CIT v. Associated Cables P. Ltd.

286 ITR 596High Court2006#4670 most cited

What is CIT v. Associated Cables P. Ltd. authority for?

Retention money withheld by a contractee is not taxable in the year it is retained, but only in the year the obligations under the contract are fulfilled and the amount becomes due to the assessee.

25

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v Associated Cables P. Ltd. · 286 ITR 596 · retention money · right to receive · accrued income · percentage completion method · taxability of retention money · previous year · assessment year

Sections most often in play

Section 10(34)Section 115JBSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 1962Section 240Section 254(1)

Issues it is cited on

retention moneyright to receivepercentage completion methodsection 10(34)liable to taxsection 145section 115jbsection 43section 14asection 115previous yearsection 143(2)

Judgments citing CIT v. Associated Cables P. Ltd.

DIAMOND CONCRETE STRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 6(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, substantial

ITA 2324/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Diamond Concrete Structures Private Ito – 6(2)(1), Mumbai Limited Vs Aayakar Bhavan, 101, Sunder Apartment, Nesbit Road, Maharishi Karve Road, Mazgaon Circle, Mumbai – 400010. Churchgate, [Pan No. Aadcd6138N] Mumbai-400020. Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Physical hearing) Diamond Concrete Structures Private ITO – 6(2)(1), Mumbai Limited Vs Aayakar Bhavan, 101, Sunder Apartment, Nesbit Road, Maharishi Karve Road, Mazgaon Circle, Mumbai – 400010. Churchgate, [PAN No. AADCD6138N] Mumbai-400020. Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Sh. Nishit Gandhi Advocate a/w Ms. Aadnya Bhandari, Advocate Revenue by Sh. Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR Date of hearing 16.07.2025 Date of pronouncement 16.07.2025 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH,…

MODI RUBBER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 17(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, Ground no.2 is partly allowed

ITA 6866/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey- & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia-

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Singh, Sr.DR
Section 10(34)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…that in the subsequent year the amount had been offered for taxation… • The Gujarat High Court decision in the case of Anup Engineering Ltd vs. CIT 247 ITR 457. • Cases of CIT vs. Ignifluid Boilers (l) Ltd 283 ITR 295 (Mad), CIT vs. Associated Cables (P) Ltd 286 ITR 596 (Bom), DIT(IT) vs. Ballast Nedam International 215 Taxman 254 (Guj), and Amarshiv Construction (P) Ltd vs. Dy. CIT 367 ITR 659 (Guj), in the context of treatment of retention money withheld by the contractee. 15.10 On behalf of the Revenue, before the Madras High Court, it was argued that the Tribunal order was well considered and the factual as…

ACIT 1(1), MUMBAI vs. BLUE STAR LTD, MUMBAI

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

ITA 5550/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Blue Star Ltd. The Addl. Cit, Range 1(1), Kasturi Building, Mohan T Advani Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai Vs. Chowk, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaacb 4487 D (Assessee) (Revenue) : The Addl. Cit, Range 1(1), Blue Star Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai Kasturi Building, Mohan T Advani Vs. Chowk, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaacb 4487 D (Revenue) : (Assessee)

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth
Section 115Section 145ASection 250Section 40Section 43B

…as the said amount does not accrue as income to the assessee, the same has to be excluded from the computation of the total income. The assessee relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Associated Cables Pvt. Ltd. [2006] 286 ITR 596 (Bom) which had relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Simplex Concrete Piles (India) P. Ltd. [1989] 179 ITR 8 (Cal) wherein it was held that the right to receive the retention money is accrued only after the obligations under the contract are fulfilled and the same would not amount to an income of the a…

BLUE STAR LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 4792/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Blue Star Ltd. The Addl. Cit, Range 1(1), Kasturi Building, Mohan T Advani Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai Vs. Chowk, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaacb 4487 D (Assessee) (Revenue) : The Addl. Cit, Range 1(1), Blue Star Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai Kasturi Building, Mohan T Advani Vs. Chowk, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaacb 4487 D (Revenue) : (Assessee)

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth
Section 115Section 145ASection 250Section 40Section 43B

…as the said amount does not accrue as income to the assessee, the same has to be excluded from the computation of the total income. The assessee relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Associated Cables Pvt. Ltd. [2006] 286 ITR 596 (Bom) which had relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Simplex Concrete Piles (India) P. Ltd. [1989] 179 ITR 8 (Cal) wherein it was held that the right to receive the retention money is accrued only after the obligations under the contract are fulfilled and the same would not amount to an income of the a…

M/S BELLARY IRON-ORES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BELLARY vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , BELLARY

ITA 15/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Shivprasad Reddy, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 102Section 139(1)Section 173Section 194ASection 226(3)

…ry Page 23 of 42 the nature of income or not and would be liable to tax or not, primarily for the AO to decide but having regard to the facts and circumstances f the case and in accordance with law. Further, in the case of CIT Vs. Associated Cables Pvt. Ltd.(286 ITR 596) the Bombay High Court held that-- “The question of law sought to be raised in this appeal is as to whether the retention money could be considered to be the income of the assessee in the year in which the amount was retained. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred to a judgement of the Tribunal in Associated Cables P. Ltd. V. Deputy CIT…

M/S BELLARY IRON-ORES PVT LTD ,BELLARY vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 , HOSPET

ITA 1540/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Shivprasad Reddy, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 102Section 139(1)Section 173Section 194ASection 226(3)

…ry Page 23 of 42 the nature of income or not and would be liable to tax or not, primarily for the AO to decide but having regard to the facts and circumstances f the case and in accordance with law. Further, in the case of CIT Vs. Associated Cables Pvt. Ltd.(286 ITR 596) the Bombay High Court held that-- “The question of law sought to be raised in this appeal is as to whether the retention money could be considered to be the income of the assessee in the year in which the amount was retained. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred to a judgement of the Tribunal in Associated Cables P. Ltd. V. Deputy CIT…

DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI vs. ACC LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 268/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Limited V. Addl. Cit -Ltu (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement 29Th Floor, Center-1 Companies Ltd.) World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Mumbai-400005 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Cit - Ltu-1 V. M/S. Acc Limited 29Th Floor, Center-1 (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Companies Ltd.) World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Mumbai-400005 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…view of the various decisions including the decisions cited below wherein it is held that the taxability of this amount is to be considered in the year in which this amount is due to the assessee from the contractee. (a) CIT v Associated Cables P. Ltd. (2006) 286 ITR 596 (Bom.) (b) DCIT v Spirax Marshall Ltd. (2007) 109 TTJ (Pune) 593 (c) National Heavy Engg. Co. Op. Ltd. v DCIT (2007) 105 ITD 485 (Pune) Inadvertently, in the Original Return of Income this amount was not claimed as deduction. We request Your Honour to kindly grant us appropriate deduction while completing assessment. We shall submit the necessary…

ACC LTD ( FORMELRY KNOWN AS THE ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANIES LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDLL CIT ,(LTU), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6638/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Limited V. Addl. Cit -Ltu (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement 29Th Floor, Center-1 Companies Ltd.) World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Mumbai-400005 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Cit - Ltu-1 V. M/S. Acc Limited 29Th Floor, Center-1 (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Companies Ltd.) World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Mumbai-400005 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…view of the various decisions including the decisions cited below wherein it is held that the taxability of this amount is to be considered in the year in which this amount is due to the assessee from the contractee. (a) CIT v Associated Cables P. Ltd. (2006) 286 ITR 596 (Bom.) (b) DCIT v Spirax Marshall Ltd. (2007) 109 TTJ (Pune) 593 (c) National Heavy Engg. Co. Op. Ltd. v DCIT (2007) 105 ITD 485 (Pune) Inadvertently, in the Original Return of Income this amount was not claimed as deduction. We request Your Honour to kindly grant us appropriate deduction while completing assessment. We shall submit the necessary…

ACC LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT LTU, MUMBAI

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

ITA 6082/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 145A

…view of the various decisions including the decisions cited below wherein it is held that the taxability of this amount is to be considered in the year in which this amount is due to the assessee from the contractee. (a) CIT v Associated Cables P. Ltd. (2006) 286 ITR 596 (Bom.) (b) DCIT v Spirax Marshall Ltd. (2007) 109 TTJ (Pune) 593 (c) National Heavy Engg. Co. Op. Ltd. v DCIT (2007) 105 ITD 485 (Pune) Inadvertently, in the Original Return of Income this amount was not claimed as deduction. We request Your Honour to kindly grant us appropriate deduction while completing assessment. We shall submit the necessary…

ACC LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE ASSOCIATES CEMENT COMPANIES LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT LTU, MUMBAI

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

ITA 4669/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 145A

…view of the various decisions including the decisions cited below wherein it is held that the taxability of this amount is to be considered in the year in which this amount is due to the assessee from the contractee. (a) CIT v Associated Cables P. Ltd. (2006) 286 ITR 596 (Bom.) (b) DCIT v Spirax Marshall Ltd. (2007) 109 TTJ (Pune) 593 (c) National Heavy Engg. Co. Op. Ltd. v DCIT (2007) 105 ITD 485 (Pune) Inadvertently, in the Original Return of Income this amount was not claimed as deduction. We request Your Honour to kindly grant us appropriate deduction while completing assessment. We shall submit the necessary…

ADDL.C.I.T. LTU, MUMBAI vs. ACC LTD., MUMBAI

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

ITA 4556/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 145A

…view of the various decisions including the decisions cited below wherein it is held that the taxability of this amount is to be considered in the year in which this amount is due to the assessee from the contractee. (a) CIT v Associated Cables P. Ltd. (2006) 286 ITR 596 (Bom.) (b) DCIT v Spirax Marshall Ltd. (2007) 109 TTJ (Pune) 593 (c) National Heavy Engg. Co. Op. Ltd. v DCIT (2007) 105 ITD 485 (Pune) Inadvertently, in the Original Return of Income this amount was not claimed as deduction. We request Your Honour to kindly grant us appropriate deduction while completing assessment. We shall submit the necessary…

NAGIN G. SUTHAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO 22 (2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, these appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3185/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: 07.09.2022
Section 143(3)Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM ITA Nos. 3185, 3186, 3187 & 3188/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13) Nagin G. Suthar ITO-22(2)(4) Room No. 2, Pipwala Chawl, Mumbai Prabhat Colony, Santacruz (E), Vs. Mumbai-400 055 PAN/GIR No. AIGPM 3819 F (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Bhupendra Shah : Shri Manoj Kumar Singh Respondent by : 07.09.2022 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J. M.: These appeals have been filed by the assessee, challen…

BSR INFRATECH INDIA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 697/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Madhusudhan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, D.R
Section 199Section 234ASection 270ASection 43Section 43C

…various judicial decisions upholding the view of Retention money forming part of income and being assessed to tax only upon accrual basis which are as follows:- (i) High Court of Bombay in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs Associated Cables (P) Ltd (286 ITR 596) (Born) held that "The right to receive the retention money is accrued only after the obligations under the contract are fulfilled and, therefore, it would not amount to an income of the assessee in the year in which the amount is retained". (ii) High Court of Madras in Commissioner of Income Tax vs East Coast Constructions and Industries Ltd (28…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. M/S. B.G. SHIRKE CONSTRUCTION TECHNOLOGY PVT.LTD,, PUNE

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 2060/PUN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr.Dipak P.Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.2060/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Dy.Commissioner Of B.G.Shirke Construction Income-Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vs Technology Pvt. Ltd., 72-76, Industrial Estate, Mundhwa, Pune – 411036. Pan: Aaacb 7293 D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil S Pathak – Ar Revenue By Shri Anurag Shivastava – Dr Date Of Hearing 10/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 16/06/2022 आदेश / Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Revenue’S Appeal For A.Y.2014-15 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Pune’S Order, Dated 20.09.2019 Passed In Appeal No.Pn/Cit(A)-1/Dcit,Cir.1(1)/Pn/4/16- 17 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) R.W.S 92Ca Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Short “The Act”. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. The Revenue Raises The Following Substantive Grounds In The Instant Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Is Contrary To The Law & On Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Deciding That Retention Money Has To Be Taxed In The Year Of Receipt & Not On Accrual Basis Even

Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ए” "ायपीठ पुणे म" । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR.DIPAK P.RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA No.2060/PUN/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Dy.Commissioner of B.G.Shirke Construction Income-tax, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vs Technology Pvt. Ltd., 72-76, Industrial Estate, Mundhwa, Pune – 411036. PAN: AAACB 7293 D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee by Shri Nikhil S Pathak – AR Revenue by Shri Anurag Shivastava – DR Date of hearing 10/06/2022 Date of pronouncement 16/06/2022 आदेश / ORDER Per S.S.God…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1),, PUNE vs. M/S. ADWITIYA PROJECTS (INDIA) PVT.LTD,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2110/PUN/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 2110/Pun/2017 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri Mahadevan A.M. Krishnan
Section 250

…retention money which is kept by customers does not amount an income in the year in which such amount is retained by the customers. The assessee relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Associated Cables (P). Ltd. (2006) 286 ITR 596 and the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Akruti Projects, ITA 3 A.Y.2014-15 No.387/PN/2012 order dated 10th January, 2014. However, the Assessing Officer while passing assessment order has neither considered the submissions of the assessee nor judicial pronouncements and held the retention money as taxable and added to…

DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EMC LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 2149/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 May 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am]

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 14A

…e had accrued to the assessee," The Hon'bleGujrat High Court Followed the Judgement in the case of CIT v. Simplex Concrete Piles (India) (P.) Ltd. [1989] 179 ITR 8 (Cal.).” c) Hon'ble Bombay High Court judgment in the case of ClT v. Associated Cables P. Ltd. (286 ITR 596) which has inter alia held that; "The question of law sought to be raised in this appeal is as to whether the retention money could be considered to be the income of the assessee in the year in which the amount was retained. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred to a judgment of the Tribunal in Associated Cables P. Ltd. v. Deputy ClT [19…

DCIT CEN CIR - 1(4), MUMBAI vs. NITIN RAJMAL SHAH, MUMBAI

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 7155/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7155/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2008-09) Dcit-Central Circle-1(4) M/S. Nitin R. Shah Room No.902, Pratistha Bhavan बनाम/ C-113, Shyam Kamal Building 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Bldg. Annex. Vs. 27, Tejpal Road, Agarwal Market Mumbai-400 020. Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400 057. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadps 5476 M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Samatha Mullamudi-Ld.Sr.Dr ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : None सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 30/09/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 04/10/2019 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ():- 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year [Ay] 2008-09 Contest The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai, [In Short Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’], Appeal No. Cit(A)-47/Ap.68/15- 16 Dated 26/09/2017 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Appellant: Ms. Samatha Mullamudi-Ld.Sr.DRFor Respondent: None
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 43B

…hands of the assessee. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court rendered in CIT V/s Simplex Concrete Piles India Pvt. Ltd. 179 ITR 8 as well as the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in CIT V/s Associated Cables Pvt.Ltd. 286 ITR 596. Aggrieved as aforesaid, the revenue is under appeal before us. 4. After careful consideration of facts and circumstances, we find that first appellate authority has clinched all the issues in the right perspective. The estimated addition of 7% was uniform rate applied to the group concerns. The addition on account of defect liability was deleted…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. M/S. B.G. SHIRKE CONSTRUCTION TECHNOLOGY PVT.LTD,, PUNE

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1114/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri N. Ashok Babu

…and loss account. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the view of assessee that retention money has to be excluded in computation of income in view of decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Associated Cables (P.) Ltd. Vs. Dy.CIT [2006] reported in 286 ITR 596 (Bom.) although the facts of present case is distinguished. 5. For these and such other grounds as may be urged at the time of hearing, the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) may be vacated and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 6. The appellant craves to add, amend, alter or delete any of the above ground of appeal during…

DCIT- 14(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. COMMTEL NETWORKS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3427/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negidcit-14(1)(2) Vs. M/S Commtel Networks Room No.470, 4Th Floor Private Limited Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road 23, White Castle, 34-35 Mumbai-400 020 Union Park, Chembur Mumbai-400 071 Pan/Gir No.Aaacc8966G Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 211

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER DCIT-14(1)(2) Vs. M/s Commtel Networks Room No.470, 4th Floor Private Limited Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road 23, White Castle, 34-35 Mumbai-400 020 Union Park, Chembur Mumbai-400 071 PAN/GIR No.AAACC8966G Appellant) .. Respondent) Assessee by V.G.Ginde & Kumar Kale Revenue by Abi Rama Kartikeyan Date of Hearing 23/07/2019 Date of Pronouncement 23/07/2019 आदेश आदेश / O R D E R आदेश आदेश PER G.MANJUNATHA (A.M): This appeal filed by the revenue is directed against the order of the…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. B.G. SHIRKE CONSTRUCTION TECHNOLOGY PVT.LTD,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2771/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri G.P. Chandrakar

…nd loss account. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the view of assessee that retention money has to be excluded in computation of income in view of decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Associated Cables (P.) Ltd. Vs. Dy.CIT [2006] reported in 286 ITR 596 (Bom.) although the facts of present case is distinguished. 5. For these and such other grounds as may be urged at the time of hearing, the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) may be vacated and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 6. The appellant craves to add, amend, alter or delete any of the above ground of appeal during…

Showing 1–20 of 25 · Page 1 of 2

CIT v. Associated Cables P. Ltd. (286 ITR 596) — Cited in 25 Judgments | BharatTax