CIT v. Calcutta Export Company

404 ITR 654Supreme Court of India2018#1222 most cited

What is CIT v. Calcutta Export Company authority for?

The amendment to Section 40(a)(ia) by the Finance Act, 2010, making TDS remittance before the due date under Section 139(1) a condition for deduction, is retrospective from AY 2005-06. Procedural lapses should not lead to excessive disallowances, particularly when payment has been made to a resident.

93

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Calcutta Export Company · Section 40(a)(ia) · Section 139(1) · retrospective effect · TDS remittance · disallowance · procedural lapses · Finance Act 2010

Also reported as

93 Taxmann.com 51255 Taxmann 293

Sections most often in play

Section 40(a)(ia)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 139Section 1961Section 197Section 201Section 263
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

bright line testamp expenditurecomparable uncontrolled price methodsection 80jjasection 92(1)section 80jjaacost plus methodfunctional analysissection 92c(3)section 92fmanagement feesbenchmarking analysis

Judgments citing CIT v. Calcutta Export Company

Sri. Reddy Veeranna, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

ITA 1146/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nischal B., D.R
Section 132(1)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153A

…ITA No.1111/Bang/2022 Smt. Reddy Sangeetha, Bangalore ITA Nos.1112 & 1113/Bang/2022 & ITA Nos.1145 & 1146/Bang/2022 Shri Reddy Veeranna, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1145/Bang/2022, 1112/Bang/2022, ITA No.1113/Bang/2022 & 1146/Bang/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2014-15 and 2015-16 respectively Shri Reddy Veeranna #9/1, 2nd Floor, Classic Court Richmond Road DCIT Vs. Bengaluru 560 025 Central Circle-1(3) Bengaluru PAN NO : AASPV4626M APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA Nos.11…

Sri. Reddy Veeranna, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

ITA 1145/BANG/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nischal B., D.R
Section 132(1)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153A

…ITA No.1111/Bang/2022 Smt. Reddy Sangeetha, Bangalore ITA Nos.1112 & 1113/Bang/2022 & ITA Nos.1145 & 1146/Bang/2022 Shri Reddy Veeranna, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1145/Bang/2022, 1112/Bang/2022, ITA No.1113/Bang/2022 & 1146/Bang/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2014-15 and 2015-16 respectively Shri Reddy Veeranna #9/1, 2nd Floor, Classic Court Richmond Road DCIT Vs. Bengaluru 560 025 Central Circle-1(3) Bengaluru PAN NO : AASPV4626M APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA Nos.11…

Sri. Reddy Veeranna, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

ITA 1113/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nischal B., D.R
Section 132(1)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153A

…ITA No.1111/Bang/2022 Smt. Reddy Sangeetha, Bangalore ITA Nos.1112 & 1113/Bang/2022 & ITA Nos.1145 & 1146/Bang/2022 Shri Reddy Veeranna, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1145/Bang/2022, 1112/Bang/2022, ITA No.1113/Bang/2022 & 1146/Bang/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2014-15 and 2015-16 respectively Shri Reddy Veeranna #9/1, 2nd Floor, Classic Court Richmond Road DCIT Vs. Bengaluru 560 025 Central Circle-1(3) Bengaluru PAN NO : AASPV4626M APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA Nos.11…

Sri. Reddy Veeranna, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

ITA 1112/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nischal B., D.R
Section 132(1)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153A

…ITA No.1111/Bang/2022 Smt. Reddy Sangeetha, Bangalore ITA Nos.1112 & 1113/Bang/2022 & ITA Nos.1145 & 1146/Bang/2022 Shri Reddy Veeranna, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1145/Bang/2022, 1112/Bang/2022, ITA No.1113/Bang/2022 & 1146/Bang/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2014-15 and 2015-16 respectively Shri Reddy Veeranna #9/1, 2nd Floor, Classic Court Richmond Road DCIT Vs. Bengaluru 560 025 Central Circle-1(3) Bengaluru PAN NO : AASPV4626M APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA Nos.11…

Smt. Reddy Sangeetha, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

ITA 1111/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nischal B., D.R
Section 132(1)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153A

…ITA No.1111/Bang/2022 Smt. Reddy Sangeetha, Bangalore ITA Nos.1112 & 1113/Bang/2022 & ITA Nos.1145 & 1146/Bang/2022 Shri Reddy Veeranna, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1145/Bang/2022, 1112/Bang/2022, ITA No.1113/Bang/2022 & 1146/Bang/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2014-15 and 2015-16 respectively Shri Reddy Veeranna #9/1, 2nd Floor, Classic Court Richmond Road DCIT Vs. Bengaluru 560 025 Central Circle-1(3) Bengaluru PAN NO : AASPV4626M APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA Nos.11…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Central Circle)-1, Raipur vs. M/S. Mahavir Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Rajnandgaon

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue being devoid and bereft of any merit is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 92/RPR/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 92/Rpr/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Parasmal Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 29Section 43C

…Cheryl vs. Income Tax Officer (International Taxation) 2(3)(1) (2021) 209 TTJ 850 (b) Sandeep Patil Vs. Income Tax Officer in ITA No.924/Bang/2019 (c) Kishore Hira Bhandari Vs. Income Tax Officer in 177 ITD 565 (d) CIT Vs. Calcutta Export Company reported in 404 ITR 654 (e) C.B Gautam Vs. Union of India and Others in 199 ITR 530 (f) Rahul Constructions Vs. Dy. CIT (2010) 38 DTR (Pune) (Trib) 19 (g) Smt. Sita Bai Khetan Vs. Income Tax Officer 181 TTJ (JP) 549 4.1.5. In view of the above discussion and judicial pronouncements relied upon by the appellant, the A.O is not justified in making addition by invoking pro…

M/S Capital Tours(India) Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-12(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 507/KOL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.507/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Capital Tours (India) Pvt. Ltd..............................………...…..…Appellant 1, J Embassy Building, 4, Shakepeare Sarani, Kolkata- 700 071. [Pan: Aabcc2821K] Vs. Ito, Ward-12(1), Kolkata......................................................…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 17, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 16, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.06.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-17, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit (Appeals)-17, Kolkata U/S 250 Confirming The Additions & Disallowances Made By Learned Assessing Officer Is Wrong In The Law & Facts Of The Case. 2. That The Ld. Cit (Appeals) - 17, Kolkata Erred In Law As Well As On Facts Of The Case By Confirming The Disallowance Of Employee'S Contribution For

Section 14ASection 2(24)Section 250Section 3Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ‘बी’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH KOLKATA "ी संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी मनीष बोरड, लेखा सद"य के सम" Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member and Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member I.T.A No.507/Kol/2020 Assessment year: 2015-16 M/s Capital Tours (India) Pvt. Ltd..............................………...…..…Appellant 1, J Embassy Building, 4, Shakepeare Sarani, Kolkata- 700 071. [PAN: AABCC2821K] vs. ITO, Ward-12(1), Kolkata......................................................…..…..Respondent Appearances by: Shri Miraj D Shah, AR, appeared on behalf of the…

Shri Shanmugar Services, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both assessment years are dismissed

ITA 1137/CHNY/2017[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Mar 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1136 & 1137/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sathiyanarayanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 194CSection 40

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी दुगा" राव, "याियक सद"य एवं "ी मंजुनाथ. जी, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANJUNATHA. G, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.: 1136 & 1137/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 M/s. Shri Shanmugar Services, Income Tax Officer, No. 22, Thiru Vi Ka 3rd street, v. Non Corporate Ward 2(4), Mylapore, Chennai. Chennai – 600 004. [PAN: AABFS-5053-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri. S. Sathiyana…

Shri Shanmugar Services, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both assessment years are dismissed

ITA 1136/CHNY/2017[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Mar 2023AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1136 & 1137/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sathiyanarayanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 194CSection 40

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी दुगा" राव, "याियक सद"य एवं "ी मंजुनाथ. जी, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANJUNATHA. G, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.: 1136 & 1137/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 M/s. Shri Shanmugar Services, Income Tax Officer, No. 22, Thiru Vi Ka 3rd street, v. Non Corporate Ward 2(4), Mylapore, Chennai. Chennai – 600 004. [PAN: AABFS-5053-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri. S. Sathiyana…

Purulia Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Purulia vs. ACIT, Cir. 3(2), Purulia

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 175/KOL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.175/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Purulia Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .....................................................…..…Appellant Ranchi Road, Purulia-723101. [Pan: Aaajp0148E] Vs. Acit, Circle-3(2), Purulia.…..….............................................…....…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri M. Goenka, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 19, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 08, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 04.02.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Asansol [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Learned Cit(Appeal) Asansol Erred In Rejecting Application Under Section 154 On The Ground That No Apparent Mistake In Records. 2. That Mistake Of Law Is Mistake Rectifiable As Per Decision Of The Honourable Supreme Court In The Case M. K. Venkatarchram Vs Bombay Dying & Mgg Co Ltd. 1958 Itr 143 (Sc) 3. That The Finance Bill No. (2) 2014 Reduced The Disallowance Of Expenditure Where No Tds Has Been Deducted To 30% Instead Of 100% & Effective From Assessment Year 2015-16

Section 154Section 250Section 40

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ‘एसएमसी’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH KOLKATA "ी संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी मनीष बोरड, लेखा सद"य के सम" Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member and Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member I.T.A No.175/Kol/2022 Assessment year: 2010-11 Purulia Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .....................................................…..…Appellant Ranchi Road, Purulia-723101. [PAN: AAAJP0148E] vs. ACIT, Circle-3(2), Purulia.…..….............................................…....…..…..Respondent Appearances by: Shri M. Goenka, CA, appeared on behalf of the appellant. S…

M/S. Leh Nutrition Project, Leh Ladkh vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Srinagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 364/ASR/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Bansal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR
Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 143(3)

…ty vs. ITO (ITAT Asr) ITA NO-1318/12, A.Y 2009- 10 dated 31-3-19 Copy enclosed at PB- 487 to 495. [Para 4.4= PB=492 Para 4.6, 4.7] Case Law 4 Amendment when curative in nature is required to be given retrospectively :- CIT vs. Calcutta Exports Company (2018) 404 ITR 654 (SC) Enclosed at page 526 to 532. [Refer Para 28 & 29 at PB 532] Case Law 5 Even the Honorable Supreme Court has said the circular beneficial to the assessee shall be applicable retrospectively : Director of Income Tax vs. SRMB Dairy Farming (P)(Ltd.) (2018) 65 IT Reps 1 (SC) (refer Para _23 at page 544 ) Enclosed at page 533 to 544. Distinguish…

Mayur Uniquoters Limited, Jaipur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax NFAC, New Delhi

Appeals of the assesse are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

ITA 2/JPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Nov 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri S. S. Nagar, C.AFor Respondent: MonishaChoudhary, JCIT
Section 14ASection 234CSection 80Section 80J

…आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुरन्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCH-A, JAIPUR JhlanhixkslkbZ] U;kf;dlnL; ,oaMkWa- ,e- ,y- ehuk] ys[kklnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & DR. M. L. MEENA, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 02/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Year: 2018-19 MayurUniquoters Ltd., cuke Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Jaitpura, Jaipur Sikar Road NFAC, New Delhi Jaitpura, Jaipur, Rajasthan India LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN No: AAECM 1727F vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 212/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Year: 2019-20 MayurUniquoters Ltd.,…

Pushpanjali Hospitality Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 16(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 5296/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2009-10 Pushpanjali Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, B-49, Connught Place, Ward 16(3), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacm0006B

For Appellant: Shri Alok Mathur, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 41Section 41(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : F : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.M. GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2009-10 Pushpanjali Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., Vs. ITO, B-49, Connught Place, Ward 16(3), New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN: AAACM0006B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Alok Mathur, CA Revenue by : Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 24.08.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 31.08.2022 ORDER PER C.M. GARG, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 23.04.2019 of the CIT(A)-7, New Delhi, relating to Assessment Y…

Mahavir Adinath Salve, Solapur vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1 (1), Solapur

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 441/PUN/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.441/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Shri Mahavir Adinath Salve, The Ito, Ward-1(1), Solapur. House No.930, Nagane Plot Vs Paranda Road, Barshi, . Solapur – 413411. Pan: Arxps 5761 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri V L Jain – Ar Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe – Dr Date Of Hearing 11/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2008-09 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-7, Pune’S Order Dated 15.11.2018 Passed In Appeal No.Pn/Cit(A)-7/Cir- 1/0804/2016-17, In Proceedings U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 40

…lve (A) 15G/15H; as the case may be. We thus hold that this section 197 amendment in the Act by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f 01.06.2016 is a beneficial one carrying retrospective effect being curative in nature. Case law CIT Vs. Calcutta Export Company [2018] 404 ITR 654 (SC) holds in similar circumstances that the beneficial amendment section 40(a)(ia) first proviso vide in Finance Act, 2010 w.e.f. 01.04.2010 also carries retrospective effect since curative in nature. We draw similar reasoning in the instant appeal as well in light of the foregoing CBDT’s circular issued after section 197A amendment (supra). The…

M/S Nirbhai Textiles Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana vs. ACIT, C-2, Ludhiana

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1401/CHANDI/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1401/Chd/2018 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Akashdeep, JCIT Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 56Section 56(2)(viib)

…nt years 2008-09 and 2009-10 - Whether second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) is declaratory and curative and it has retrospective effect from 1-4-2005 - Held, yes” II. Judgment in the case of Calcutta Export Company of Supreme Court of India reported in [2018] 93 Taxmann.com 51 (SC) in which it has been held as under: “Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business disallowance - Interest etc. paid to a resident without deduction of tax at source (Retrospective operation) - Assessment year 2005-06 - Whether amendment made by Finance Act, 2010, to provisions of section 40(a)(ia) is curative in nature and…

M/S.Sagar Tobacco & Industries Pvt.Ltd., Sagar vs. Assistance Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1), Jabalpur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 48/JAB/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur08 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Abhijeet Srivastava, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Mehrotra, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 194Section 40

…nal as retrospective. The ld. Sr. DR did not fairly object to the same. 4. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. 4.1 We have no hesitation in accepting the assessee’s plea. The Apex Court has in CIT vs. Calcutta Export Company [2018] 404 ITR 654 (SC) held the amendment to s. 40(a)(ia) by Finance Act, 2010 by way of first proviso thereto as retrospective from the inception of the provision, i.e., w.e.f. AY 2005-06, being only toward mitigating a hardship to the tax payers and, thus, curative. Per the said proviso, the amount disallowed u/s. 40(a)(ia) shall be allowed for the year of payme…

Texas Instruments (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu, Bangalore

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

ITA 852/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri. Percy Pardiwala, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjay Kumar S. K, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 80JSection 92C

…tive provision, should be held to be curative in nature in nature and should be held to be retrospective in operation on the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Calcutta Export Company [2018] 93 taxmann.com 51/255 Taxman 293/404 ITR 654 (SC). The learned DR relied on the order of the AO. However, the ld. AR submitted that the assessee is claiming benefit of deduction for second year only, as it has accepted the fact that it is not eligible to claim deduction in the first year i.e., AY 2007-08 due to non-fulfilment of condition of 300 days. ITA Nos. 852 & 831/Bang/2017 Page 19 o…

Joint Commisioner of Income Tax (Ltu), Bangalore vs. M/S Texas Instruments India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore

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

ITA 831/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri. Percy Pardiwala, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjay Kumar S. K, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 80JSection 92C

…tive provision, should be held to be curative in nature in nature and should be held to be retrospective in operation on the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Calcutta Export Company [2018] 93 taxmann.com 51/255 Taxman 293/404 ITR 654 (SC). The learned DR relied on the order of the AO. However, the ld. AR submitted that the assessee is claiming benefit of deduction for second year only, as it has accepted the fact that it is not eligible to claim deduction in the first year i.e., AY 2007-08 due to non-fulfilment of condition of 300 days. ITA Nos. 852 & 831/Bang/2017 Page 19 o…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi - 07 vs. M/S Punjab National Bank (Erstwhile United Bank of India)

In the result, the appeals filed by the

ITA/159/2022HC Delhi20 May 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

Section 139(1)Section 142Section 143Section 14ASection 260ASection 40

…ding that the said expense incurred by the Respondent cannot be disallowed. In this regard, findings of the Tribunal are in conformity with the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Calcutta Export Company reported in 2018 404 ITR 654 (SC) and in this regard paragraph 30 of the said judgment is relevant: “...30) Hence, in the light of the forgoing discussion and the binding effect of the judgment given in Allied Motors (supra), we are of the view that the amended provision of section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act should be interpreted liberally and equitably This is a digita…

M/S Shree Balaji Concepts, Margao vs. Income Tax Officer (International Txation), Ward -1, Panaji

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in the terms indicated as above

ITA 73/PAN/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 73/Pan/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri M. R. Hegde, CA &For Respondent: Smt. Rijula Uniyal, Sr. DR
Section 156Section 191Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 205

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 73/PAN/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s Shree Balaji Concepts, Vs. Income-tax officer [international Flat No. 19, 1st Floor, Kadar Taxation], Ward -1, Pundalik Manzil, Martres Dias Road, Niwas, Rua-De-Qurem, Panaji, Near Hari Mandir, Margao- Goa – 403 001 403 601 State of Goa [PAN: ABLFS 0416Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri M. R. Hegde, CA & Shri Shravan Swarup, CA Respondent by: Smt. Rijula Uniyal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 05.04.2022 D…