CIT v. K. Srinivasan

83 ITR 346Supreme Court of India1972#794 most cited

What is CIT v. K. Srinivasan authority for?

The term 'tax' includes surcharge and cess. Surcharge and additional surcharge are considered components of income tax, which can be levied as a basic charge, surcharge, special surcharge, and additional surcharge.

129

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,459 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

K. Srinivasan · 83 ITR 346 · surcharge · cess · additional surcharge · definition of tax · components of income tax · Section 40(a)(ii) · Section 115JAA · MAT credit · tax includes cess · tax includes surcharge

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. K. Srinivasan

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 1669/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 1667 To 1669/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years:2014-15 To 2016-17) Dy. Commissioner Of बिधम/ M/S. Vinati Organics Ltd. 11Th Income Tax Floor, 1102, Parinee Vs. Central Circle-2(2), Old Crescenzo, G Block, Plot Cgo Building, 8Th Floor, M. No.C38/39, Behind Mca, K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Bkc, Bandra East, Mumbai- 400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacv6538K (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 08/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -48, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2014-15 To 2016-17. Ita. No.1667/Mum/2021 2. The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 26.07.2021 Passed By The Cit(A)-48, Mumbai Relevant To The A.Y. 2014- 15. 3. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. Whether The Cit (A) Was Justified Against The Ao’S Action Not Considering The Claim Of Export Incentive Of Rs. ,66,70,644/- By

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. AR)
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)

…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. 3,1…

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 1668/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 1667 To 1669/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years:2014-15 To 2016-17) Dy. Commissioner Of बिधम/ M/S. Vinati Organics Ltd. 11Th Income Tax Floor, 1102, Parinee Vs. Central Circle-2(2), Old Crescenzo, G Block, Plot Cgo Building, 8Th Floor, M. No.C38/39, Behind Mca, K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Bkc, Bandra East, Mumbai- 400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacv6538K (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 08/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -48, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2014-15 To 2016-17. Ita. No.1667/Mum/2021 2. The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 26.07.2021 Passed By The Cit(A)-48, Mumbai Relevant To The A.Y. 2014- 15. 3. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. Whether The Cit (A) Was Justified Against The Ao’S Action Not Considering The Claim Of Export Incentive Of Rs. ,66,70,644/- By

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. AR)
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)

…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. 3,1…

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 1667/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 1667 To 1669/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years:2014-15 To 2016-17) Dy. Commissioner Of बिधम/ M/S. Vinati Organics Ltd. 11Th Income Tax Floor, 1102, Parinee Vs. Central Circle-2(2), Old Crescenzo, G Block, Plot Cgo Building, 8Th Floor, M. No.C38/39, Behind Mca, K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Bkc, Bandra East, Mumbai- 400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacv6538K (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 08/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -48, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2014-15 To 2016-17. Ita. No.1667/Mum/2021 2. The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 26.07.2021 Passed By The Cit(A)-48, Mumbai Relevant To The A.Y. 2014- 15. 3. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. Whether The Cit (A) Was Justified Against The Ao’S Action Not Considering The Claim Of Export Incentive Of Rs. ,66,70,644/- By

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. AR)
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)

…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. 3,1…

M/S. United Spirits Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 2701/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.2701/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/S.United Spirits Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of Ub Towers, Income-Tax, Circle 7(1)(1) V. No.24 Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 001. Pan : Aaccm8043J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Senior Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2022 Date Of Hearing : 24.03.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 12.10.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2013-2014. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Manufacture & Sale Of Alcoholic Beverage. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2013-2014 On 28.11.2013 Which Was Selected For Scrutiny Assessment. During The Course Of Assessment, The Assessee’S Case Was Also Referred To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo). The Tpo Vide Order Dated 26.10.2016, Recommended Transfer Pricing Adjustments. The A.O., Thereafter, Passed A Draft Assessment Order Dated 30.12.2016. 2 It(Tp)A No.2701/Bang/2017 M/S.United Spirits Limited.

For Appellant: Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 234CSection 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “C”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, JM & Ms.Padmavathy S, AM IT(TP)A No.2701/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/s.United Spirits Limited The Deputy Commissioner of UB Towers, Income-tax, Circle 7(1)(1) v. No.24 Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 001. PAN : AACCM8043J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Senior Advocate Respondent by : Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR Date of Pronouncement : 05.04.2022 Date of Hearing : 24.03.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, JM : This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed ag…

M/S.Toyota Industries Engine India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2127/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A Nos.355, 2127/Bang/2016 Assessment Years : 2011-12, 2012-13 It(Tp)A No. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year M/S. Toyota Industries Engine India Dcit, 355/Bang/2016 Private Limited, Circle – 4(1)(1), (Formerly Known As Kirloskar Toyota Bengaluru. Textile Machinery Private Limited), Plot No.9, Phase – 2, Jigani Industrial Area, Jigani, Bengaluru-560 105. Pan : Aaack 7425 Q -Do- Dcit, 2127/Bang/2016 Circle – 7(1)(1), Bengaluru.

For Appellant: Shri. Ajit Tolani/Darpan Kirpalani, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Roumuan Paite, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115JSection 143(3)

…ns of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court and of co-ordinate Benches of this Tribunal, we find that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court of the country in the case of “CIT Vs. K. Srinivasan” (1972) 83 ITR 346, wherein the following questions came for adjudication before the Hon’ble Apex Court:- “Whether the words “Income tax” in the Finance Act of 1964 in sub-s (2) and sub-s.(2)(b) of s. 2 would include surcharge and additional surcharge.” 20. The Hon’ble Supreme Court answered the question in favour of revenue observing as under:- “In our judgment it…

M/S.Goldman Sachs Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the assesse is partly allowed

ITA 474/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.474/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd., Acit, Vs. Crystal Downs, Embassy Golf Links Business Circle – 3(1)(2), Park, Off Intermediate Ring Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru-560 071. Pan : Aaccg 2435 N Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Madhur Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 07.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Madhur Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ns of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court and of co-ordinate Benches of this Tribunal, we find that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court of the country in the case of “CIT Vs. K. Srinivasan” (1972) 83 ITR 346, wherein the following questions came for adjudication before the Hon’ble Apex Court:- “Whether the words “Income tax” in the Finance Act of 1964 in sub-s (2) and sub-s.(2)(b) of s. 2 would include surcharge and additional surcharge.” 20. The Hon’ble Supreme Court answered the question in favour of revenue observing as under:- “In our judgment it…

Tinplate Company of India, Kolkata vs. DCIT(CPC), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical

ITA 437/KOL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Ble) Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. The Tinplate Company Of India Limited.......................................………………….............Appellant 4, Bankshall Street Dalhousie Kolkata -700 001 [Pan : Aabct 0129 P] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Cpc) Bangalore…….......................………..…......Respondent Appearances By: Shri Ketav Ved, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Biswanath Das, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 2Nd, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 11Th, 2022 Order Per Girish Agrawal:- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 6, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dt. 18/03/2020. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Allowing / Adjudicating The Issue Relating To Short Grant Of Credit For Dividend Distribution Tax Paid (Ddt) Of Inr 84,63,518/-. 2. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Allowing / Adjudicating The Issue Relating To Erroneous Levy Of Interest Under Section 115P Of The Act. 3. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Allowing / Adjudicating The Issue / Additional Ground Relating To Claim For Deduction Of Education Cess Debited In The Books Of Accounts Of The Appellant. 4. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add To Or Alter, By Deletion, Substitution Or Otherwise, Any Or All Of The Above Grounds Of Objections, At Any Time Before Or During The Hearing Of The Appeal. 5. The Appellant Submits That The Above Grounds Are Independent & Without Prejudice To One Another.

Section 10(4)Section 115PSection 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA {VIRTUAL COURT HEARING} (Before Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’ble Judicial Member & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’ble Accountant Member) Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/s. The Tinplate Company of India Limited.......................................………………….............Appellant 4, Bankshall Street Dalhousie Kolkata -700 001 [PAN : AABCT 0129 P] Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (CPC) Bangalore…….......................………..…......Respondent Appearances by: Shri Ketav Ved, FCA, appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri Biswanath Das, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R, appeari…