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 366,339 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

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

Appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3980/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2018AY 2005-06

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…

M/S. Samikaran Learning Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4051/DEL/2016[2014-15 (F.Y. 2013-14)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2017

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Joginder Singh

Section 200Section 200ASection 201Section 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 rejoinde…

M/S. Samikaran Learning Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4050/DEL/2016[2015-16 (F.Y. 2014-15)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2017

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Joginder Singh

Section 200Section 200ASection 201Section 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 rejoinde…

Sri.Azmath Ulla, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 144/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jun 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri C.R. Nulvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Biju, JCIT
Section 194A(1)Section 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…

Sri. B.V. Nagesh, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

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

ITA 568/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jun 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri S. Jayaramanassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Kamaladhar, Standing Counsel
Section 194CSection 40

…due on the income declared by them. Therefore as per the second proviso in section 40(a)(ia) no disallowance can be made on this account. In support of his contention he has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT Vs Naresh Kumar (362 ITR 256) as well as in case of CIT Vs Ansal Land Mark Township (P.) Ltd. (377 ITR 635). The ld. AR has submitted that the Hon’ble High Court has held that the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) is in the nature of clarity, declaratory and curative and therefore has retrospective effect from 01.04.2005. Hence the ld. AR has submitted that the disallowanc…

D.C.I.T Cir - 2, Kolkata vs. M/S Amri Hospital Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose and that of assessee’s CO is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 807/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 115JSection 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “B” KOLKATA Before Shri Aby.T Varkey, Judicial Member and Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member ITA No.807/Kol/2013 & C.O. No.01/Kol/2013 (a/o ITA No.807/Kol/2013) Assessment Year :2009-10 DCIT, Circle-2, Aayakar V/s. M/s Amri Hospital Ltd., Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee 4 & 5, CIT Scheme LXXII, Square, Kolkata-700 069 Gariaha Road, Kolkata- 700 029 Amri Hospitals Ltd., 4 & 5, CIT Scheme LXXII, V/s. DCIT, Circle-2, Gariaha Road, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Kolkata-700 029 Chowringhee Square, [PAN No. AAECS 6786 N] Kolkata-69 अपीलाथ" /Appellant .. ""यथ"/Respondent Shri D.…

Commissioner of Income Tax-21 vs. Mr. Sarkar Nath Oberoi

ITA/720/2014HC Delhi24 Nov 2014

Bench: The Due Date Of The Filing Of The Return. In View Of This Admitted Factual Position, The Question Has To Be Decided Against The Appellant Revenue In View Of The Decision Of This Court In Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Naresh Kumar, [2014] 362 Itr 256 (Delhi), Wherein, It Has Been Held That Amendment To Section 40(A)(Ia) By Finance At, 2010 Has Retrospective Effect. The Respondent Assessee Would Be Entitled To Benefit Of The Proviso Added To Section 40(A)(Ia) Vide Finance 2014:Dhc:6356-Db

Section 32Section 40

…deposited before the due date of the filing of the return. In view of this admitted factual position, the question has to be decided against the appellant revenue in view of the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Naresh Kumar, [2014] 362 ITR 256 (Delhi), wherein, it has been held that amendment to Section 40(a)(ia) by Finance At, 2010 has retrospective effect. The respondent assessee would be entitled to benefit of the proviso added to Section 40(a)(ia) vide Finance 2014:DHC:6356-DB ITA No. 720/2014…