CIT v. S. K. Tekriwal

48 SOT 515Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2011#3745 most cited

What is CIT v. S. K. Tekriwal authority for?

Where there is a case of 'less TDS' rather than 'no TDS', disallowance by the Assessing Officer is bad in law.

32

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. S. K. Tekriwal · 48 SOT 515 · ITAT · less TDS · no TDS · disallowance · Section 194J · Tax Deducted at Source

Judgments citing CIT v. S. K. Tekriwal

Skylark Hospitality India (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result we reverse the order of the Ld

ITA 6431/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiskylark Hospitality India (P) Vs. Dy. Cit, Ltd, Circle-9(1), Formerly Known As Ssp New Delhi Catering India P Ltd, 404, 4Th Floor, Surya Kiran Building, 19 Kg Marg, New Delhi Pan: Aalcs7159J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Mehra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kaushlendra Tiwari, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 201Section 28Section 32(1)Section 40Section 40a

…yment made to the payee is covered u/s 195 of the Act and surcharge is not applicable on payment made u/s 195 of the Act. he further stated that issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Kolkata Bench of ITAT in SK Tekriwal (2011) 48 SOT 515. He further relied on the decision of various tribunals. He further submitted that the company has not paid aforesaid amount of the management fees to SSP because of the waiver letter dated 7/8/2014 and the above provision has been reversed in the books of accounts of the assessee in the financial year 2014 - 15. To this effect, the assessee submi…

ACIT 16(1), Mumbai vs. T.V. Vision Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2012-

ITA 3387/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Acit -16(1), M/S T.V. Vision Ltd., Room No. 439, 4Th Floor, 4Th Floor, Adhikari Chambers, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Oberoi Complex, New Link Road, Mumbai - 400020 Vs. Andheri (West), Mumbai – 400053 Pan: Aacct7276Q

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Aggarwal (AR)For Respondent: Shri Vidisha Kalra (CIT DR)
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 194CSection 194JSection 40Section 44ASection 9Section 9(1)(vi)

…licable. Further, it is pertinent to mention that this case is not of “no TDS” but it is a case of “less TDS” u/s 194C, hence no such disallowance can be made/s 40(a)(ia) as has been held by Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of the CIT vs S. K. Tekriwal 48 SOT 515. Recently in the case of the DCIT vs Zee Entertainment Ltd. ITA No. 3931 to 3935/MUM/2013, it has been held that such payment to cable operators should be subject to TDS @2% u/s 194C. Further appellant gets support from the jurisdictional ITAT, decision in the case of a CIT vs M/s Star Den Media Services pvt .Ltd( ITA No 1413/MUM/2014) and Chandab…

ACIT 16(1), Mumbai vs. T.V. Vision Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2011-

ITA 3386/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Acit -16(1), M/S T.V. Vision Ltd., Room No. 439, 4Th Floor, 4Th Floor, Adhikari Chambers, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Oberoi Complex, New Link Road, Mumbai - 400020 Vs. Andheri (West), Mumbai – 400053 Pan: Aacct7276Q

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Aggarwal (AR)For Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari (DR)
Section 143Section 194CSection 194JSection 40Section 44BSection 9Section 9(1)(vi)

…licable. Further, it is pertinent to mention that this case is not of “no TDS” but it is a case of “less TDS” u/s 194C, hence no such disallowance can be made/s 40(a)(ia) as has been held by Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of the CIT vs S. K. Tekriwal 48 SOT 515. Recently in the case of the DCIT vs Zee Entertainment Ltd. ITA No. 3931 to 3935/MUM/2013, it has been held that such payment to cable operators should be subject to TDS @2% u/s 194C. Further appellant gets support from the jurisdictional ITAT, decision in the case of a CIT vs M/s Star Den Media Services pvt .Ltd( ITA No 1413/MUM/2014) and Chandab…

Tribe Investments and Services Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, assessee appeal in ITA No

ITA 929/CHNY/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos. 929 & 2196/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Tribe Investments & Services Pvt. The Deputy Commissioner Of Ltd. Vs. Income Tax, (Formerly Vijayshree Spinning Mills Corporate Circle Iii (4), Private Ltd.) Chennai - 600 034. New No.8, (Old No. 36), Arch Bishop Mathias Avenue, Chennai - 600 028. [Pan: Aaacv 2098Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Shri A.V. Sreekanth, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

…sobhoy, 49 SOT 448, has held that section 40(a)(ia) does not apply in the case of short deduction of tax and that section applies only in a case of non deduction of tax. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata B-Bench in the case of DCIT vs. S.K. Tekriwal, 48 SOT 515, has held that where an assessee has deducted a lesser amount of tax, section 40(a)(ia) cannot be invoked. Same view has been taken by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai L-Bench in the case of Hindustan Thompson Associates Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, in their order dated May 25, 2012, published in taxindiaonline.com (2012-TIOL-328-ITAT-MUM). In the…

Tribe Investments and Services Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, assessee appeal in ITA No

ITA 2196/CHNY/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos. 929 & 2196/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Tribe Investments & Services Pvt. The Deputy Commissioner Of Ltd. Vs. Income Tax, (Formerly Vijayshree Spinning Mills Corporate Circle Iii (4), Private Ltd.) Chennai - 600 034. New No.8, (Old No. 36), Arch Bishop Mathias Avenue, Chennai - 600 028. [Pan: Aaacv 2098Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Shri A.V. Sreekanth, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

…sobhoy, 49 SOT 448, has held that section 40(a)(ia) does not apply in the case of short deduction of tax and that section applies only in a case of non deduction of tax. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata B-Bench in the case of DCIT vs. S.K. Tekriwal, 48 SOT 515, has held that where an assessee has deducted a lesser amount of tax, section 40(a)(ia) cannot be invoked. Same view has been taken by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai L-Bench in the case of Hindustan Thompson Associates Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, in their order dated May 25, 2012, published in taxindiaonline.com (2012-TIOL-328-ITAT-MUM). In the…

Mc Nally Sayaji Engineering Limited, North 24 Parganas vs. D.C.I.T Cir - 1, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 927/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

For Appellant: Smt. Shreya Loyalka, CAFor Respondent: Md. Ghayas Uddin, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH: KOLKATA [Before Shri M. Balaganesh, AM & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, JM] I.T.A No.2776/A/2011 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Mc Nally Sayaji Engineering Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, (PAN: AACCS5491A) Circle-4, Baroda. (Appellant) (Respondent) & I.T.A No.1575/Kol/2011 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Vs. Mc Nally Sayaji Engineering Ltd Circle-1, Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent) & I.T.A No.927/Kol/2013 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mc Nally Sayaji Engineering Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-1, Kolkata. (A…

DCIT, Circle - 1, Kolkata vs. M/S. Mcnally Sayaji Engineering Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1575/KOL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

For Appellant: Smt. Shreya Loyalka, CAFor Respondent: Md. Ghayas Uddin, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH: KOLKATA [Before Shri M. Balaganesh, AM & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, JM] I.T.A No.2776/A/2011 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Mc Nally Sayaji Engineering Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, (PAN: AACCS5491A) Circle-4, Baroda. (Appellant) (Respondent) & I.T.A No.1575/Kol/2011 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Vs. Mc Nally Sayaji Engineering Ltd Circle-1, Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent) & I.T.A No.927/Kol/2013 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mc Nally Sayaji Engineering Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-1, Kolkata. (A…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Symbiotic Info Tech Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3130/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Jan 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3130/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S Symbiotic Info Tech Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, V. No.1, Flat No.2, Sundaram Illam, Corporate Circle 6(2), Chellammal Street, Shenoy Nagar, Chennai - 600 034. Chennai - 600 030. Pan : Aaics 6901 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Durai Pandian, JCITFor Respondent: Shri M. Karunakaran, Advocate
Section 201Section 251(1)Section 40

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी "ड.एस. सु"दर "संह, लेखा सद"य केसम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.3130/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner of M/s Symbiotic Info Tech Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, v. No.1, Flat No.2, Sundaram Illam, Corporate Circle 6(2), Chellammal Street, Shenoy Nagar, Chennai - 600 034. Chennai - 600 030. PAN : AAICS 6901 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/A…

ACIT, Cir-33, Kolkata vs. Shri Biswajit Guha, Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal dismissed

ITA 355/KOL/2014[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Oct 2016AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K.Narsimha Chary

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

…en under bona fide wrong impression, under wrong provisions of TDS, the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act cannot be invoked and further, nor the appellant can be declared to be an assessee in default us/s 201 of the Act [DCIT vs. S.K. Tekriwal,(2011) 48 SOT 515 (Kol)]. In view of the facts of the case and decision of Hon'ble Tribunal (supra), the addition made by the AO u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act for application of wrong rate of TDS under wrong section does not stand good, which is thus directed to be deleted.” Being aggrieved by this order of Ld. CIT(A) Revenue is in appeal before us. ITA No.355-56/Kol/…

Roca Bathroom Products Private Limited, Chennai vs. JCIT, Chennai

In the result, I.T.A. Nos

ITA 586/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.586/Mds/2014 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.610/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Raghunathan Sampath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Milind Madhukar Bhusari, CIT

…t under Section 194C of the Act. The Dispute Resolution Panel directed the Assessing Officer on the basis of the judgment of Calcutta High 16 I.T.A. No.586/Mds/14 I.T.A. No.1169/Mds/14 I.T.A. No.610/Mds/15 C.O. No.55/Mds/14 Court in S.K. Tekriwal v. ITO (48 SOT 515). Referring to the judgment of Madras High Court in Viswas Promoters P. Ltd. (323 ITR 114), the Ld. D.R. submitted that the judgment of Calcutta High Court is not binding. Therefore, even for short deduction of TDS, the Assessing Officer has to disallow the payment under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 16. We have heard Shri Raghunathan Sampath,…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Parryware Roca Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, I.T.A. Nos

ITA 1169/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.586/Mds/2014 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.610/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Raghunathan Sampath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Milind Madhukar Bhusari, CIT

…t under Section 194C of the Act. The Dispute Resolution Panel directed the Assessing Officer on the basis of the judgment of Calcutta High 16 I.T.A. No.586/Mds/14 I.T.A. No.1169/Mds/14 I.T.A. No.610/Mds/15 C.O. No.55/Mds/14 Court in S.K. Tekriwal v. ITO (48 SOT 515). Referring to the judgment of Madras High Court in Viswas Promoters P. Ltd. (323 ITR 114), the Ld. D.R. submitted that the judgment of Calcutta High Court is not binding. Therefore, even for short deduction of TDS, the Assessing Officer has to disallow the payment under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 16. We have heard Shri Raghunathan Sampath,…

A. Kisore Rao and Others vs. ITO

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11 is allowed as indicated above

ITA 1737/BANG/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2015AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri K.K. Chythanya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT (D.R.)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 201Section 40

…for disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and accordingly disallowed an amount of Rs.3,42,84,912. In coming to this finding the Assessing Officer was of the view that the decision of the ITAT, Kolkata Bench in the case of DCIT V S.K. Tekriwal (2011) 48 SOT 515 (Kol) relied on by the assessee, wherein it was held that no disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act can be made if there is any shortfall due to any difference of opinion as to the taxability of any expenditure or the nature of payment, was distinguishable and not applicable to the case on hand. The Assessing Officer also referred to but…