High court in case of the CIT Vs. Ansal Landmark Township Pvt Ltd. reported in 377 ITR 635 wherein held that the amendment was curative in nature and applicable retrospectively w.e.f April 2005. 14.1 The assessee further relied on the order of Allahabad bank Vs. ITO reported in 152 ITD 383 wherein ITAT held that if the payer makes available PAN to the AO, the onus lies on the department first to examine whether such payee has paid tax…

The DCIT ( International Taxation ), Ahmedabad vs. Black Pearl Services Limited, G.S.E.C. Ltd., Ahmedabad

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2813/AHD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2813-2815/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 To 2013-14 The D.C.I.T, Black Pearl Services Limited, (International Taxation), Vs. 2Nd Floor, Gujarat Chamber Of Ahmedabad Commerce Building, ‘’Sangram.’’ Ashram Road, Ahmedabad. Pan: Aaecb1176H

For Appellant: Shri

Section 36Section 40

…mitted that the amendment under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is retrospective. Thus the same is applicable for the year under consideration in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High court in case of the CIT Vs. Ansal Landmark Township Pvt Ltd. reported in 377 ITR 635 wherein held that the amendment was curative in nature and applicable retrospectively w.e.f April 2005. 14.1 The assessee further relied on the order of Allahabad bank Vs. ITO reported in 152 ITD 383 wherein ITAT held that if the payer makes available PAN to the AO, the onus lies on the department first to examine whether such payee has paid tax…

Pravinchandra Jethalal and Compay, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-13(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 6002/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6002 & 6001/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09) बिाम/ Parvinchandra Jethalal & Acit-13(1), Co., Aayakar Bhavan, 506, Rajgor Chambers, Churchgate, Mumbai V. Near Masjid Railway Station, Mumbai 400009 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan:Aadfp5716B (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri. Mehul Shah Revenue By: Shri. D.G. Pansari (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 17.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.03.2019

For Appellant: Shri. Mehul ShahFor Respondent: Shri. D.G. Pansari (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “C” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6002 & 6001/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09) बिाम/ Parvinchandra Jethalal & ACIT-13(1), Co., Aayakar Bhavan, 506, Rajgor Chambers, Churchgate, Mumbai v. Near Masjid Railway Station, Mumbai 400009 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PAN:AADFP5716B (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee by: Shri. Mehul Shah Revenue by: Shri. D.G. Pansari (DR) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date of Hearing : 17.01.2019 घोषण…

Pravinchandra Jethalal and Compay, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-13(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 6001/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6002 & 6001/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09) बिाम/ Parvinchandra Jethalal & Acit-13(1), Co., Aayakar Bhavan, 506, Rajgor Chambers, Churchgate, Mumbai V. Near Masjid Railway Station, Mumbai 400009 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan:Aadfp5716B (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri. Mehul Shah Revenue By: Shri. D.G. Pansari (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 17.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.03.2019

For Appellant: Shri. Mehul ShahFor Respondent: Shri. D.G. Pansari (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “C” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6002 & 6001/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09) बिाम/ Parvinchandra Jethalal & ACIT-13(1), Co., Aayakar Bhavan, 506, Rajgor Chambers, Churchgate, Mumbai v. Near Masjid Railway Station, Mumbai 400009 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PAN:AADFP5716B (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee by: Shri. Mehul Shah Revenue by: Shri. D.G. Pansari (DR) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date of Hearing : 17.01.2019 घोषण…

Pankaj Khimjibhai Katharani, Raigad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-Panvel, Panvel

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 980/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Verma

Section 143(3)

…f the Act. We find that before Ld.CIT(A), assessee submitted that the parties had reflected the interest income in their respective returns. We find that Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ansal Land Mark Township Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2015) 377 ITR 635, has held that insertion of second proviso to Sec.40(a)(ia) of the Act is declaratory and curative in nature and has retrospective effect from 01.04.2005. It has further held that as long as payee or resident has filed its return of income disclosing the payment received by and in which the income earned by it is embedded and has also paid taxes…

Pankaj Khimjibhai Katharani, Raigad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-Panvel, Panvel

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 979/PUN/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Verma

Section 143(3)

…f the Act. We find that before Ld.CIT(A), assessee submitted that the parties had reflected the interest income in their respective returns. We find that Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ansal Land Mark Township Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2015) 377 ITR 635, has held that insertion of second proviso to Sec.40(a)(ia) of the Act is declaratory and curative in nature and has retrospective effect from 01.04.2005. It has further held that as long as payee or resident has filed its return of income disclosing the payment received by and in which the income earned by it is embedded and has also paid taxes…

Chhaganlal Shamlal Kirad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

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

ITA 1003/PUN/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Mar 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Pathak &For Respondent: Shri Abhishek Meshram

Section 143(3)Section 40

…आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण “ए” न्यायऩीठ ऩुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE श्री डी. करुणाकरा राव, ऱेखा सदस्य, एवं श्री ववकास अवस्थी, न्याययक सदस्य के समक्ष । BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / ITA No.1003/PUN/2016 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Chhaganlal Shamlal Kirad, 468, Nana Peth, Pune – 411002 PAN : ABUPK7868B .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/s. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 2, Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Nikhil Pathak & Shri Nimit Gujrathi Revenue by : Shri Abhishek Meshram सुनवाई की तारीख / Da…

Mesers P.D Sekhsaria Trading Company, Bathinda vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Bathinda

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the Stay Petition of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 331/ASR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 331/Asr./2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 M/S P. D. Sekhsaria Trading Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Company Pvt. Ltd., 4242, Tax, Circle-I, Ground Floor, Gurudwara Singh Bathinda, Punjab Sabha Street, Bathinda, Punjab (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcp1720E Sa No. 03/Asr./2019 (In Ita No. 331/Asr./2018: Asstt. Year : 2014-15) M/S P. D. Sekhsaria Trading Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Company Pvt. Ltd., 4242, Tax, Circle-I, Ground Floor, Gurudwara Singh Bathinda, Punjab Sabha Street, Bathinda, Punjab (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcp1720E Assessee By : Shri. Salil Kapoor, Adv. & Shri. Sanat Kapoor, Adv. Revenue By : Shri. M. P. Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :20.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.03.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A), Bathinda Dated 26.03.2018. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Addition/Disallowance Of Rs.4,69,47,808/- Made

For Appellant: Shri. Salil Kapoor, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri. M. P. Singh, CIT DR

Section 2Section 234ASection 43(5)Section 43(5)(e)

…e 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…

Mr.Santhosh Gokul Reddy, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-4(3)(4), Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2015-16 is dismissed

ITA 2735/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Feb 2019AY 2015-16

Section 50C

…om the date on which the law, containing such an undue hardship or incongruity, was introduced. In support of Page 11 of 15 this proposition, I find support from Hon'ble Delhi High Court's judgment in the case of CIT Vs Ansal Landmark Township Pvt Ltd [(2015) 377 ITR 635 (Del)], wherein approving the reasoning adopted an order authored by me during my tenure at Agra bench [i..e Rajeev Kumar Agarwal Vs ACIT (2014) 149 ITD 363 (Agra)] which centred on the principle that when legislature is reasonable and compassionate enough to undo the undue hardship caused by the statute "such an amendment in law, in view of the…

Mrs Shanthamma Margamappa, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-4(3)(4), Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2015-16 is dismissed

ITA 2734/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Feb 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2015-16 Smt. Shanthamma Margamappa, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.203, Agara Village, Ward - 4(3)(4), H S R Layout Post, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 102. Pan : Atmpm 5572 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Lakshmi K, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 10.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.02.2019

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Lakshmi K, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 50C

…s effective from the date on which the law, containing such an undue hardship or incongruity, was introduced. In support of this proposition, I find support from Hon'ble Delhi High Court's judgment in the case of CIT Vs Ansal Landmark Township Pvt Ltd [(2015) 377 ITR 635 (Del)], wherein approving the reasoning adopted an order authored by me during my tenure at Agra bench [i..e Rajeev Kumar Agarwal Vs ACIT (2014) 149 ITD 363 (Agra)] which centred on the principle that when legislature is reasonable and compassionate enough to undo the undue hardship caused by the statute "such an amendment in law, in view of the…

DCIT, Circle, Patiala vs. M/S Hindustan Wire Products Ltd., Patiala

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 460/CHANDI/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Sainiassessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit Vs. M/S Hindustan Wire Products Ltd. Circle, Patiala Factory Area, Patiala

For Appellant: Sh. Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Chandrakanta, Sr. DR

Section 194Section 194ASection 201(1)Section 40

…t the Department the relevant findings have been given in para 4 to 6 which read as under: 4. The assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of ‘CIT Vs. Ansal Land Mark Township Private Limited’ [2015] 377 ITR 635 (Delhi), wherein, Delhi High Court has held that the second proviso inserted by Finance Act 2012 is declaratory and curative in nature and has retrospective effect w.e.f. 1.4.2005. The Ld. CIT(A) considering the submissions of the assessee and the relevant case laws held that since in this case the payees had taken into account the sums received…

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

What is CIT v. Ansal Land Mark Township (P) Ltd. authority for?

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

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

M/S.Magnum Buildtech, Alappuzha vs. The DCIT, Alappuzha

Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 2(2), Mumbai

Zenith Erectors Pvt. Ltd., Haldia vs. ACIT, Circle - 27, Haldia

ITO, Ward - 6(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. India Infranirman Ltd., Kolkata

Ifc Universal Express Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-8(2)(1), Mumbai

Hero Motocorp Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 11(1), New Delhi

Manjeet Kumar HUF Prop. Rawalpindi Jewellers, Karnal vs. ACIT, Haryana

Shri Praful D. Thakkar, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Ahmedabad

The DCIT ( International Taxation ), Ahmedabad vs. Black Pearl Services Limited, G.S.E.C. Ltd., Ahmedabad

The DCIT ( International Taxation ), Ahmedabad vs. Black Pearl Services Limited, G.S.E.C. Ltd., Ahmedabad

The DCIT ( International Taxation ), Ahmedabad vs. Black Pearl Services Limited, G.S.E.C. Ltd., Ahmedabad

Pravinchandra Jethalal and Compay, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-13(1), Mumbai

Pravinchandra Jethalal and Compay, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-13(1), Mumbai

Pankaj Khimjibhai Katharani, Raigad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-Panvel, Panvel

Pankaj Khimjibhai Katharani, Raigad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-Panvel, Panvel

Chhaganlal Shamlal Kirad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

Mesers P.D Sekhsaria Trading Company, Bathinda vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Bathinda

Mr.Santhosh Gokul Reddy, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-4(3)(4), Bangalore

Mrs Shanthamma Margamappa, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-4(3)(4), Bangalore

DCIT, Circle, Patiala vs. M/S Hindustan Wire Products Ltd., Patiala