CIT v. Gold Coin Health Food Pvt. Ltd.

304 ITR 308Supreme Court of India2008#387 most cited

What is CIT v. Gold Coin Health Food Pvt. Ltd. authority for?

A clarificatory or declaratory amendment to a statutory provision has retrospective effect from the date the original provision came into force, as its purpose is to clarify existing law rather than introduce new law.

229

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Gold Coin Health Food Pvt. Ltd. · 304 ITR 308 · Supreme Court · clarificatory amendment retrospective · declaratory statute · retrospective application · statutory interpretation · section 140A · section 115JB · effective date of amendment · tax law amendments

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 115JBSection 271(1)(c)Section 14ASection 10(23G)Section 115BBESection 142(1)Section 143(2)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 140a(1)section 215section 207section 2(43)section 262section 209section 2(1)section 208section 210section 115jaasection 140aclarificatory amendment

Judgments citing CIT v. Gold Coin Health Food Pvt. Ltd.

Sheth Creators Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2620/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sheth Creators Private Limited, Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), Upper Basement, Site Office, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Vasant Oasis, Cts No. 345A/1 To Vs. Nariman Point, 3, 345A 5, Makwana Road, Mumbai-400021. Andheri East, Mumbai-400059. Pan No. Aapcs 2976 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), M/S Sheth Creators Private Limited, Room No. 1918, 19Th Floor, 1203 & 1204 Hallmark Business Air India Building, Vs. Plaza, 12Th Floor, Sant Dyaneshwar Nariman Point, Marg, Kala-Nagar, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aapcs 2976 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sheth Creators Private Limited, Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), 101-A & 1202, 1St & 12Th Floor, 18Th Floor, Air India Building, Hallamark Business Plaza, Near Vs. Nariman Point, Gurunanak Hospital, Sant Mumbai-400021. Dyaneshwar Marg, Kalanagar

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sheth Creators Private Limited, Dy. CIT, Central Circle-4(2), Upper Basement, Site Office, 19th Floor, Air India Building, Vasant Oasis, CTS No. 345A/1 to Vs. Nariman Point, 3, 345A 5, Makwana Road, Mumbai-400021. Andheri East, Mumbai-400059. PAN No. AAPCS 2976 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dy. CIT, Central Circle-4(2), M/s Sheth Creators Private Limited, Room No. 1918, 19th Floor, 1203 & 1204 Hallmark Business Air…

M/S. Onmobile Global Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 5(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, both these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 2560/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 244ASection 32

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A Nos.139 & 2560/Bang/2019 Assessment years : 2014-15 & 2015-16 Onmobile Global Ltd., Vs. The Asstt./Deputy Tower # 1, 94/1C & 94/2, Commissioner of Income Tax, Veerasandra Village, Attibele Hobli, Circle 5(1)(2), Anekal Taluk, Electronics City, Bengaluru. Phase 1, Bengaluru – 560 100. PAN: AAACO 3900E ASSESSEE RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri T. Suryanarayana, Advocate Respondent by : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 27.07.20…

M/S Onmobile Global Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, both these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 139/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 244ASection 32

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A Nos.139 & 2560/Bang/2019 Assessment years : 2014-15 & 2015-16 Onmobile Global Ltd., Vs. The Asstt./Deputy Tower # 1, 94/1C & 94/2, Commissioner of Income Tax, Veerasandra Village, Attibele Hobli, Circle 5(1)(2), Anekal Taluk, Electronics City, Bengaluru. Phase 1, Bengaluru – 560 100. PAN: AAACO 3900E ASSESSEE RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri T. Suryanarayana, Advocate Respondent by : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 27.07.20…

The Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) Kolkata vs. M/S Itd-Itd Cem Jv (Consortium of Itd-Itd Cementation)

ITAT/195/2018HC Calcutta03 Aug 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 138Section 151Section 313

…C that he did not take any loan from the complainant. However, he failed to prove as to why he issued two cheques on the same date to the complainant. Referring to a decision in the case of Mainuddin Abdul Sattar Shaikh vs. Vijay D Salvi reported in (2015) 9 SCC 622 it is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that the respondent/accused received a sum of Rs.74200/- on behalf of M/s Salvi Infrastructure Private Limited a developer company. The respondent issued two receipts to the appellant as the project of the respondent did not materialize the appellant demanded return of money deposited by him…

ACIT CC 3(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Welspun Steel Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 2 raised by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2137/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Ms. Ira BahlFor Respondent: Shri Nikhil Chaudhary
Section 1Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "G" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI M. BALAGANESH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CC 3(3), Central Range-3(3), Mumbai, Room No. 1923, 19th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 [PAN: AAACW5308G] …………… Appellant Vs M/s Welspun Steel Ltd., 7th Floor, Welspun House, S.B. Marg, Kamala Mill Compound, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai - 400013 ……………… Respondent Appearances For the Appellant/Department : Shri Nikhil Chaudhary For the Respondent/Assessee : Ms. Ira Bahl Date of conclusion of hearing : 09.05.2022 Date of pronoun…

Datacorp Traffic Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 502/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jul 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Ms.Veena V.H., CAFor Respondent: Sri.Narayana K.R., , Addl.CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43B

…/s 43B of the I.T.Act, if the payments are made prior to the due date of filing of the return u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act. Further, by placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gold Coin Health Food Pvt. Ltd., reported in 304 ITR 308 (SC), the CIT(A) concluded that amendment to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the 3 ITA No.502/Bang/2022. M/s.Datacorp Traffic Private Limited. I.T.Act by Finance Act, 2021, is clarificatory and has got retrospective operation. 5. Aggrieved, assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. The learned AR relied on the ITAT’s Order in the case of…

Datacorp Traffic Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 501/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Ms.Veena V.H., CAFor Respondent: Sri.Narayana K.R., , Addl.CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43B

…/s 43B of the I.T.Act, if the payments are made prior to the due date of filing of the return u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act. Further, by placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gold Coin Health Food Pvt. Ltd., reported in 304 ITR 308 (SC), the CIT(A) concluded that amendment to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the 3 ITA No.501/Bang/2022. M/s.Datacorp Traffic Private Limited. I.T.Act by Finance Act, 2021, is clarificatory and has got retrospective operation. 5. Aggrieved, assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. The learned AR relied on the ITAT’s Order in the case of…

Kishor Madhav Paranjape, Pune vs. DCIT, Central Circle 2(2), Pune

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1887/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1887/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Kishor Madhav Paranjape, The Dcit, Central 1139/516, Venu Apts, Vs Circle-2(2), Pune. Off F C Road, Shivajinagar, Pune – 411016. Pan: Abipp 3973 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas P Bora – Ar Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe– Dr Date Of Hearing 28/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30/06/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-12, Pune For The Assessment Year 2015-16, Dated 23.09.2019. 2. The Facts Emanating From The Assessment Order & Penalty Order Are That The Assessee Is An Individual Deriving Income From Business. He Is A Partner In Various Firms, Earning Share Of Profit, Interest On Capital & Remuneration From Partnership Firms. It Is Pertinent To Note That All The Firms Wherein The Assessee Is A Partner, Are All Engaged In The Business Of Land Development & Building Construction. The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For Assessment

Section 2(14)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…that penalty cannot be cancelled on the mere ground that return of income and assessed income was a loss. In the said decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had relied upon the decision in the case of CIT v. Gold Coin Health Food (P.) Ltd. [2008] 172 Taxman 386/304 ITR 308 wherein it was held that Explanation 4(a) to Section 271(1)(c)(iii) is intended to levy penalty not only in a case where after addition of concealed income, a loss returned, after assessment becomes positive income, but also in a case where addition of concealed income reduces the returned loss and finally the assessed income is also a loss or a…

Ashish Vaid, Mumbai vs. ITO 3(1) (1), Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 1 of the appeal is allowed

ITA 2140/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am National Faceless Appeal Ashish Vaid Centre (Nfac), 115, Maker Chambers Iii, Delhi Nariman Point, Vs. Ito 3(1)(1)Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 021 M.G. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No.Aacpv7792A Assessee By : Shri Fenil Bhatt, Ar Revenue By : Shri Mehul Jain, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing: 02.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.06.2022

For Appellant: Shri Fenil Bhatt, ARFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain, Sr. AR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM National Faceless Appeal Ashish Vaid Centre (NFAC), 115, Maker Chambers III, Delhi Nariman Point, Vs. ITO 3(1)(1)Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 021 M.G. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) PAN No.AACPV7792A Assessee by : Shri Fenil Bhatt, AR Revenue by : Shri Mehul Jain, Sr. AR Date of hearing: 02.06.2022 Date of pronouncement : 27.06.2022 O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, JM: 01. This appeal is filed by Mr. Ashish Vaid (the assessee/ appellant) passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi {th…

G R Chandrashekar Naidu, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 249/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Ms.Sumangala Ranga, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…/s 43B of the I.T.Act, if the payments are made prior to the due date of filing of the return u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act. Further, by placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gold Coin Health Food Pvt. Ltd., reported in 304 ITR 308 (SC), the CIT(A) concluded that amendment to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the I.T.Act by Finance Act, 2021, is clarificatory and has got retrospective operation. 5. Aggrieved, assessee has filed these appeals before the Tribunal. The learned AR relied on the ITAT’s Order in the case of M/s. Shakuntala Agarbathi Company Vs. DICT in ITA No.385/Ban…

G R Chandrashekar Naidu, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 248/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Ms.Sumangala Ranga, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…/s 43B of the I.T.Act, if the payments are made prior to the due date of filing of the return u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act. Further, by placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gold Coin Health Food Pvt. Ltd., reported in 304 ITR 308 (SC), the CIT(A) concluded that amendment to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the I.T.Act by Finance Act, 2021, is clarificatory and has got retrospective operation. 5. Aggrieved, assessee has filed these appeals before the Tribunal. The learned AR relied on the ITAT’s Order in the case of M/s. Shakuntala Agarbathi Company Vs. DICT in ITA No.385/Ban…

Geetee Travels Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1778/MUM/2021[AY 2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm The Commissioner Of Income Geetee Travels Private Limited Tax (Appeals) Shop No.1, Satellite Bldg, Opp National Faceless Appeal Mistry, Complex Om Nagar, Vs. Centre, Andheri, Mumbai-400 099 Delhi (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaccg7462R Assessee By : Shri Sanjay Shah, Ar Revenue By : Smt. Sonia Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2022

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Shah, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Sonia Kumar, DR
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 438Section 43B

…t of 2021 and corresponding amendment to the provisions of Section 43B by inserting explanation 5 also explained the law as it is in existence since beginning. iv. Reliance was placed on the decision of CIT versus Gold coin health Food private limited (2008) 304 ITR 308 (SC) wherein it has been held that the proviso so inserted code good for the assessment years prior to 2021 – 22. 06. Therefore, assessee is aggrieved with the above order and is in appeal before us. The learned authorised representative submitted a paper book containing 103 pages and submitted that there are several judicial precedents of the va…

M/S. Wipro Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2556/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore23 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.2556/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri S. Ganesh, Sr. ARFor Respondent: Shri T. Roumuan Paite, D.R
Section 143(3)

…before us as the issue of the nature of such declaratory statutes stands considered by the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Vatika Township (P) Ltd. [2014] 367 ITR 466/227 Taxman 121/49 taxmann.com 249 and CIT v. Gold Coin Health Foods (P.) Ltd. [2008] 304 ITR 308/172 Taxman 386 (SC). (r) In the above facts and circumstances, question (iii)(a) is answered in the negative i.e. against the Revenue and in favour of the applicant assessee. Question (iii)(b) is answered in the negative i.e. against the Revenue and in favour of the applicant assessee.” Accordingly, we direct the AO to allow the foreign tax pai…

Mec Elec Industrial Services Private Limited, Thane vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 1858/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Ravi K. Mulchandani, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Bharti Singh, Sr. A.R. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

…xplanation and normal presumption is that these provisions have been in the Act from the very inception, once it is clarificatory for this, she relied on CIT v. Podar Cement (Pvt.) Ltd. [1997] 226 ITR 625 (SC) and CIT vs. Gold Coin Health Food (P.) Ltd [2008] 304 ITR 308 (SC). 18. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of Hyderabad Bench of ITAT in the case of Salzgitter Hydraulics (P.) Ltd. Vs. ITO (2021) 128 taxmann.com 192 (Hyderabad – Trib.) dated 15.06.2021, wherein it is held that the provident fund contribution received from employees deposited by assessee before the…

M/S. Kohinoor Printers Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ADIT CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 1782/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 1781 & 1782/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20) Kohinoor Printers Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Cpc Unit No.1, Ground Floor, Banglore Vs. Prakash Power Laundry Building, Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai-400028. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaace1634R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mahesh Rajora Revenue By: Ms. Bharti Singh (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05/04/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 26.08.2021 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Nfac”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2018-19 & 2019-20. Ita. No.1781/Mum/2021 2. The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 26.08.2021 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Nfac”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2018-19. 3. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh RajoraFor Respondent: Ms. Bharti Singh (Sr. AR)
Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…xplanation and normal presumption is that these provisions have been in the Act from the very inception, once it is clarificatory for this, she relied on CIT v. Podar Cement (Pvt.) Ltd. [1997] 226 ITR 625 (SC) and CIT vs. Gold Coin Health Food (P.) Ltd [2008] 304 ITR 308 (SC). 18. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of Hyderabad Bench of ITAT in the case of Salzgitter Hydraulics (P.) Ltd. Vs. ITO (2021) 128 taxmann.com 192 (Hyderabad – Trib.) dated A.Ys.2018-19 & 2019-20 15.06.2021, wherein it is held that the provident fund contribution received from employees deposited…

Kohinoor Printers Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 1781/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 1781 & 1782/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20) Kohinoor Printers Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Cpc Unit No.1, Ground Floor, Banglore Vs. Prakash Power Laundry Building, Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai-400028. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaace1634R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mahesh Rajora Revenue By: Ms. Bharti Singh (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05/04/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 26.08.2021 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Nfac”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2018-19 & 2019-20. Ita. No.1781/Mum/2021 2. The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 26.08.2021 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Nfac”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2018-19. 3. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh RajoraFor Respondent: Ms. Bharti Singh (Sr. AR)
Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…xplanation and normal presumption is that these provisions have been in the Act from the very inception, once it is clarificatory for this, she relied on CIT v. Podar Cement (Pvt.) Ltd. [1997] 226 ITR 625 (SC) and CIT vs. Gold Coin Health Food (P.) Ltd [2008] 304 ITR 308 (SC). 18. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of Hyderabad Bench of ITAT in the case of Salzgitter Hydraulics (P.) Ltd. Vs. ITO (2021) 128 taxmann.com 192 (Hyderabad – Trib.) dated A.Ys.2018-19 & 2019-20 15.06.2021, wherein it is held that the provident fund contribution received from employees deposited…

DCIT, C-4, Jaipur vs. M/S. Jlc Electromet Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 166/JPR/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Apr 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra GargieyaFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…O did not consider the reply of the assessee relying on the judgement of ITAT Panji Bench in the case of Sesa Resources Ltd (ITA No.267/PNJ/2015) dated 20-08-2015, judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Gold Coin Health Food Pvt. Ltd. (2008) 304 ITR 308. The assessee also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Moser Baer India Ltd.(2009) wherein the assessee contended that amendment made by Finance Act, 2012 is retrospective in nature and, therefore, the assessee should comply and has to deduct tax while making payment to foreign entities. He has also referred to…

M/S. United Airlines Inc., New Delhi vs. DDIT, New Delhi

ITA 958/DEL/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 1996-97 & Assessment Year: 1997-98 & Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-00 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 United Airlines, Vs. Dcit/Ddit Amba Deep Building, Non-Resident Circle, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aaacu4427C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)(i)Section 271(1)(c)

…lhi)/[2009] 226 CTR 105] 3. Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors [(2007) 295 ITR 244] 4. CIT Vs Moser BearJndia ltd. (184 Taxman 8(SC)/[2009] 315 ITR 460 (SC)/[2009] 222 CTR 213) 5. CIT Vs Gold Coin Health Food (P.) Ltd (172 Taxman 386 (SC)/[2008] 304 ITR 308 (SC)/[2008] 218 CTR 359) 6. MAK Data P. Ltd vs. CIT [38 taxmann.com448 (SC)/[2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC)/[2013] 263 CTR 1 ] 18 ITA Nos.216 & 217/Del/2000; 1691 to 1695/Del/2008; 954 to 958/Del/2014 7. B.A. Balasubramaniam & Bros. Co Vs CIT [116 Taxman 842, 236 ITR 977, 157 CTR 556] 8. CIT Vs R.M.P. Plasto (P.) Ltd [184 Taxman 372 (SC)/[2009] 313 ITR…

M/S. United Airlines Inc., New Delhi vs. DDIT, New Delhi

ITA 957/DEL/2014[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 1996-97 & Assessment Year: 1997-98 & Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-00 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 United Airlines, Vs. Dcit/Ddit Amba Deep Building, Non-Resident Circle, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aaacu4427C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)(i)Section 271(1)(c)

…lhi)/[2009] 226 CTR 105] 3. Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors [(2007) 295 ITR 244] 4. CIT Vs Moser BearJndia ltd. (184 Taxman 8(SC)/[2009] 315 ITR 460 (SC)/[2009] 222 CTR 213) 5. CIT Vs Gold Coin Health Food (P.) Ltd (172 Taxman 386 (SC)/[2008] 304 ITR 308 (SC)/[2008] 218 CTR 359) 6. MAK Data P. Ltd vs. CIT [38 taxmann.com448 (SC)/[2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC)/[2013] 263 CTR 1 ] 18 ITA Nos.216 & 217/Del/2000; 1691 to 1695/Del/2008; 954 to 958/Del/2014 7. B.A. Balasubramaniam & Bros. Co Vs CIT [116 Taxman 842, 236 ITR 977, 157 CTR 556] 8. CIT Vs R.M.P. Plasto (P.) Ltd [184 Taxman 372 (SC)/[2009] 313 ITR…

M/S. United Airlines Inc., New Delhi vs. DDIT, New Delhi

ITA 956/DEL/2014[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2022AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 1996-97 & Assessment Year: 1997-98 & Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-00 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 United Airlines, Vs. Dcit/Ddit Amba Deep Building, Non-Resident Circle, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aaacu4427C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)(i)Section 271(1)(c)

…lhi)/[2009] 226 CTR 105] 3. Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors [(2007) 295 ITR 244] 4. CIT Vs Moser BearJndia ltd. (184 Taxman 8(SC)/[2009] 315 ITR 460 (SC)/[2009] 222 CTR 213) 5. CIT Vs Gold Coin Health Food (P.) Ltd (172 Taxman 386 (SC)/[2008] 304 ITR 308 (SC)/[2008] 218 CTR 359) 6. MAK Data P. Ltd vs. CIT [38 taxmann.com448 (SC)/[2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC)/[2013] 263 CTR 1 ] 18 ITA Nos.216 & 217/Del/2000; 1691 to 1695/Del/2008; 954 to 958/Del/2014 7. B.A. Balasubramaniam & Bros. Co Vs CIT [116 Taxman 842, 236 ITR 977, 157 CTR 556] 8. CIT Vs R.M.P. Plasto (P.) Ltd [184 Taxman 372 (SC)/[2009] 313 ITR…