CIT v. Enron Expat Services Inc.

192 CTR 50Reported decision2010#4095 most cited

What is CIT v. Enron Expat Services Inc. authority for?

Section 192(3) of the Income-tax Act, which allows for adjustments in TDS, is an integral part of Section 192(1) and is intended to permit the person deducting TDS to make necessary adjustments.

29

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Enron Expat Services Inc. · Section 192(1) · Section 192(3) · TDS deduction · adjustment of TDS · Uttarakhand High Court · Income-tax Act

Also reported as

194 Taxmann 70330 ITR 496

Sections most often in play

Section 153CSection 153ASection 143(3)Section 192(3)Section 201(1A)Section 220(2)Section 132Section 147

Issues it is cited on

section 192(1)section 100section 191profit split methodbright line testsection 158bb(1)resale price methodsection 36(l)(va)retraction of statementamp expendituresection 92esection 92(1)

Judgments citing CIT v. Enron Expat Services Inc.

M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6525/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80ISection 92CSection 92E

…84 ITR 404 (All); ix) Nirmala L Mehta vs CIT: 269 ITR 1 (Bom); x) CIT vs Berger Paints: 254 ITR 503 (Cal); xi) R. B. Jessa Ram Fateh Chand vs CIT: 81 ITR 409 (All); xii) CIT vs Enron Expat Services Inc : 327 ITR 626 (Uttkhd); xiii) Smt. Snehlata Jain v. CIT: 192 CTR 50 (J&K); xiv) S.R. Koshti v. CIT: 276 ITR 165 (Guj.); xv) DCIT v. Sanmukhdas Wadhwani: 85 ITD 734 (Nag); xvi) Indo Java & Co. v. IAC: 30 ITD 161 (Delhi SB); and xvii) ITO v. GE Hawn : 2l ITD 553 (All.) 148. Referring to the following decisions, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that additional ground on issue of subsidy was raised for the…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6256/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80ISection 92CSection 92E

…84 ITR 404 (All); ix) Nirmala L Mehta vs CIT: 269 ITR 1 (Bom); x) CIT vs Berger Paints: 254 ITR 503 (Cal); xi) R. B. Jessa Ram Fateh Chand vs CIT: 81 ITR 409 (All); xii) CIT vs Enron Expat Services Inc : 327 ITR 626 (Uttkhd); xiii) Smt. Snehlata Jain v. CIT: 192 CTR 50 (J&K); xiv) S.R. Koshti v. CIT: 276 ITR 165 (Guj.); xv) DCIT v. Sanmukhdas Wadhwani: 85 ITD 734 (Nag); xvi) Indo Java & Co. v. IAC: 30 ITD 161 (Delhi SB); and xvii) ITO v. GE Hawn : 2l ITD 553 (All.) 148. Referring to the following decisions, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that additional ground on issue of subsidy was raised for the…

M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3241/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80ISection 92CSection 92E

…84 ITR 404 (All); ix) Nirmala L Mehta vs CIT: 269 ITR 1 (Bom); x) CIT vs Berger Paints: 254 ITR 503 (Cal); xi) R. B. Jessa Ram Fateh Chand vs CIT: 81 ITR 409 (All); xii) CIT vs Enron Expat Services Inc : 327 ITR 626 (Uttkhd); xiii) Smt. Snehlata Jain v. CIT: 192 CTR 50 (J&K); xiv) S.R. Koshti v. CIT: 276 ITR 165 (Guj.); xv) DCIT v. Sanmukhdas Wadhwani: 85 ITD 734 (Nag); xvi) Indo Java & Co. v. IAC: 30 ITD 161 (Delhi SB); and xvii) ITO v. GE Hawn : 2l ITD 553 (All.) 148. Referring to the following decisions, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that additional ground on issue of subsidy was raised for the…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3114/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80ISection 92CSection 92E

…84 ITR 404 (All); ix) Nirmala L Mehta vs CIT: 269 ITR 1 (Bom); x) CIT vs Berger Paints: 254 ITR 503 (Cal); xi) R. B. Jessa Ram Fateh Chand vs CIT: 81 ITR 409 (All); xii) CIT vs Enron Expat Services Inc : 327 ITR 626 (Uttkhd); xiii) Smt. Snehlata Jain v. CIT: 192 CTR 50 (J&K); xiv) S.R. Koshti v. CIT: 276 ITR 165 (Guj.); xv) DCIT v. Sanmukhdas Wadhwani: 85 ITD 734 (Nag); xvi) Indo Java & Co. v. IAC: 30 ITD 161 (Delhi SB); and xvii) ITO v. GE Hawn : 2l ITD 553 (All.) 148. Referring to the following decisions, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that additional ground on issue of subsidy was raised for the…

Reliance Life Sciences P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 7(2), Mumbai

ITA 3883/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Ble&

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Manish Kumar Singh
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ded under the Act. If an assessee, under a mistake, misconception or on not being properly instructed, is over-assessed, the authorities under the Act are required to assist him and ensure that only legitimate taxes due are collected.” In the case of Snehlata 192 CTR 50, Hon’ble J&K High Court held that “when the substantive law confers a benefit on the assessee under a statute, it cannot be taken away by the adjudicatory authority on mere technicalities. It is settled proposition of law that no tax can 12 ITA.No. 3883/Mum/2016 (A.Y: 2010-11) M/s. Reliance Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., be levied or recovered without…

Reliance Life Scinces P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 7(2), Mumbai

ITA 2301/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Ble&

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Manish Kumar Singh
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ded under the Act. If an assessee, under a mistake, misconception or on not being properly instructed, is over-assessed, the authorities under the Act are required to assist him and ensure that only legitimate taxes due are collected.” In the case of Snehlata 192 CTR 50, Hon’ble J&K High Court held that “when the substantive law confers a benefit on the assessee under a statute, it cannot be taken away by the adjudicatory authority on mere technicalities. It is settled proposition of law that no tax can 12 ITA.No. 3883/Mum/2016 (A.Y: 2010-11) M/s. Reliance Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., be levied or recovered without…

DCIT 7(2), Mumbai vs. Reliance Life Science Life Science P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai

Accordingly, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2061/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ashwani Taneja.

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Sonde & MsFor Respondent: Shri Jeetendra Kumar, D.R
Section 14ASection 35Section 37(1)Section 40

…ed under the Act. If an assessee, under a mistake, misconception or on not being properly instructed, is over-assessed, the authorities under the Act are required to assist him and ensure that only legitimate taxes due are collected.” In the case of Snehlata 192 CTR 50, Hon’ble J&K High Court held that “when the substantive law confers a benefit on the assessee under a statute, it cannot be taken away by the adjudicatory authority on mere technicalities. It is settled proposition of law that no tax can be levied or recovered without authority of law. Article 265 of the Constitution of India and section 114 of th…

Reliance Life Sciences P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT 7(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1575/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ashwani Taneja.

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Sonde & MsFor Respondent: Shri Jeetendra Kumar, D.R
Section 14ASection 35Section 37(1)Section 40

…ed under the Act. If an assessee, under a mistake, misconception or on not being properly instructed, is over-assessed, the authorities under the Act are required to assist him and ensure that only legitimate taxes due are collected.” In the case of Snehlata 192 CTR 50, Hon’ble J&K High Court held that “when the substantive law confers a benefit on the assessee under a statute, it cannot be taken away by the adjudicatory authority on mere technicalities. It is settled proposition of law that no tax can be levied or recovered without authority of law. Article 265 of the Constitution of India and section 114 of th…

Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3688/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Oct 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri Inturi Rama Rao Assessment Year : 2005-06 Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Vs. Assistant Cit, Bses Bhawan, Nehru Place, Circle-3(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Deputy Cit, Vs. Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Circle 3(1), Bses Bhavan, Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2006-07 Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Vs. Assistant Cit, Bses Bhawan, Nehru Place, Circle-3(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Deputy Cit, Vs. Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Circle 3(1), Bses Bhavan, Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 154

…ance, in this regard, has been placed on the following decisions: − Pt. Sheo Nath Prasad Sharma vs. CIT: 66 ITR 647 (All.) − CIT vs. Bharat General Re-Insurance Co. Ltd.: 81 ITR 303(Del.) − Abdul Qayume V. CIT: 184 ITR 404 (All.) − Smt Snehlata Jain vs. CIT: 192 CTR 50 (J&K) − S.R. Koshti vs. CIT: 276 ITR 165 (Guj.) − Ester Industries Ltd. vs. CIT: 316 ITR 260 (Del.) − DCIT vs. Sanmukhdas Wadhwani: 85 ITD 734 (Nag) − Jyotsana Holding (P) Ltd. vs. ITO: 37 ITD 430 (Del.) − Indo Java & Co. vs. IAC: 30 ITD 161 (Delhi SB) 14.15 Further, it is also settled law that the purpose of the assessment is to compute income in…