What is CIT v. Rajinder Kumar authority for?

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act should be interpreted in a fair, just, and equitable manner, considering the objective of ensuring scrupulous implementation of TDS provisions to augment revenue and prevent loss to the government.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Rajinder Kumar?

32 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Rajinder Kumar (362 ITR 241), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Rajinder Kumar come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 40(a)(ia), Section 139, Section 142(1), Section 145(3), Section 194A.

CIT v. Rajinder Kumar (362 ITR 241)

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, LUCKNOW vs. M/S. U.P. STATE CONSTRUCTION & INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, LUCKNOW

ITA 617/LKW/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 251Section 263

…337/Agra/2013) also relied on the observations of Hon'ble Delhi High Court. The relevant extract of the order is as follows-"6. However, the stand so taken by the special bench was disapproved by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Rajinder Kumar (362 ITR 241). While doing so, Their Lordships observed that, "The object of introduction of Section 40(a)(ia) is to ensure that TDS provisions are scrupulously implemented without default in order to augment recoveries........Failure to deduct TDS or deposit TDS results in loss of revenue and may deprive the Government of the tax due and payable" (Emphasis…

ACIT CIRCLE 54(1), NEW DELHI vs. SWADESH KUMAR MISHRA, GURGAON

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee i

ITA 6043/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144(1)Section 145(3)Section 24Section 40Section 40A(3)

…statute by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01.04.2013 but has retrospective effect from 01.04.2005 as held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax -1 vs Ansal Land Mark Township (P.) Ltd [2015] 377 ITR 635 (Delhi) and in CIT vs Rajinder Kumar [362 ITR 241]. 21. On the other hand, Ld DR relied on the orders of lower authorities. 22. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We observed that the Ld CIT(A) has rejected the submissions of the assessee by observing that the amended 22 ITA Nos.6810/Del/2019 & Ors. Swadesh Kumar Mishra vs. ACIT provisions in section 40(a)(ia)…

GOPAL DENESHCHANDRA TULSHAN ,AKOLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, AKOLA

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

ITA 201/NAG/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Sept 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 143(3)Section 201(1)(b)Section 40Section 50

…Tax vs S M Anand Legislations which modified accrued rights or which impose obligations or impose new duties or attach a new disability have to be treated as prospective unless the legislative intent is clearly to give the enactment a retrospective effect. d) 362 ITR 241 (Delhi H.C.) CIT Vrs Rajender Kumar Provision should be interpreted in a fair, just and equitable manner and not in a manner which results in injustice and creates tax liabilities. e) Sai Pushpa Sharda Alliance vs. IT (Pune ITAT) We have come across the judicial pronouncements wherein majority view is that the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia)…

AJAY ALLOYS (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as

ITA 5174/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5174/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 बनाम Ajay Alloy(S) (P) Ltd., Dcit C/O Babubhai & Co., 152, Vs. Circle-2(1), Office Complex, New Delhi. Jhandewalan Extn., Phase-1, New Delhi. Pan No.Aaeca9815E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 194ASection 234ASection 40

…ITA No.5174/Del/2018 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5174/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 बनाम Ajay Alloy(s) (P) Ltd., DCIT C/o Babubhai & Co., 152, Vs. Circle-2(1), Office Complex, New Delhi. Jhandewalan Extn., Phase-1, New Delhi. PAN No.AAECA9815E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee by Shri Shantanu Jain, Adv. Revenue by Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date of hearing: 11.01.2024 09.04.2024 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement on आदेश /O R D E R PER C.N…

RITU MISHRA,GURGAON vs. ACIT CIRCLE 54(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6831/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. T. M. Shiva Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 24Section 250Section 250(6)Section 40

…statute by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01.04.2013 but has retrospective effect from 01.04.2005 as held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. Ansal Land Mark Township (P.) Ltd [2015] 377 ITR 635 (Delhi) and in CIT vs. Rajinder Kumar [362 ITR 241]. 29. With regard to the addition on account of Rs.35,87,182/- u/s 40(a)(ia), owing to the threshold of payments made on account of freight expenses, postage & courier expenses and legal & professional charges are directed to be deleted. 30. Owing to the adjudication in ITA No. 6042 & 6829/Del/2019, the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) in ITA No. 6…

RITU MISHRA,GURGAON vs. ACIT CIRCLE 54(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6829/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. T. M. Shiva Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 24Section 250Section 250(6)Section 40

…statute by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01.04.2013 but has retrospective effect from 01.04.2005 as held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. Ansal Land Mark Township (P.) Ltd [2015] 377 ITR 635 (Delhi) and in CIT vs. Rajinder Kumar [362 ITR 241]. 29. With regard to the addition on account of Rs.35,87,182/- u/s 40(a)(ia), owing to the threshold of payments made on account of freight expenses, postage & courier expenses and legal & professional charges are directed to be deleted. 30. Owing to the adjudication in ITA No. 6042 & 6829/Del/2019, the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) in ITA No. 6…

ACIT CIRCLE 54(1), NEW DELHI vs. RITU MISHRA, GURGAON

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6042/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. T. M. Shiva Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 24Section 250Section 250(6)Section 40

…statute by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01.04.2013 but has retrospective effect from 01.04.2005 as held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. Ansal Land Mark Township (P.) Ltd [2015] 377 ITR 635 (Delhi) and in CIT vs. Rajinder Kumar [362 ITR 241]. 29. With regard to the addition on account of Rs.35,87,182/- u/s 40(a)(ia), owing to the threshold of payments made on account of freight expenses, postage & courier expenses and legal & professional charges are directed to be deleted. 30. Owing to the adjudication in ITA No. 6042 & 6829/Del/2019, the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) in ITA No. 6…

HI-LITE BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOZHIKODE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE, 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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH : COCHIN BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S., ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2009-10 Hi-Lite Builders Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner G-1003, Hi-lite Business Park, of Income Tax, Hi-lite City, G.A. College P.O., Central Circle 1, Thondayad Bypass, Kozhikode. Kozhikode – 673 014. PAN : AABCH 3734L APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Mr. Shameem Ahamed, Advocate Revenue by : Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR Date of hearing : 11.01.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 20.01.2023 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, Accountant Member: This appeal is ag…

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, and if another construction is possible apart from the literal construction, 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 Off…

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, and if another construction is possible apart from the literal construction, 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 Off…

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, and if another construction is possible apart from the literal construction, 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 Off…

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, and if another construction is possible apart from the literal construction, 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 Off…

M/S. BALASORE CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD.,BALASORE vs. ACIT, BALASORE CIRCLE, BALASORE

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

ITA 467/CTK/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack07 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.467/Ctk/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) M/S Balasore Cooperative Bank Vs. Acit, Balasore Circle, Limited, Balasore Bibekananda Marg, Balasore-756001 Pan No. : Aaccb 7823 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.N.Sahu/Somnath Sahoo,Advs राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 13/08/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12/10/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A), Cuttack, Dated 04.08.2017, For The Assessment Year 2012-2013, On The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- 1) That The Order Of The Id. Cit(Appeals) Confirming The Additions & Disallowances Made By The A.O. Is Illegal, Arbitrary, Unjustified & Not In Accordance With Law. 2) That The Addition Of Rs. 36,79,148/- U/S. 40(A)(Ia) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Confirmed By Cit(Appeals) To The Extent Of Rs. 36,30,998/- Is Illegal, Arbitrary, Uncalled For & Not In Accordance With Law & The Same Should Have Been Deleted By The Learned Cit(Appeals). 3) That The Disallowance U/S 40(A)(Ia) Of Rs. 36,79,148/- As Detailed Below Is Illegal, Arbitrary & Unjustified & Hence Should Have Been Deleted By The Learned Cit(A) As The Genuineness Is Not In Doubt. Non-Deduction Of Tds Is A Separate Issue. A) Commission Payment To Dlds Collection Agents Rs. 33,45,248/- B) Legal Expenses Rs. 2,52,000/- C) Audit Fees Rs. 81,900/-

For Appellant: Shri S.N.Sahu/Somnath Sahoo,AdvsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 36Section 40Section 43B

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, कटक न्यायपीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI C.M. GARG, JM & SHRI L.P. SAHU, AM आयकर अऩीऱ सं./ITA No.467/CTK/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) M/s Balasore Cooperative Bank Vs. ACIT, Balasore Circle, Limited, Balasore Bibekananda Marg, Balasore-756001 PAN No. : AACCB 7823 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri S.N.Sahu/Somnath Sahoo,Advs राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 13/08/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 12/10/202…

SANKALPAN INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-15(3)(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, and appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed

ITA 6010/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6010/Mum/2017 & 2400/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13 &2013-14)

For Appellant: ShriSubodhFor Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 41

…e actual owner) and we are inclined to accept the finding of Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, ground no. 3 raised by the assessee is dismissed. 20. With regard ground no. 4, by relying on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rajinder Kumar 362 ITR 241, CIT vrs. Ansal Land Mark Township (P) Ltd, 377 ITR 635 and various case law in this respect and also as per the confirmation received from the company that bank has already declared the income in the return of income, we are of the considered view that section 40(a)(ia) of the Act cannot be invoked 18 I.T.A. No. 6010/Mum/2017 & 2400/Mum/2018 Sa…

SMT. RITU SINGH,BHOPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 (1), BHOPAL

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

ITA 59/IND/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2013-14 Smt. Ritu Singh Dcit B-110, Habibganj Alkapuri Bhopal बनाम/ Bhopal Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Bmips8854D

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 40

…014) 45 Taxmann.com 555 (Agra) in ITA No.337/Agra/2013 has decided the issue in favour of the assessee. He further contended that the Hon'ble Tribunal had relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Rajinder Kumar 362 ITR 241. Ld. Counsel further placed reliance on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT in civil appeal No.3765 of 2007, 293 ITR 226. 4. Ld. D.R. opposed these submissions and supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A). [ITA No.59/Ind/2018] [Smt. Ritu Singh, Bhopal] 5. I have hear…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAHARANI ENTERPRISES, DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and Cross- Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5806/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 194CSection 40

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘C’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .No. 5806/DEL/2014 (A.Y 2011-12) ACIT Vs Maharani Enterprises Circle-28(1) 20-A, Gadodia Market, New Delhi Khari Baoli (APPELLANT) Delhi AAMFM4846Q (RESPONDENT) C.O .No. 115/DEL/2015 (A.Y 2011-12) Maharani Enterprises Vs ACIT 20-A, Gadodia Market, Circle-28(1) Khari Baoli New Delhi Delhi AAMFM4846Q (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) Appellant by Sh. Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR Respondent by Sh. Suresh Kumar Gupta, Adv Date of Hearing 19.07.2018 Date of Pronoun…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SMT. DEEPTI AGARWAL, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and Cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3609/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit, Vs. Deepti Agarwal, Circle-31(1), Room No. 1405, Prop M/S. Superior Fabrics, 14Th Floor, E-2, Block, Maharaja Lane, Civil Lines, Prataykshkar Bhawan, Dr. New Delhi Shyama Prasad, Mukherjee Civc Pan: Aampa0573C Centre, Jn Nehru Marg, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR

Section 145(3)Section 40Section 80I

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S.SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DCIT, Vs. Deepti Agarwal, Circle-31(1), Room No. 1405, Prop M/s. Superior Fabrics, 14th Floor, E-2, Block, Maharaja Lane, Civil Lines, Prataykshkar Bhawan, Dr. New Delhi Shyama Prasad, Mukherjee Civc PAN: AAMPA0573C Centre, JN Nehru Marg, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) CO No. 234/Del/2013 (In ITA No. 3609/Del/2013) (Assessment Year: 2009-10) Deepti Agarwal, Vs. DCIT, Prop M/s. Superior Fabrics, Circle-31(1), Room No. 1405, 14th Floor, E-2, Maharaja Lane, Civil Lines,…

ICHHA CONSTRUCTIONS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 5(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 4856/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4856Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिधम/ Ichha Construction Private Dcit, Cc-5(1) Limited Vs. Mumbai 6Th Floor, Ackruti Centre Point Central Road, Marol Midc, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaci1277N (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Rajat Mittal (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07.02.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14. 02.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 23.03.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-53, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2010-11. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1 Being Aggrieved By The Appeal Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 53 (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Cit (A) - 53") With Regard To The Assessment Order U/S 143 F3) Of The Act Of The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal (DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 201Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJENDRA, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4856Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिधम/ Ichha Construction Private DCIT, CC-5(1) Limited Vs. Mumbai 6th Floor, Ackruti Centre Point Central Road, Marol MIDC, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAACI1277N (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee by: None Revenue by: Shri Rajat Mittal (DR) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing: 07.02.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 14. 02.2018 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMARJIT…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ANSAL LANDMARK TOWNSHIP (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the Revenue stand

ITA 238/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Dec 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Satyen Sethi, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Aparna Karan, CIT(DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 143(3)(ii)

…ion of second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) is declaratory and curative in nature and it has 6 retrospective effect from 1st April, 2005. We also find that ITAT has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rajinder Kumar 362 ITR 241. However, for the sake of clarity, the relevant observations of the ITAT, Agra Bench as given in para 6 to 9 are reproduced as under:- "6. However, the stand so taken by the special bench was disapproved by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Rajinder Kumar (362 ITR 241). While doing so, Their Lordships observed that, "The object of i…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ANSAL LANDMARK TOWNSHIP LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the Revenue stand

ITA 4820/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Dec 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Satyen Sethi, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Aparna Karan, CIT(DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 143(3)(ii)

…ion of second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) is declaratory and curative in nature and it has 6 retrospective effect from 1st April, 2005. We also find that ITAT has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rajinder Kumar 362 ITR 241. However, for the sake of clarity, the relevant observations of the ITAT, Agra Bench as given in para 6 to 9 are reproduced as under:- "6. However, the stand so taken by the special bench was disapproved by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Rajinder Kumar (362 ITR 241). While doing so, Their Lordships observed that, "The object of i…

CIT v. Rajinder Kumar

What is CIT v. Rajinder Kumar authority for?

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Rajinder Kumar

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, LUCKNOW vs. M/S. U.P. STATE CONSTRUCTION & INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, LUCKNOW

ACIT CIRCLE 54(1), NEW DELHI vs. SWADESH KUMAR MISHRA, GURGAON

GOPAL DENESHCHANDRA TULSHAN ,AKOLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, AKOLA

AJAY ALLOYS (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2(1), NEW DELHI

RITU MISHRA,GURGAON vs. ACIT CIRCLE 54(1), NEW DELHI

RITU MISHRA,GURGAON vs. ACIT CIRCLE 54(1), NEW DELHI

ACIT CIRCLE 54(1), NEW DELHI vs. RITU MISHRA, GURGAON

HI-LITE BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOZHIKODE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

MANIMEGALAI GANESAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORP RANGE 10, CHENNAI

MANIMEGALAI GANESAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORP RANGE 10, CHENNAI

MANIMEGALAI GANESAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORP RANGE 10, CHENNAI

MANIMEGALAI GANESAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORP RANGE 10, CHENNAI

M/S. BALASORE CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD.,BALASORE vs. ACIT, BALASORE CIRCLE, BALASORE

SANKALPAN INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-15(3)(3), MUMBAI

SMT. RITU SINGH,BHOPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 (1), BHOPAL

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAHARANI ENTERPRISES, DELHI

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SMT. DEEPTI AGARWAL, NEW DELHI

ICHHA CONSTRUCTIONS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 5(1), MUMBAI

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ANSAL LANDMARK TOWNSHIP (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ANSAL LANDMARK TOWNSHIP LTD., NEW DELHI