How many judgments cite CIT v. Crescent Export Syndicate?

66 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Crescent Export Syndicate (216 Taxmann 258), spanning 2013 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Crescent Export Syndicate come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 40(a)(ia), Section 194C, Section 195, Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 197.

CIT v. Crescent Export Syndicate

216 Taxmann 258High Court2013#1729 most cited

What is CIT v. Crescent Export Syndicate authority for?

For the purpose of disallowance under section 40(a)(ia), the word 'payable' includes amounts already 'paid' without deduction or deposit of tax. The benefit of the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) is not available if the prescribed certificate is not filed.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Crescent Export Syndicate · Section 40(a)(ia) · interpretation of 'payable' · meaning of 'paid' · disallowance of expenditure · non-deduction of tax · TDS default · second proviso 40(a)(ia) · certificate filing · Calcutta High Court · business income deduction

Also reported as

357 ITR 31233 Taxmann.com 250262 CTR 525

Sections most often in play

Section 40(a)(ia)Section 194C Section 195 Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 197 Section 197A Section 43B

Issues it is cited on

section 197 section 194a section 40(a)(ia)section 40a(3)section 40(a)section 194 section 40 section 19 section 271(1)(c)previous year person business

Judgments citing CIT v. Crescent Export Syndicate

Ramesh Haribhau Gawali, Ahmednagar vs. Income-Tax Officer

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

ITA 1013/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri S.N. DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jha, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40A(3)

…able' in section 40(a)(ia) is a stage prior to payment and covers 'paid' also on which tax is deductible at source under Chapter XVIIB. In this context, reference can be made to the decision of Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs, Sikandarkhan N. Tunvar (357 ITR 312) wherein the HC has categorically held that section 40(a) (ia) would cover not only the amounts which are payable as on 31st March of a particular year but also which are payable at any time during the year, of course, as long as the other requirements of the said provision exist and the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case o…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Eskay Designs, Chennai

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

ITA 247/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I T.A. No. 247/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Eskay Designs, No. 25, 1St Street, Cenotaph Road, Income Tax, Non-Corporate Circle 3, Vs. 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aaafe1480C] (Appellant) (Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Mrs. S. Vijayaprabha, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K. Ravi, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 07.02.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 4, Chennai Dated 31.10.2016 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13. The First Issue Raised In The Appeal Of The Revenue Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Directing To Assess The Rental Income Received By The Assessee On Sub-Letting Of Its Leased Out Properties Under The Head “Income From House Property” & The Second Issue Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Directing To Allow The Expenses If They Are Paid As On 2

For Appellant: Mrs. S. Vijayaprabha, JCITFor Respondent: Shri K. Ravi, Advocate

Section 27Section 40

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘‘डी’’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी अ"ाहम पी. जॉज", लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" Before Shri Abraham P. George, Accountant Member & Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I T.A. No. 247/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner of M/s. Eskay Designs, No. 25, 1st Street, Cenotaph Road, Income Tax, Non-Corporate Circle 3, Vs. 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [PAN:AAAFE1480C] (Appellant) (Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by…

Ichha Constructions P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 5(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 4856/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4856Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिधम/ Ichha Construction Private Dcit, Cc-5(1) Limited Vs. Mumbai 6Th Floor, Ackruti Centre Point Central Road, Marol Midc, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaci1277N (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Rajat Mittal (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07.02.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14. 02.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 23.03.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-53, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2010-11. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1 Being Aggrieved By The Appeal Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 53 (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Cit (A) - 53") With Regard To The Assessment Order U/S 143 F3) Of The Act Of The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal (DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 201Section 40

…hat the amendment giving breathing space to payer of amounts is with effect from 01,04,2013 and. therefore, the said benefit was not applicable to the assessee in A.Y.2Q07-D8. Even the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT v. Cresset Export Syndicate 262 CTR 525 held that the contention that The second sought to become effective from 01,04,2013 should be held to have already become operative prior to the appointed date cannot be acceded to. “The law was deliberately made harsh to secure compliance of the provisions requiring deductions of tax at source. It is not the case of an inadvertent error.” 5.3.4…

Subhalaxmi Agencies Pvt. Ltd., Nayagarh vs. JCIT, Ramge-2, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and that of

ITA 132/CTK/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack21 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR

Section 194ASection 194CSection 194JSection 40

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE S/SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 132/CTK/2016: Asst. Year 2011-12 C.O.No.15/CTK/2016 (in ITA No.201/CTK/2016) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Subhalaxmi Agencies Pvt Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Raagne-2, 3rd Ltd., At: Gopinathpur Sahi, PO: Rajsunakhala, Dist: floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Nayagarh. Rajaswa Vihar, Bhubaneswar. PAN/GIR No.AAJCS 7772 D (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) ITA No. 174 & 201/CTK/2016 Assessment Years : 2011-2012 & 2012-13 Joint Commissioner of Vs. Subhalaxmi Agencies P…

Shyam Apparels P.Ltd., Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

ITA 549/JPR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma, (Addl.CIT)

Section 201Section 40Section 40A(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh Hkkxpan] ys[kk lnL; ,oa Jh dqy Hkkjr] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM & SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 497/JP/2016 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2012-13 cuke Income Tax Officer, M/s Shyam Apparels Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ward 3(2), E-11, Bihari Marg, Banipark, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AACCS 1818 B vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 549/JP/2016 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2010-11 cuke M/s Shyam Apparels Pvt. Ltd., Income…

ITO, Jaipur vs. Shyam Apparels Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

ITA 497/JPR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma, (Addl.CIT)

Section 201Section 40Section 40A(3)

M/S Sabtex Exports, New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 3662/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Rajpal Yadav

Section 194HSection 40Section 69B

…of Merilyn Shipping & Transports v. Addl. CIT [2012] 136 ITD 23 that on the amount which remained payable, no disallowance can be made, is concerned, this decision has been overruled by Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sikandarkhan N. Tanvar, 357 ITR 312 (Guj.). Therefore, we do not find any ITA Nos. 3662 & 3789/Del./2011 4 merit in this contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee. Thus, the appeal of the assessee also deserves to be dismissed. 8. In the result, both the appeals are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 6th October, 2017. (G.D. Agrawal) Accountant Member Dated: 0…

Krishnamurthy Srinivasan, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

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

ITA 3396/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jul 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.3396/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Shri Krishnamurthy Srinivasan, The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 1C, Vanagaram Road, Athipet, Vs. Income Tax, Ambattur Industrial Estate, Ambattur, Non Corporate Circle 7(1), Chennai 600 058. Chennai. [Pan:Bbkps4428J] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Mohamed Mustafa, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.05.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2017 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 7, Chennai, Dated 17.10.2016 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Only Effective Ground Raised By The Assessee Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of ₹.75,66,470/- Made Under Section 40(A)(Ia) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Mohamed Mustafa, JCIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194Section 201(1)Section 40Section 44A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘‘डी’’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी चं" पूजार", लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" Before Shri Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member & Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.3396/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Shri Krishnamurthy Srinivasan, The Assistant Commissioner of No. 1C, Vanagaram Road, Athipet, Vs. Income Tax, Ambattur Industrial Estate, Ambattur, Non Corporate Circle 7(1), Chennai 600 058. Chennai. [PAN:BBKPS4428J] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Tirunelveli Vayu Energy Generation Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in I

ITA 2647/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jul 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1961/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri V. Nagaprasad, CAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Radhakrishnan, JCIT

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी "ड.एस. सु"दर "संह, लेखा सद"य केसम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1961/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/s Redphoenix Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. The Joint Commissioner of (Presently: Tirunelveli Vayu Energy v. Income Tax, Generation Pvt. Ltd.), Company Range V, Jhaver Plaza, III floor, (Now DCIT Corporate Circle 6(1), No.1-A Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai - 600 034. Chennai - 600 034. P…

Shuka Consultancy Services Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in I

ITA 1961/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jul 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1961/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri V. Nagaprasad, CAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Radhakrishnan, JCIT

Ms. Asha Gupta, New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6747/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.P. Jainassessment Year 2010-11 Ms. Asha Gupta, Vs. Jcit, Range-36, 423, Kanungo Apartments, New Delhi. I.P, Ext., Patpar Ganj, Delhi. Pan: Aetpg 8803J (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri P.C. Yadav, Advocate, Assessee(S) By : Ms. Bedobani Chaudhuri, Sr.D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20/04/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 20/04/2017 Order This Appeal Of The Assessee Arises From The Order Of Learned Cit(A)- Xxvii, New Delhi Vide Order Dated 15.09.2014 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

For Respondent: Shri P.C. Yadav, Advocate

Section 139Section 194Section 40

…to 8 as under: “5. Ld. A.R. on the other hand submitted that while Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Crecent Export Syndicate 216 Taxman 250 = 2013-TIOL-404-HC-KOL-IT and Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs Sikandarkhan N Tunvar 357 ITR 312 = 2013-TIOL-389-HC-AHM-IT has overruled the Special Bench decision in the case of Merilyn Shipping & Transports Vs ACIT 136 ITD 23 = 2012-TIOL-184-ITAT-VIZAG-SB. However, the Special Bench Decision has been approved by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in CIT Vs Vector Shipping Services (P) Ltd. 357 ITR 642 = 2013-TIOL- 599-HC-ALL-ITand moreover, SLP…

M/S. Triambake Info Technologies Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3732/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Apr 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini

Section 133(6)Section 40

…ssessee. Since no TDS was deducted on interest payment, authorities below were justified in disallowing interest u/s 40(a)(ia). The issue is covered against the assessee by judgement of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs Sikander Khan N Tunvar 357 ITR 312 in which it was held that “provisions u/s 40(a)(ia) would cover amount payable at any time during Page 6 of 6 the accounting year”. The issue is also decided against the assessee by judgment of Hon’ble P & H High Court in the case of P.M.S.Diesels reported in 374 ITR 562 in which on the same principle, the appeal of the assessee has been dismis…

J.C.I.T Range - 56, Kolkata vs. M/S Arti & Sons., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue on ground No

ITA 1932/KOL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1932/Kol/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2009-2010) Jcit, Range-56, 3, Govt Place Vs. M/S Arti & Sons, (W), 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700001 167/4, Lenin Sarani, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700072 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefa 6622 J .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit Dr Revenue By : Shri V.N.Purohit, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 09/03/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 19/04/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Revenue Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2009-2010, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-Xxxvi, Kolkata In Appeal No.357/Cit(A)-Xxxvi/Kol/R-56/10-11, Dated 29.10.2012, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 30.12.2010. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Filed Its E-Return Of Income, Disclosing Total Income Of Rs.99,12,640/- On 22.09.2008. The Assessee’S Case Was Selected For Scrutiny U/S.143(3) Of The Act & The Ao Has Completed The Assessment By Making Addition On Account Of Gross Receipts From C&F Commission At Rs.5,33,81,892/- & On Account Of Undisclosed Liabilities Paid Through Credits In The Books Of Tiger Associates At Rs.7,12,32,585/-.

For Appellant: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri V.N.Purohit, AR

Section 143(3)Section 194G(1)Section 40Section 40a

…477/Vizag/2008 ( Visakhapatnam Special Bench) 20 Taxmann.com 244. It is not in dispute before us, that the decision in the case of Merilyn Shipping & Transport (supra) has been overruled by Hon`ble Kolkata High court in the case of Crescent Exports Syndicate 216 Taxmann 258. Therefore, the nature of payment by the assessee to the sub-distributer has not been explained by the Revenue Authorities. Without giving a finding on the nature of payment in question, it is not possible to decide, whether provisions of section 40(a) (ia) attracted or not. Therefore, it is a fit case for remand to the AO for adjudication on…

A.C.I.T Cir - 52, Kolkata vs. Sri Sudarshan Panja, Kolkata

In the result the appeal by the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1878/KOL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am ] Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Saurav Kumar, JCITFor Respondent: Shri Somnath Roy Chowdhury, AR

Section 144Section 194ISection 40

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH ‘A’ KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, JM & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, AM ] Assessment Year : 2007-08 A.C.I.T., Circle-52, -versus- Shri Sudarshan Panja Kolkata Kolkata (PAN:AKBPP 6220 A) (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant: Shri Saurav Kumar, JCIT For the Respondent: Shri Somnath Roy Chowdhury, AR Date of Hearing : 01.03.2017. Date of Pronouncement : 08.03.2017. ORDER PER N.V.VASUDEVAN, JM: This is an appeal by the Revenue against the order dated 21.03.2013 of CIT(A)-XXXIII, Kolkata relating to A.Y.2007-08. 2. The only issue that arises for considerat…

I.T.O WD - 8(3), Kolkata vs. M/S Ruia Sons Pvt Ltd., Kolkata

In the result the appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 365/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm] I.T.A No. 365/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2009-10 I.T.O., Ward-8(3), -Vs.- M/S. Ruia Sons Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaccr 3949 Q] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Arup Kumar Sinha, Cit For The Respondent : Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate

For Appellant: Shri Arup Kumar Sinha, CITFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 194JSection 301Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Sri M.Balaganesh, AM & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, JM] I.T.A No. 365/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2009-10 I.T.O., Ward-8(3), -vs.- M/s. Ruia Sons Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata [PAN : AACCR 3949 Q] (Respondent) (Appellant) For the Appellant : Shri Arup Kumar Sinha, CIT For the Respondent : Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate Date of Hearing : 02.02.2017. Date of Pronouncement : 03.03.2017. ORDER Per Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, JM This appeal preferred by the Revenue emanates from the order of ld. CIT(A)- VIII, Kolkata dated 26.11.2012 on t…

M/S. Utkal Plaster Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 249/CTK/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack23 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.S Sainiassessment Year :2008-09

For Appellant: Shri K.K.Bal, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR

Section 194CSection 40Section 68

…Asse ssment Year :20 08- 09 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK ‘SMC’ BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year :2008-09 M/s. UJtkal Plaster Pvt Ltd., Vs. ITO,Ward-1(3), C/O. Jagannath Saw Mill, Bhubaneswar. Cuttack Road, Bhubaneswar. PAN/GIR No. (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee by : Shri K.K.Bal, AR Revenue by : Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR Date of Hearing : 02 /02/ 2017 Date of Pronouncement : 02/02/ 2017 O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, dated 31.3.2016, for the assessment year 2008-09. 2. In Ground Nos.2,3…

M/S Dhameja Mining, Sikkim vs. ITO, WD-2(4), Asansol

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

ITA 701/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Dec 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: : Shri M.Balaganesh & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(2)Section 194Section 40Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,‘D’ BENCH KOLKATA Before : Shri M.Balaganesh, Accountant Member and Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member I.T.A. No. 701/KOL/2015 A.Y: 2010-11 M/s. Dhameja Mining Vs. I.T.O., W 2(4), Asansol PAN: AAFFD 6501A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appearances by: Shri U. Dasgupta, Advocate, ld.AR None appeared for the revenue Date of hearing : 01-11-2016 Date of pronouncement : 21-12-2016 O R D E R Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, JM :- This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 16-03-2015 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals),Asansol for the…

DCIT, Madurai vs. Penguin Apparels (P) Ltd., Madurai

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

ITA 1782/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Dec 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1782/Chny/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Smt. H.Kabila, Jt.CITFor Respondent: Shri R.Srinivasan, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 194Section 40

…. Ltd (supra) by the ld. CIT(A). In our view the matter is squarely covered in favour of the Revenue by the decision by the Hon'ble High Courts as in the case of CIT v. Crescent Exports Syndicate [2013] 262 CTR 525 (Cal) and CIT v. Sikandar Khan Tunvar [2013] 357 ITR 312 (Guj), even as clarified by the tribunal in many a decision, as in the case of Asst. CIT v. Raviraj Relempaadu [2014] 29 ITR (Trib) 387 (Mum), rendered relying on the decision by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in Tube Investments of India Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2010] 325 ITR 610 (Mad). The observation with regard to ‘payable’ in Vector Shippin…

M/S. Bharti Airtel Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee with respect to ground No

ITA 5816/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishibharti Airtel Ltd, Addl Cit, Bharti Crescent, 1, Vs. Range-2, Cr Building, Ip Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Estate, New Delhi Kunj, New Delhi Pan:Aaacb2894G (Appellant) (Respondent) Bharti Airtel Ltd, Addl Cit, Bharti Crescent, 1, Vs. Range-2, Cr Building, Ip Nelson Mandela Road, Vaxant Estate, New Delhi Kunj, New Delhi Pan:Aaacb2894G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, SrFor Respondent: Sh. NC Swain, CIT DR (OSD)

Section 201Section 254Section 40

…Ltd. Reported at 357ITR 642 against which SLP filed by the department has also been dismissed, Though Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT v, Crescent Export Syndicate 216 Taxman 250 and Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Sikander Khan 357 ITR 312 are not in favour of assessee but keening in view of Hon Supreme Court decision in the cane of CIT v. Vegetable Products 88 ITR 92, the assessee is entitled to application of judgment benefiting to it and, therefore* applying the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court judgment, the 1st ground of appeal is decided in favour of assessee and is therefore, all…

Asst CIT Cir 4, Thane vs. Amol Antony Periera, Thane

In the result appeal filed by the revenue for the Asst

ITA 6237/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu (Am) & Shri. Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri. A. RamchandranFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Paranjpe

Section 143(3)Section 194Section 40

…Shipping and transports (supra) contended that the provisions of sec. 40(a)(ia) shall apply only to 8 Assessment Year: 2009-10 amount payable and not to the amount paid. However, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sikandar Khan N Tunvar (357 ITR 312) and the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Crescent Export Syndicate (ITAT 20 of 2013) have held that the decision rendered by the Special Bench in the case of Meryline Shipping & Transports is not a good law. The Ld A.R, however, placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Vector Shipping Servi…