What is CIT v. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd. authority for?

An assessee may manage tax affairs to attract lower tax as permitted by law, and a genuine sale and leaseback transaction that provides substantial benefit is not a colourable device for tax avoidance.

How many judgments cite CIT v. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd.?

111 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd. (284 ITR 619), spanning 2008 to 2025.

CIT v. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd. (284 ITR 619)

The Etikoppaka Coop Agricultural Industrial Society Limited, Visakhapatnam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 260/VIZ/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru R L Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Balakrishnan, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Pandi, Sr.DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)

…he Supreme Court by a speaking order, the submission of the learned counsel for the Revenue has to be rejected at the very threshold. The reason for the same is as follows:- 9. The Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT v. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd: (2006) 284 ITR 619 (Gauhati) dealt with the very same issue. In the said judgment the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court noted a contrary view taken by the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. South India Corporation Ltd: (2000) 242 ITR 114. After noting the said judgment the fact that the amendments had been made to the provisions of Section 43B of the Ac…

M/S Udvasit Berojgar Sahakari Shram Samvida Samiti Ltd., Sonbhadra vs. CIT (Exemption), Allahabad

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

ITA 27/ALLD/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad02 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 2Section 36(1)Section 43B

…he Supreme Court by a speaking order, the submission of the learned counsel for the revenue has to be rejected at the very threshold. The reason for the same is as follows:— 9. The Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT v. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd. [2006] 284 ITR 619 dealt with the very same issue. In the said judgment the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court noted a contrary view taken by the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. South India Corporation Ltd. [2000] 242 ITR 114. After noting the said judgment the fact that the amendments had been made to the provisions of section 43B of the Act by virtu…

Pragati Fashions P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dycti (CPC), Bangalore

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 569/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalepragati Fashions P Ltd., Vs. Dycti (Cpc) F.P.No. 455, Shree 1 St Floor, Prestige Sadguru Heights, Alpha, Bhavani Shankar Road, Beratenagrahara, Dadar (W) Hosur Road, Uttahalli Mumbai-400028. Hobli,Bangalore- 560100 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp1730H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Girish Dave.Sr.Counsel Respondent By : Shri. S.G. Menon.Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21.02.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

For Appellant: Shri. Girish Dave.Sr.CounselFor Respondent: Shri. S.G. Menon.Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…e Supreme Court by a speaking order, the submission of the learned counsel for the Revenue has to be rejected at the very threshold. The reason for the same is as follows:- 9. The Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT v. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd: (2006) 284 ITR 619 (Gauhati) dealt with the very same issue. In the said judgment the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court noted a contrary view taken by the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. South India Corporation Ltd: (2000) 242 ITR 114. After noting the said judgment the fact that the amendments had been made to the provisions of Section 43B of the Ac…

Franch Express Courier Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. The CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 523/CHNY/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.523/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S. Franch Express Courier Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant Director Of No. 199, Hariyan Street, C-Pallavaram, Vs. Income Tax, Cpc, Chennai 600 043. Bengaluru 560 500. [Pan:Aadcf3624P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Vandana Vyas, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 31.01.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.02.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi Dated 28.09.2021 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2019-20 On 30.10.2019 Declaring A Total Income Of ₹.39,17,200/-. The Cpc, Bengaluru Has Completed The 2

For Appellant: Ms. Vandana Vyas, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 44A

…he Supreme Court by a speaking order, the submission of the learned counsel for the Revenue has to be rejected at the very threshold. The reason for the same is as follows:- 9. The Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT v. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd: (2006) 284 ITR 619 (Gauhati) dealt with the very same issue. In the said judgment the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court noted a contrary view taken by the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. South India Corporation Ltd: (2000) 242 ITR 114. After noting the said judgment the fact that the amendments had been made to the provisions of Section 43B of the Ac…

Transsys Solutions Pvt Ltd, Kodambakkam vs. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 489/CHNY/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.489/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S. Transsys Solutions Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant Director Of Plot. Super A 16-17, Rr Towers, Tvk Vs. Income Tax, Industrial Estate, Guindy, Cpc, Bengaluru 560 500. Chennai 600 032. [Pan:Aadct4603N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Pawan Bohra, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.01.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi Dated 21.09.2021 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2019-20 On 25.10.2019. The Cpc, Bengaluru Has Completed The Assessment Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Bohra, C.AFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 44A

…he Supreme Court by a speaking order, the submission of the learned counsel for the Revenue has to be rejected at the very threshold. The reason for the same is as follows:- 9. The Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT v. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd: (2006) 284 ITR 619 (Gauhati) dealt with the very same issue. In the said judgment the Division 6 I.T.A. No. 489/Chny/21 Bench of the Gauhati High Court noted a contrary view taken by the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. South India Corporation Ltd: (2000) 242 ITR 114. After noting the said judgment the fact that the amendments had been made to the provisio…

Commercial Auto Sales Pvt. Ltd., Allahabad vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is in ITA No

ITA 15/ALLD/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad20 Jan 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Sh.S K Jaiswal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

….com 396/224 Taxman 12(Cal.) (Mag.) 12. CIT v. Industrial Security & Intelligence India Pvt. Ltd. [Tax Case (Appeal) Nos.585 and 586 of 2015 & M.P.No.l of 2015, dated 24-7-2015 13. Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT v. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd. [2006] 284 ITR 619 (Gauhati) h) The ld. Sr. DR then submitted in his written submissions that considering the above background , the law has now been amended by Finance Act, 2021, wherein amendments were made to provisions of Section 36(1)(va) and 43B, wherein Explanations have been added to clarify that provision of Section 43B has no applicability and deemed nev…

Saraswati Agro Chemicals (India) Pvt.Ltd, Mohali vs. DCIT, CPC/ DCIT Circle -6(1), Chandigarh

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 158/CHANDI/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Jan 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: The Filing Of Return Of Income.” 3. The Ld. Ar Inviting Attention To The Impugned Order

For Appellant: Shri Akshun Gupta,CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)Section 250(6)Section 43B

…Rajasthan); Lakhani Rubber Udyog (2009) 312 ITR 0014 (154 order) ( Punjab & Haryana), Bihar State Warehousing Corporation ltd. (2017) 393 ITR 386 (Patna); Sagun Foundry Private Limited (2017) 145 DTR 265 (All) and George Williamson (Assam) Limited (2006) 284 ITR 619 (Gauhati). Howeve r, the disallowance made was sustained by Addl. Commissioner on account of the fact that the Amendments carrie d out by Finance Act 2021 in Sections 36(1)(va) and Sec. 43B were considered to be clarificatory, hence retrospective in nature. This issue has been considered consistently by Co-ordinate Benches of the ITAT. The view…

Adyar Ananda Bhavan Sweets India P Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 403/CHNY/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 402 & 403/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 M/S. Adyar Ananda Bhavan Vs The Acit, Sweets India P Ltd., Central Cirlce - 3(4), No.9, Shastri Nagar, Chennai – 34. M.G. Road, Besant Nagar, Chennai – 600 020. Pan: Aaica 3787F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओ रसे/Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate & Shri Arjunraj, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Durgesh Sumrott, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 30.11.2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.12.2021

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Durgesh Sumrott, CIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…e Supreme Court by a speaking order, the submission of the learned counsel for the Revenue has to be rejected at the very threshold. The reason for the same is as follows:- 9. The Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT v. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd: (2006) 284 ITR 619 (Gauhati) dealt with the very same issue. In the said judgment the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court noted a contrary view taken by the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. South India Corporation Ltd: (2000) 242 ITR 114. After noting the said judgment the fact that the amendments had been made to the Act, 2003 w.e.f 1.4.2004 it agreed…

Adyar Ananda Bhavan Sweets India P Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 402/CHNY/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 402 & 403/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 M/S. Adyar Ananda Bhavan Vs The Acit, Sweets India P Ltd., Central Cirlce - 3(4), No.9, Shastri Nagar, Chennai – 34. M.G. Road, Besant Nagar, Chennai – 600 020. Pan: Aaica 3787F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओ रसे/Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate & Shri Arjunraj, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Durgesh Sumrott, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 30.11.2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.12.2021

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Durgesh Sumrott, CIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…e Supreme Court by a speaking order, the submission of the learned counsel for the Revenue has to be rejected at the very threshold. The reason for the same is as follows:- 9. The Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT v. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd: (2006) 284 ITR 619 (Gauhati) dealt with the very same issue. In the said judgment the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court noted a contrary view taken by the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. South India Corporation Ltd: (2000) 242 ITR 114. After noting the said judgment the fact that the amendments had been made to the Act, 2003 w.e.f 1.4.2004 it agreed…

Flying Fabrication, Gurgaon vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengalurur

In the result, the disallowance confirmed by the Appeal Centre is deleted

ITA 1407/DEL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Ms. Swati Talwar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mrinal Kumar Das, Sr.D.R

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 244ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(v)

…e Supreme Court by a speaking order, the submission of the learned counsel for the Revenue has to be rejected at the very threshold. The reason for the same is as follows:- 9. The Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT v. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd: (2006) 284 ITR 619 (Gauhati) dealt with the very same issue. In the said judgment the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court noted a contrary view taken by the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. South India Corporation Ltd: (2000) 242 ITR 114. After noting the said judgment the fact that the amendments had been made to the provisions of Section 43B of the Ac…

Flying Fabrication, New Delhi vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the disallowance confirmed by the Appeal Centre is deleted

ITA 1049/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Ms. Swati Talwar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mrinal Kumar Das, Sr.D.R

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 244ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(v)

…e Supreme Court by a speaking order, the submission of the learned counsel for the Revenue has to be rejected at the very threshold. The reason for the same is as follows:- 9. The Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT v. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd: (2006) 284 ITR 619 (Gauhati) dealt with the very same issue. In the said judgment the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court noted a contrary view taken by the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. South India Corporation Ltd: (2000) 242 ITR 114. After noting the said judgment the fact that the amendments had been made to the provisions of Section 43B of the Ac…

Indian Geotechnical Services, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 61(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 622/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Brij Kishor Anand, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Anima Barnwal, Sr.D.R

…he Supreme Court by a speaking order, the submission of the learned counsel for the Revenue has to be rejected at the very threshold. The reason for the same is as follows:- 9. The Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT v. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd: (2006) 284 ITR 619 (Gauhati) dealt with the very same issue. In the said judgment the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court noted a contrary view taken by the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. South India Corporation Ltd: (2000) 242 ITR 114. After noting the said judgment the fact that the amendments had been made to the provisions of Section 43B of the Ac…

DCIT, Circle-II, Allahabad vs. Bharat Pumps & Compressors Ltd, Allahabad

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue for ay: 2007-08 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 148/ALLD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad12 Aug 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Ms. Tanu Singhal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Shantanu Dhamija, CIT (DR)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(va)

…he Supreme Court by a speaking order, the submission of the learned counsel for the revenue has to be rejected at the very threshold. The reason for the same is as follows:— 9. The Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT v. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd. [2006] 284 ITR 619 dealt with the very same issue. In the said judgment the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court noted a contrary view taken by the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. South India Corporation Ltd. [2000] 242 ITR 114. After noting the said judgment the fact that the amendments had been made to the provisions of section 43B of the Act by virtu…

DCIT, Circle-II, Allahabad vs. Bharat Pumps & Compressors Ltd, Allahabad

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue for ay: 2007-08 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 147/ALLD/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad12 Aug 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Ms. Tanu Singhal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Shantanu Dhamija, CIT (DR)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(va)

…he Supreme Court by a speaking order, the submission of the learned counsel for the revenue has to be rejected at the very threshold. The reason for the same is as follows:— 9. The Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT v. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd. [2006] 284 ITR 619 dealt with the very same issue. In the said judgment the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court noted a contrary view taken by the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. South India Corporation Ltd. [2000] 242 ITR 114. After noting the said judgment the fact that the amendments had been made to the provisions of section 43B of the Act by virtu…

Brace Iron & Steel P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Special Range-2, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Assessee is allowed

ITA 8617/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2021AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Lakshya Budhira, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “A” : DELHI [THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING] BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.No.8617/Del./2019 Assessment Year 2015-2016 M/s. Brace Iron & Steel The Addl. Commissioner Pvt. Ltd., D2, 5th Floor, of Income Tax, Southern Park, Saket vs. Special Range-2, Place, New Delhi. C.R. Building, PIN – 110017 PAN AAECB9347C New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate Ms. Bhoomija Verma, Advocate For Assessee : Shri Lakshya Budhira, C.A. Ms. Ananya Rath, Advocate For Revenue : Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR…

Srinivasa Fashins Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. ITO Corporate Ward-6(4), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1396/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Duvvuru R.L.Reddy)नधा+रण वष+ /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Heard Through Video Conferencing V. M/S.Srinivasa Fashions Pvt. Ltd., The Income Tax Officer, No.57G, Sidco Industrial Estate, Corporate Ward-6(4), Ambattur, Chennai. Chennai-600 098. [Pan: Aaics 9511 R] (अपीलाथ./Appellant) (/0यथ./Respondent) : अपीलाथ. क1 ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.N.Vijay Kumar, Ca : Mr.Ar.V.Sreenivasan, Jcit /0यथ. क1 ओर से /Respondent By : 28.09.2020 सुनवाई क1 तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 28.09.2020 घोषणा क1 तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar:

For Respondent: 28.09.2020

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 68

…e Supreme Court by a speaking order, the submission of the learned counsel for the revenue has to be rejected at the very threshold. The reason for the same is as follows:— 9. The Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT v. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd. [2006] 284 ITR 619 dealt with the very same issue. In the said judgment the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court noted a contrary view taken by the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. South India Corporation Ltd. [2000] 242 ITR 114. After noting the said judgment the fact that the amendments had been made to the provisions of section 43B of the Act by virtu…

DCIT Corporate Circle 5(1), Chennai vs. Repco Home Finance P Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA no

ITA 2885/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jun 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: JCITFor Respondent: Shri M. Viswanathan, C.A

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 36(1)(viii)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘ A’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी जॉज" माथन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी र"मत कोचर, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HEARD THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.2885/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner M/s. Repco Home Finance v. Pvt. Ltd., of Income Tax, 33, North Usman Road, Corporate Circle-5(1), T.Nagar, Chennai-600034 Chennai – 600 017. [PAN: AAACR 0209 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Shri ARV Sreenivasan, अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/…

DCIT, Circle - 13(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Shradha Agencies Private Limited, Howrah

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1362/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1362/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri Dhrubajyoti Roy, JCITFor Respondent: Ankita Manek, ACA

Section 144Section 14ASection 194C(7)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 36(2)Section 40

…ons of Section 43(B) of the Act. We, therefore, find that no substantial question of law is involved in his appeal and consequently, we dismiss this appeal”. Further, in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs George Williamson(Assam) Ltd [2006] reported in 284 ITR 619, the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court interpreted(iv) clause (b) of section 43B of the Act, read with the second proviso to the said section and clause (va) of sub-section (1) of section 36 of the said Act to hold that deposit of contributions made towards provident fund, etc., after the close of the accounting period but before the due date for fillin…

I.T.O. Ward -3(4), Nagpur vs. M/S Deepak Construction, Nagpur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 187/NAG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.187/Nag/2015 ननिाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4), Nagpur. .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Deepak Construction New Bhanegaon, Khaparkheda, Saoner, Nagpur- 441102. Pan: Aadfd4092L ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri U.U. Kesar

Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43B

…ct,2003 by omitting second proviso and interpretation of said amendment in the following judicial pronouncement:- CIT Vs. ALOM EXTRUSIONS LTD. (2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC).CIT Vs. VINAY CEMENT LTD.(2007) 213 CTR 268 (SC),CIT Vs. GEORGE WILLAMSON (ASSAM) LTD.(2006) 284 ITR 619 (GAU.) & CIT Vs. AIMIL LTD. & ORS. (2010) 321 ITR 508 (DEL.) ; (Copies of decisions are enclosed) It is therefore, your honour is kindly requested to delete the disallowance of EPF of Rs.1,24,444/- and oblige.” 7. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) after considering the submissions of the assessee, assessment order and facts of the case has held as follows:…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-3, Guwahati vs. M/S. Assam Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., Guwahati

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 86/GTY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati02 Aug 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2014-15

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ance is that the CIT(A) has erred in law deleting disallowance / addition of ₹49,62,367/- on account of belated payment of employees’ provident fund. It has come on record that the hon'ble high court’s decision in CIT vs. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd. (2006) 284 ITR 619 (Gau) has settled the law that such a payment is allowable as business expenditure if it is credited / paid before the due date of filing of return u/s. 139(1) of the Act. The Revenue is fair enough in not disputing this clinching factual position. We decline this first substantive ground accordingly. 3. Next comes sec. 14A r.w.s. Rule 8D disallo…

CIT v. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd.

What is CIT v. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd. authority for?

Also referred to as

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd.

The Etikoppaka Coop Agricultural Industrial Society Limited, Visakhapatnam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Visakhapatnam

M/S Udvasit Berojgar Sahakari Shram Samvida Samiti Ltd., Sonbhadra vs. CIT (Exemption), Allahabad

Pragati Fashions P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dycti (CPC), Bangalore

Franch Express Courier Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. The CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi

Transsys Solutions Pvt Ltd, Kodambakkam vs. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi

Commercial Auto Sales Pvt. Ltd., Allahabad vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru

Saraswati Agro Chemicals (India) Pvt.Ltd, Mohali vs. DCIT, CPC/ DCIT Circle -6(1), Chandigarh

Adyar Ananda Bhavan Sweets India P Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

Adyar Ananda Bhavan Sweets India P Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

Flying Fabrication, Gurgaon vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengalurur

Flying Fabrication, New Delhi vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

Indian Geotechnical Services, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 61(1), New Delhi

DCIT, Circle-II, Allahabad vs. Bharat Pumps & Compressors Ltd, Allahabad

DCIT, Circle-II, Allahabad vs. Bharat Pumps & Compressors Ltd, Allahabad

Brace Iron & Steel P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Special Range-2, New Delhi

Srinivasa Fashins Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. ITO Corporate Ward-6(4), Chennai

DCIT Corporate Circle 5(1), Chennai vs. Repco Home Finance P Ltd., Chennai

DCIT, Circle - 13(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Shradha Agencies Private Limited, Howrah

I.T.O. Ward -3(4), Nagpur vs. M/S Deepak Construction, Nagpur

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-3, Guwahati vs. M/S. Assam Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., Guwahati