CIT v. K. Srinivasan

Hindustan Colas Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

…,323/- an admissible expenditure without appreciating the fact that education cess is part of tax under section 40A(2) of the Act and is not an allowable expenditure as per the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. K. Srinivasan (1972) 83 ITR 346 (SC); the second ground raised by the Revenue is that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the assessee is entitled to a refund of dividend distribution tax paid under section 115-O(1) of the Act as dividend distribution tax is not a tax on dividend income of the recipient (being a foreign entity) of dividend income to which the provisions of…

Hindustan Colas Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

…,323/- an admissible expenditure without appreciating the fact that education cess is part of tax under section 40A(2) of the Act and is not an allowable expenditure as per the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. K. Srinivasan (1972) 83 ITR 346 (SC); the second ground raised by the Revenue is that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the assessee is entitled to a refund of dividend distribution tax paid under section 115-O(1) of the Act as dividend distribution tax is not a tax on dividend income of the recipient (being a foreign entity) of dividend income to which the provisions of…

Hindustan Colas Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

…,323/- an admissible expenditure without appreciating the fact that education cess is part of tax under section 40A(2) of the Act and is not an allowable expenditure as per the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. K. Srinivasan (1972) 83 ITR 346 (SC); the second ground raised by the Revenue is that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the assessee is entitled to a refund of dividend distribution tax paid under section 115-O(1) of the Act as dividend distribution tax is not a tax on dividend income of the recipient (being a foreign entity) of dividend income to which the provisions of…

Hindustan Colas Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

…,323/- an admissible expenditure without appreciating the fact that education cess is part of tax under section 40A(2) of the Act and is not an allowable expenditure as per the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. K. Srinivasan (1972) 83 ITR 346 (SC); the second ground raised by the Revenue is that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the assessee is entitled to a refund of dividend distribution tax paid under section 115-O(1) of the Act as dividend distribution tax is not a tax on dividend income of the recipient (being a foreign entity) of dividend income to which the provisions of…

Hindustan Colas Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

…,323/- an admissible expenditure without appreciating the fact that education cess is part of tax under section 40A(2) of the Act and is not an allowable expenditure as per the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. K. Srinivasan (1972) 83 ITR 346 (SC); the second ground raised by the Revenue is that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the assessee is entitled to a refund of dividend distribution tax paid under section 115-O(1) of the Act as dividend distribution tax is not a tax on dividend income of the recipient (being a foreign entity) of dividend income to which the provisions of…

Hindustan Colas Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

…,323/- an admissible expenditure without appreciating the fact that education cess is part of tax under section 40A(2) of the Act and is not an allowable expenditure as per the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. K. Srinivasan (1972) 83 ITR 346 (SC); the second ground raised by the Revenue is that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the assessee is entitled to a refund of dividend distribution tax paid under section 115-O(1) of the Act as dividend distribution tax is not a tax on dividend income of the recipient (being a foreign entity) of dividend income to which the provisions of…

Dy.CIT Cent. Cir 6(4), Mumbai vs. Indiabulls Financial Services Ltd, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyaldy.Cit, Cc-6(4), Room No. 1925, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. ...... Appellant Vs. India Bulls Financial Services Ltd. M-62 & 63, 1St Floor, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Pan: Aaaci8570Q ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. K.C. Kanojiya, Cit-Dr Respondent By : Sh. K. Gopal, Adv. Sh. Om Kandalkar, Adv. Date Of Hearing : 13/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/10/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-54, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As [‘Cit(A)’] Dated 20.10.2021 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As [‘The Act’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

…round no. 1 to 3 of the appeal is dismissed. 5. Grounds no. 4 to 6 of the appeal is with respect to the allowability of deduction of education cess. We have gone through the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. K. Srinivasan (1972) 83 ITR 346 on which Revenue relied and wherein it has been held that Income Tax includes Additional Surcharge, and the Finance bill 2004 clarified that Additional Surcharge is Education Cess. Assessee relied on Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sesa Goa Ltd. Vs. JCIT 423 ITR 426 (Bom.) and PCIT vs. Chambal Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd. in DB…

DCIT -CC-5(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Usv Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly, respectfully following the above decisions of the Tribunal we refrain to interfere with the order passed by the CIT(A) on this issue. Ground No. 8 raised by the Revenue is, therefore, ...

…inate Bench of Hyderabad Tribunal relied upon by the Ld. AR (supra). We find that Hyderabad Tribunal after considering the decision of Delhi Tribunal (supra) and after considering the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. K. Srinivasan reported in 83 ITR 346 (SC) had held Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2015-16 that tax includes surcharge and cess and accordingly the entire component of taxes including surcharge and cess shall have to be reckoned for calculating the MAT credit u/s 115JAA of the Act. We also find that the Hon‘ble Apex Court had in the case referred to supra, had held that meaning of word ‗s…

DCIT Central Cir-6(4), Mumbai vs. Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned Assessing Officer is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Indiabulls Housing Finance Tax, Limited Central Circle–6(4) M–62 & 63, Room No.1925, 19Th Floor, 1St Floor, Connaught Place, Vs. Air India Building, New Delhi 110 001 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabci2612A Assessee By : Mr. Om Kandalkar, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Sanjay V. Deshmukh, Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.06.2022

…aw, the learned CIT(A) has erred in allowing the deduction of education cess of Rs.2,87,94,024/- from the total income of the assessee without appreciating the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs. K. Srinivasan reported in [1972] 83 ITR 346, wherein it has been held that income tax includes Additional Surcharge, and the Finance Bill 2004 clarified that Additional Surcharge is Education Cess, both of which were not considered in the case of Sesa Goa Ltd. vs. JCIT reported in 423 ITR 426 (Bom) and PCIT vs. Chambal Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd. in DB ITA No.52/2018." 6. On the facts a…

DCIT Cent, Cir-2(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Vinati Organics Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed and the assessee appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2013-14

…s and circumstances, we observed that the Hon’ble ITAT in the case of M/s. Kanoria Chemicals & Industries Ltd. Vs. ACIT dated 26.10.2021 has passed the order by relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. K. Srinivasan (1972) 83 ITR 346. The relevant finding in the case of M/s. Kanoria Chemicals & Industries Ltd is hereby as under: - “15. The assessee has taken the following additional ground of appeal:- Additional Ground. I. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessing Officer/ CIT(A) ought to have allowed deduction of Education Cess amounting to Rs.…