CIT v. Naresh Kumar

362 ITR 256High Court2014#4386 most cited

What is CIT v. Naresh Kumar authority for?

Amendments to Section 40(a)(ia) by the Finance Act, 2010 are considered clarificatory and thus retrospective in nature. Disallowance under this section cannot be sustained if TDS was deposited before the due date of filing the return.

27

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2014 to 2023.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Naresh Kumar · Section 40(a)(ia) · TDS · disallowance · retrospective amendment · Finance Act 2010 · clarificatory amendment · tax deducted at source

Also reported as

39 Taxmann.com 182221 Taxmann 59

Judgments citing CIT v. Naresh Kumar

The Commissioner of Income Tax - International Taxation -1 vs. Augustus Capital Pte. Ltd

The appeal is disposed of, in the aforesaid terms

ITA/405/2022HC Delhi30 Nov 2023

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 9(1)(i)

…16 SCC 686; Commissioner of Income Tax I, Ahmedabad vs. Gold Coin Health Food Private Ltd., (2008) 9 SCC 622; Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit & Ors. vs. Dr. Manu & Anr., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 640; Commissioner of Income Tax v. Naresh Kumar, (2014) 362 ITR 256 (Delhi); Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons Private Limited vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd., (2021) 9 SCC 657] (vii) There is no impediment in law in Courts relying upon speeches made by the concerned Minister while introducing legislation [See Ghanshyam Mishra & Sons Private Limited vs Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd., (2021) 9 SC…

The Commissioner of Income Tax - International Taxation -1 vs. Augustus Capital Pte. Ltd

The appeal is disposed of, in the aforesaid terms

ITA-405/2022HC Delhi30 Nov 2023
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 9(1)(i)

…16 SCC 686; Commissioner of Income Tax I, Ahmedabad vs. Gold Coin Health Food Private Ltd., (2008) 9 SCC 622; Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit & Ors. vs. Dr. Manu & Anr., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 640; Commissioner of Income Tax v. Naresh Kumar, (2014) 362 ITR 256 (Delhi); Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons Private Limited vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd., (2021) 9 SCC 657] (vii) There is no impediment in law in Courts relying upon speeches made by the concerned Minister while introducing legislation [See Ghanshyam Mishra & Sons Private Limited vs Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd., (2021) 9 SC…

Hi-Lite Builders Private Limited, Kozhikode vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Kozhikode

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 620/COCH/2022[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Jan 2023AY 2009-2010

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Mr. Shameem Ahamed, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40

…nvoked and the disallowance made is unjustified. 5. The appellant has relied on the reasoning and conclusion of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Rajendra Kumar [(2014) 362 ITR 241 (Delhi)] (Judgment dated July 1st 2013) and CIT vs. Naresh Kumar [(2014) 362 ITR 256 (Delhi)] (Judgment dated September 6, 2013) in particular the observations of the Hon'ble High Court in the concluding paras 25 86 26 of the judgment in Rajedra Kumar's case. Without prejudice to the above contention that section 40(a)(ia) has no application on the facts of the appellant case, the appellant is advised to submit that provisions of…

Manimegalai Ganesan, Chennai vs. DCIT Non Corp Range 10, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in I

ITA 1331/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1328, 1329, 1330 & 1331/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Smt. Manimegalai Ganesan, The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 1, Millers Road, Kilpauk, Vs. Income Tax, Chennai 600 010. Non Corporate Range 10, [Pan: Aaepm4356K] Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri C. Subramanian, C.A. : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Ms. R. Anita, Jcit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 15.07.2021 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 12, Chennai, All Dated 21.03.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised Following Common Grounds For Adjudication: 1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12 In Confirming The Additions Is Against The Weight Of Evidence & Probabilities Of The Case. 2. Ground 1-Disallowance Of Commission Paid To Dr.S.P.Ganesan

Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40aSection 69C

…ion, then that construction should be preferred". 1.9. The appellant also relies on the ratio of the below Judgments: • Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Rajinder Kumar (362 ITR 241). • Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Naresh Kumar (362 ITR 256). • Delhi High Court in the Case of Ansal Landmark Township Pvt Ltd. (377 ITR 365) 1.10. It would therefore be observed that the disallowance is not justified on all counts. 3. Ground 2 - Disallowance of loss on sale of share: The appellant submits that the Assessing Officer erred in disallowing Rs. 18,22,127/- reflected in the return of income a…

Manimegalai Ganesan, Chennai vs. DCIT Non Corp Range 10, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in I

ITA 1330/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1328, 1329, 1330 & 1331/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Smt. Manimegalai Ganesan, The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 1, Millers Road, Kilpauk, Vs. Income Tax, Chennai 600 010. Non Corporate Range 10, [Pan: Aaepm4356K] Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri C. Subramanian, C.A. : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Ms. R. Anita, Jcit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 15.07.2021 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 12, Chennai, All Dated 21.03.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised Following Common Grounds For Adjudication: 1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12 In Confirming The Additions Is Against The Weight Of Evidence & Probabilities Of The Case. 2. Ground 1-Disallowance Of Commission Paid To Dr.S.P.Ganesan

Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40aSection 69C

…ion, then that construction should be preferred". 1.9. The appellant also relies on the ratio of the below Judgments: • Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Rajinder Kumar (362 ITR 241). • Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Naresh Kumar (362 ITR 256). • Delhi High Court in the Case of Ansal Landmark Township Pvt Ltd. (377 ITR 365) 1.10. It would therefore be observed that the disallowance is not justified on all counts. 3. Ground 2 - Disallowance of loss on sale of share: The appellant submits that the Assessing Officer erred in disallowing Rs. 18,22,127/- reflected in the return of income a…

Manimegalai Ganesan, Chennai vs. DCIT Non Corp Range 10, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in I

ITA 1329/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1328, 1329, 1330 & 1331/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Smt. Manimegalai Ganesan, The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 1, Millers Road, Kilpauk, Vs. Income Tax, Chennai 600 010. Non Corporate Range 10, [Pan: Aaepm4356K] Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri C. Subramanian, C.A. : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Ms. R. Anita, Jcit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 15.07.2021 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 12, Chennai, All Dated 21.03.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised Following Common Grounds For Adjudication: 1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12 In Confirming The Additions Is Against The Weight Of Evidence & Probabilities Of The Case. 2. Ground 1-Disallowance Of Commission Paid To Dr.S.P.Ganesan

Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40aSection 69C

…ion, then that construction should be preferred". 1.9. The appellant also relies on the ratio of the below Judgments: • Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Rajinder Kumar (362 ITR 241). • Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Naresh Kumar (362 ITR 256). • Delhi High Court in the Case of Ansal Landmark Township Pvt Ltd. (377 ITR 365) 1.10. It would therefore be observed that the disallowance is not justified on all counts. 3. Ground 2 - Disallowance of loss on sale of share: The appellant submits that the Assessing Officer erred in disallowing Rs. 18,22,127/- reflected in the return of income a…

Manimegalai Ganesan, Chennai vs. DCIT Non Corp Range 10, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in I

ITA 1328/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1328, 1329, 1330 & 1331/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Smt. Manimegalai Ganesan, The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 1, Millers Road, Kilpauk, Vs. Income Tax, Chennai 600 010. Non Corporate Range 10, [Pan: Aaepm4356K] Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri C. Subramanian, C.A. : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Ms. R. Anita, Jcit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 15.07.2021 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 12, Chennai, All Dated 21.03.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised Following Common Grounds For Adjudication: 1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12 In Confirming The Additions Is Against The Weight Of Evidence & Probabilities Of The Case. 2. Ground 1-Disallowance Of Commission Paid To Dr.S.P.Ganesan

Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40aSection 69C

…ion, then that construction should be preferred". 1.9. The appellant also relies on the ratio of the below Judgments: • Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Rajinder Kumar (362 ITR 241). • Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Naresh Kumar (362 ITR 256). • Delhi High Court in the Case of Ansal Landmark Township Pvt Ltd. (377 ITR 365) 1.10. It would therefore be observed that the disallowance is not justified on all counts. 3. Ground 2 - Disallowance of loss on sale of share: The appellant submits that the Assessing Officer erred in disallowing Rs. 18,22,127/- reflected in the return of income a…

Yamuna Khadar Shiksha Samiti, Delhi vs. ITO, TDS, Muzaffarnagar

In the result, all the Eleven appeals filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 6259/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Before Shri A.N. Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Acharya, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 234E

…ctive. He further stated that if there is an obligation by way of new statute, then such amendment is prospective. It was further pointed out by him that before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT v. Naresh Kumar [2013] 39 taxmann.com 182/[2014] 221 Taxman 59/362 ITR 256 the amendment by way of Finance Act, 2010 in section 40(a)(ia) of the Act was the issue, which was held to be charificatory and hence retrospective in nature. He further placed reliance on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Govinddas v. ITO [1976] 103 ITR 123. 14. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee in rejoind…

Yamuna Khadar Shiksha Samiti, Delhi vs. ITO, TDS, Muzaffarnagar

In the result, all the Eleven appeals filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 6258/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Before Shri A.N. Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Acharya, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 234E

…ctive. He further stated that if there is an obligation by way of new statute, then such amendment is prospective. It was further pointed out by him that before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT v. Naresh Kumar [2013] 39 taxmann.com 182/[2014] 221 Taxman 59/362 ITR 256 the amendment by way of Finance Act, 2010 in section 40(a)(ia) of the Act was the issue, which was held to be charificatory and hence retrospective in nature. He further placed reliance on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Govinddas v. ITO [1976] 103 ITR 123. 14. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee in rejoind…

Yamuna Khadar Shiksha Samiti, Delhi vs. ITO, TDS, Muzaffarnagar

In the result, all the Eleven appeals filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 6257/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Before Shri A.N. Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Acharya, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 234E

…ctive. He further stated that if there is an obligation by way of new statute, then such amendment is prospective. It was further pointed out by him that before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT v. Naresh Kumar [2013] 39 taxmann.com 182/[2014] 221 Taxman 59/362 ITR 256 the amendment by way of Finance Act, 2010 in section 40(a)(ia) of the Act was the issue, which was held to be charificatory and hence retrospective in nature. He further placed reliance on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Govinddas v. ITO [1976] 103 ITR 123. 14. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee in rejoind…

Rh International Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 20(3), New Delhi

In the result appeal of Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6724/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri O.P. Kant, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate And Shri Himanshu Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr.D.R
Section 40

…d will not be an effective remedy to the appellant and, therefore, the disallowance in the year under consideration has brought unintended hardship to the appellant as has been recognized by Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Naresh Kumar 362 ITR 256 (Del). c. That the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia), as held by the courts, is not penal in nature and is harsh, therefore, any amendment brought in section 40(a)(ia), which is intended to reduce the harshness of the provision, has to be liberally interpreted in favor of defaulters, more particularly when legislature itself, for the reason to curtail t…

M/S N. M. Roof Designers Ltd, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

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

ITA 3/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri N.S. Vyas (CA)For Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna (JCIT)
Section 201Section 40

…considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. As regards the applicability of the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) retrospectively an identical issue was considered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT Vs Naresh Kumar (362 ITR 256) and held that the proviso inserted in section 40(a)(ia) is an explanatory and remedial in nature and therefore will be applicable with retrospective effect in para 26 to 29 as under. “26. Principle of matching which is disturbed by Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, may not materially be of consequence to the Revenue when the tax rates are stable an…

Amorphos Chemicals P.Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-2(2), New Delhi

ITA 2570/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: S/Shri Amol Sinha, Ashvini Kumar &For Respondent: Shri B.P. Singh, Senior DR
Section 194ASection 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘A’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.2570/Del./2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14) Amorphos Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., vs. DCIT, Circle 2 (2),\ E-1/15, Second Floor, Sector 7, New Delhi. Rohini, New Delhi – 110 085. (PAN : AAACA4938L) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : S/Shri Amol Sinha, Ashvini Kumar & Nitin Gulati, Advocates REVENUE BY : Shri B.P. Singh, Senior DR Date of Hearing : 16.10.2018 Date of Order : 23.10.2018 O R D E R PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : The appellant, M/s. Amorphos Chemi…

Sodexo Food Solutions India P Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 304/MUM/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.304 & 305/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2002-03 & 2003-04) Sodexo Food Solutions India Deputy Commissioner Of Income Private Limited Tax Range-8(3) (Formerly Known As Radhakrishna Hospitality 2Nd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan बनाम/ Services Private Limited) M.K.Road, Mumbai -400 020 Gemstar Commercial Complex Vs. 1St Floor, Ramchandra Lane Extn. Kanchpada, Malad(W) Mumbai-400 064 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacr-2547-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.7042/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Sodexo Food Solutions India Assistant Commissioner Of Private Limited Income Tax -8(3) (Formerly Known As Radhakrishna Hospitality Room No.217, 2Nd Floor बनाम/ Services Private Limited) Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road Gemstar Commercial Complex Vs. 1St Floor, Ramchandra Lane Extn. Mumbai -400 020 Kanchpada, Malad(W) Mumbai-400 064 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacr-2547-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.6864/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Assistant Commissioner Of Sodexo Food Solutions India Private Limited Income Tax -8(3) बनाम/ (Formerly Known As Radhakrishna Hospitality Room No.217, 2Nd Floor Services Private Limited) Vs. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road Gemstar Commercial Complex 1St Floor, Ramchandra Lane Extn.

For Appellant: J.D.Mistry, Ld.ARFor Respondent: V.Justin, Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 254

…n made on two account i.e. late payment of TDS and short deduction of TDS. So far as the late payment of TDS is concerned, we find that the matter stood covered in assessee’s favour by the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court rendered in CIT Vs. Naresh Kumar [362 ITR 256] . It is evident from perusal of Tax Audit Report that although the TDS has been deposited by the assessee beyond due date but it is well before the due date of filing of return of income by the assessee. The facts of the issue are squarely covered by the ratio of cited decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court where it has been held that the provisio…

Sodexo Food Solutions India P.Ltd ( Formelry Knwona S Radhakrishna Hospialality Services P.Ltd), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7042/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.304 & 305/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2002-03 & 2003-04) Sodexo Food Solutions India Deputy Commissioner Of Income Private Limited Tax Range-8(3) (Formerly Known As Radhakrishna Hospitality 2Nd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan बनाम/ Services Private Limited) M.K.Road, Mumbai -400 020 Gemstar Commercial Complex Vs. 1St Floor, Ramchandra Lane Extn. Kanchpada, Malad(W) Mumbai-400 064 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacr-2547-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.7042/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Sodexo Food Solutions India Assistant Commissioner Of Private Limited Income Tax -8(3) (Formerly Known As Radhakrishna Hospitality Room No.217, 2Nd Floor बनाम/ Services Private Limited) Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road Gemstar Commercial Complex Vs. 1St Floor, Ramchandra Lane Extn. Mumbai -400 020 Kanchpada, Malad(W) Mumbai-400 064 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacr-2547-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.6864/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Assistant Commissioner Of Sodexo Food Solutions India Private Limited Income Tax -8(3) बनाम/ (Formerly Known As Radhakrishna Hospitality Room No.217, 2Nd Floor Services Private Limited) Vs. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road Gemstar Commercial Complex 1St Floor, Ramchandra Lane Extn.

For Appellant: J.D.Mistry, Ld.ARFor Respondent: V.Justin, Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 254

…n made on two account i.e. late payment of TDS and short deduction of TDS. So far as the late payment of TDS is concerned, we find that the matter stood covered in assessee’s favour by the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court rendered in CIT Vs. Naresh Kumar [362 ITR 256] . It is evident from perusal of Tax Audit Report that although the TDS has been deposited by the assessee beyond due date but it is well before the due date of filing of return of income by the assessee. The facts of the issue are squarely covered by the ratio of cited decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court where it has been held that the provisio…

ACIT 8(3), Mumbai vs. Sodexo Food Solutions India P.Ltd ( Formerly Known As Radhakrishna Hospitality Services P.Ltd)), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6864/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.304 & 305/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2002-03 & 2003-04) Sodexo Food Solutions India Deputy Commissioner Of Income Private Limited Tax Range-8(3) (Formerly Known As Radhakrishna Hospitality 2Nd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan बनाम/ Services Private Limited) M.K.Road, Mumbai -400 020 Gemstar Commercial Complex Vs. 1St Floor, Ramchandra Lane Extn. Kanchpada, Malad(W) Mumbai-400 064 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacr-2547-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.7042/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Sodexo Food Solutions India Assistant Commissioner Of Private Limited Income Tax -8(3) (Formerly Known As Radhakrishna Hospitality Room No.217, 2Nd Floor बनाम/ Services Private Limited) Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road Gemstar Commercial Complex Vs. 1St Floor, Ramchandra Lane Extn. Mumbai -400 020 Kanchpada, Malad(W) Mumbai-400 064 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacr-2547-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.6864/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Assistant Commissioner Of Sodexo Food Solutions India Private Limited Income Tax -8(3) बनाम/ (Formerly Known As Radhakrishna Hospitality Room No.217, 2Nd Floor Services Private Limited) Vs. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road Gemstar Commercial Complex 1St Floor, Ramchandra Lane Extn.

For Appellant: J.D.Mistry, Ld.ARFor Respondent: V.Justin, Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 254

…n made on two account i.e. late payment of TDS and short deduction of TDS. So far as the late payment of TDS is concerned, we find that the matter stood covered in assessee’s favour by the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court rendered in CIT Vs. Naresh Kumar [362 ITR 256] . It is evident from perusal of Tax Audit Report that although the TDS has been deposited by the assessee beyond due date but it is well before the due date of filing of return of income by the assessee. The facts of the issue are squarely covered by the ratio of cited decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court where it has been held that the provisio…

Asst CIT 31(2), Mumbai vs. Jatin P. Mistry, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3404/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Ramit Kochar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Fenil A. BhattFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Patankar
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 40

…income, as prescribed under Section 139(1) of the Act, to ensure that the claim of expenditure is not disallowed. 4 We find that besides the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Virgin Creations(supra), the Delhi High Court in CIT v/s. Naresh Kumar [2013] 39 Taxmann.com 182, the Gujarat High Court in CIT v/s. Omprakash R. Chaudhary (2015) 57 Taxmann.38 and the Karnataka High Court in CIT v/s. Sri Scropio Engineering Ltd., 388 ITR 266 have held that the amendment to Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by Finance Act, 2010 w.e.f. 1st April, 2010, is retrospective. This particularly, in view of the fact that the Courts…

DCIT 2(2), Mumbai vs. Larsen & Toubro Finance Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4459/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3980, 3981 & 3982/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08) L & T Finance Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income बनाम/ Taxation Department, L&T House, Tax-Circle 2(2) R.No.545,5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, N.M.Marg, Ballard Estate Vs. Mumbai-400 001 M.K.Marg,Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaacl-8668-G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.4459/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Deputy Commissioner Of Income L & T Finance Limited बनाम/ Tax-Circle 2(2) Taxation Department, L&T House, R.No.545,5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, N.M.Marg, Ballard Estate Vs. M.K.Marg,Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaacl-8668-G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: M.M.Golvala & Akram Khan, Ld.AR’sFor Respondent: S.C.Tiwari CIT (DR) & Saurabh Kumar Rai
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 88E

…the Finance Act, 2010 and ITA Nos.3980-3982 &4459/Mum/2013 L & T Finance Limited Assessment Years 2005-06 to 2007-2008 contended that the matter stood covered in assessee’s favour by the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court rendered in CIT Vs. Naresh Kumar [362 ITR 256] . It is evident from paragraph 6.2 of the order of Ld. CIT(A) that although the TDS has been deposited by the assessee beyond due date but it is well before the due date of filing of return of income by the assessee. The facts of the issue are squarely covered by the ratio of cited decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court where it has been held that…

L & T Finance Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai

Appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3982/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3980, 3981 & 3982/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08) L & T Finance Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income बनाम/ Taxation Department, L&T House, Tax-Circle 2(2) R.No.545,5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, N.M.Marg, Ballard Estate Vs. Mumbai-400 001 M.K.Marg,Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaacl-8668-G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.4459/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Deputy Commissioner Of Income L & T Finance Limited बनाम/ Tax-Circle 2(2) Taxation Department, L&T House, R.No.545,5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, N.M.Marg, Ballard Estate Vs. M.K.Marg,Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaacl-8668-G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: M.M.Golvala & Akram Khan, Ld.AR’sFor Respondent: S.C.Tiwari CIT (DR) & Saurabh Kumar Rai
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 88E

…the Finance Act, 2010 and ITA Nos.3980-3982 &4459/Mum/2013 L & T Finance Limited Assessment Years 2005-06 to 2007-2008 contended that the matter stood covered in assessee’s favour by the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court rendered in CIT Vs. Naresh Kumar [362 ITR 256] . It is evident from paragraph 6.2 of the order of Ld. CIT(A) that although the TDS has been deposited by the assessee beyond due date but it is well before the due date of filing of return of income by the assessee. The facts of the issue are squarely covered by the ratio of cited decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court where it has been held that…

L & T Finance Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai

Appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3981/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3980, 3981 & 3982/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08) L & T Finance Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income बनाम/ Taxation Department, L&T House, Tax-Circle 2(2) R.No.545,5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, N.M.Marg, Ballard Estate Vs. Mumbai-400 001 M.K.Marg,Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaacl-8668-G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.4459/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Deputy Commissioner Of Income L & T Finance Limited बनाम/ Tax-Circle 2(2) Taxation Department, L&T House, R.No.545,5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, N.M.Marg, Ballard Estate Vs. M.K.Marg,Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaacl-8668-G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: M.M.Golvala & Akram Khan, Ld.AR’sFor Respondent: S.C.Tiwari CIT (DR) & Saurabh Kumar Rai
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 88E

…the Finance Act, 2010 and ITA Nos.3980-3982 &4459/Mum/2013 L & T Finance Limited Assessment Years 2005-06 to 2007-2008 contended that the matter stood covered in assessee’s favour by the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court rendered in CIT Vs. Naresh Kumar [362 ITR 256] . It is evident from paragraph 6.2 of the order of Ld. CIT(A) that although the TDS has been deposited by the assessee beyond due date but it is well before the due date of filing of return of income by the assessee. The facts of the issue are squarely covered by the ratio of cited decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court where it has been held that…