How many judgments cite CIT v. Bhooratnam & Co.?

48 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Bhooratnam & Co. (357 ITR 396), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Bhooratnam & Co. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(1), Section 199, Section 37BA, Section 142(1), Section 143(2), Section 144B.

CIT v. Bhooratnam & Co.

357 ITR 396High Court2013#2418 most cited

What is CIT v. Bhooratnam & Co. authority for?

An assessee is entitled to credit for TDS even if the certificate is issued in the name of a joint venture or related party, provided the income to which the TDS relates is offered by the assessee. This principle emphasizes looking at the substance of the transaction over strict adherence to the name on the TDS certificate.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Bhooratnam & Co. · section 199 · section 37BA · credit for TDS · TDS certificate · joint venture · TDS claim · Form 26AS · substance over form · tax credit for assessee

Also reported as

62 Taxmann.com 190216 Taxmann 6

Sections most often in play

Section 143(1)Section 199 Section 37BA Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144B Section 147 Section 148

Issues it is cited on

recognised provident fund section 50b section 43b(f)approved gratuity fund section 40a(9)section 211 wholly and exclusively for business section 93 section 35d slump sale section 32(1)(ii)domestic company

Judgments citing CIT v. Bhooratnam & Co.

M/S Rajasthan Urban Drinking Water Sewerage and Infrastructure Corporation Limited, Jaipur vs. Assistnat Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 713/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gogra (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)

Section 2(24)

…DS claim of Rs. 1,20,73,097/-. M/s Rajasthan Urban Drinking Water Sewerage and Infrastructure Corporation Ltd. vs. ACIT 8. This Court's reasoning is supported by a ruling of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in CIT v. Bhooratnam & Co. [2013] 357 ITR 396/216 Taxman 6/29 taxmann.com 275 where the Court noted as follows: "In our view, the CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal have rightly held that the assessee is entitled to the credit of the TDS mentioned in the TDS certificates issued by the contractor, whether the said certificate is issued in the name of the Joint Venture or in the name of a Director…

Imago Screens India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 5(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1512/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Imago Screens India Pvt. Income Tax Officer- Ltd. (Now Lumaran Vs. 5(2)(1), Mumbai Room Technologies Pvt. Ltd.) No. 525, 5Th Floor, C/0 Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Llp, Esplanade House, 29, Road, Mumbai-400020. Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400001. Pan No. Aacci0068B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Zareer N. Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Saurabhkumar Rai, Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/05/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/05/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Zareer N. Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Saurabhkumar Rai, DR

Section 143(3)

…Treasury. 5.1 The Ld. counsel relies on the decision in Escorts Ltd. v. DCIT (2007) 15 SOT 368 (Delhi), CIT v. Relcom (2015) 62 taxmann.com 190 (Delhi), Supreme Renewable Energy Ltd. v. ITO (2010) 3 ITR (Trib) 339 (Chennai) and CIT v. Bhooratnam & Co. (2013) 357 ITR 396 (AP). 6. On the other hand, the Ld. DR supports the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) stating that ENSO has not made any claim of TDS of Rs.13,54,895/- deducted by KSRDCL on the bill’s raised by it. As ENSO could not fulfil its commitment, a part of the contract was performed by the appellant-company to the extent of Rs.4,23,70,527/- (19 VMC machine…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur vs. Rajasthan Avas Vikas & Infrastructure Limited, Jaipur

In the result, the Revenue appeal is dismissed

ITA 486/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 May 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: The Hearing."

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl.CIT)

Section 192Section 199Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…sister concerns and M/s REPL has not raised any objection with regard to the assessee's TDS claim of Rs. 1,20,73,097/-. 8. This Court's reasoning is supported by a ruling of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in CIT v. Bhooratnam & Co. [2013] 357 ITR 396/216 Taxman 6/29 taxmann.com 275 where the Court noted as follows: 4 DCIT vs. M/s Rajasthan Awas Vikas & Infrastructure Ltd. "In our view, the CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal have rightly held that the assessee is entitled to the credit of the TDS mentioned in the TDS certificates issued by the contractor, whether the said certificate is issued in…

M/S. Dayanand Contractor, Rohtak vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

In the result, original

ITA 2807/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Kumar Kamal & Lalit MohanFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT-D.R

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 263

…314 ITR 343 (AAR) Hyosung Corporation xiii) 210 Taxman 49 (Mad)(Mag) Chennai Port Trust v. ITO xiv) 12. Once income is required to be assessed, TDS credit has to be allowed irrespective of the fact that the TDS is deducted in the name of the another person. 357 ITR 396 (AP) CIT vs. Bhooratnam i) ITA no. 2417/Kol/2013 Mr. Parmanand Tiwari vs. ITO ii) of Paper Book) ITA No. 99/Hyd/2010 ITO vs. M/s Limak Devi Singh iii) 13. Any income could not be treated to be taxable just because tax at source has been deducted on it. 21 ITA.No.2806 & 2807/Del./2016 M/s. Dayanand, Contractor, V & PO Kharainti, Dist. Rohtak.…

M/S. Dayanand Contractor, Rohtak vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

In the result, original

ITA 2806/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Kumar Kamal & Lalit MohanFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT-D.R

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 263

M/S. Dayanand Contractor, Rohtak vs. ITO, Rohtak

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2027/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, & Sh. Lalit Mohan, CAFor Respondent: Shri T. Vasanthan Sr. DR

Section 144A

…T 314 ITR 343 (AAR) Hyosung Corporation xiv) 210 Taxman 49 (Mad)(Mag) Chennai Port Trust v. ITO xv) 12. Once income is required to be assessed, TDS credit has to be allowed irrespective of the fact that the TDS is deducted in the name of the another person. 357 ITR 396 (AP) CIT vs. Bhooratnam (pages 98-103 of Paper Book) i) ITA no. 2417/Kol/2013 Mr. Parmanand Tiwari vs. ITO (pages 104-108 ii) of Paper Book) ITA No. 99/Hyd/2010 ITO vs. M/s Limak Devi Singh (pages 109-144 of Paper Book) iii) 13. Any income could not be treated to be taxable just because tax at source has been deducted on it. i) 73 taxmann.com 1…

Porel Dass Water & Effluent Pvt. Ltd., Howrah vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 2208/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

Section 143(3)

…be given to the assessee-company, even though the relevant TDS certificate was in the name of the proprietary concern. In support of this contention, he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT –vs.- Bhooratnam & Co. [357 ITR 396 (A.P.)], wherein the decision of the Tribunal giving credit to the assessee of the TDS mentioned in the TDS certificate issued by the deductor was upheld by the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court despite the fact that the said TDS certificate was issued in the name of joint venture and not in the name of the assessee-company. It was held by the Ho…

Commissioner of Income Tax- 15 vs. M/S Relcom

ITA/26/2015HC Delhi16 Jan 2015

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA

Section 143(1)Section 199

…ITA 26/2015 Page 1 $~19 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on : 16.01.2015 + ITA 26/2015 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-15 ……Appellant Through: Ms. Suruchii Aggarwal, Advocate. Versus M/S/ RELCOM ……Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. GAUBA MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) % 1. The revenue has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 15.07.2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as, “ITAT”) in ITA No.5979/DEL/2012, relating to the Assessment Year 2009-10. The question of law urged by th…