CIT v. S. K. Tekriwal

361 ITR 43Reported decision2012#8102 most cited
14

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Also reported as

2012 SCC OnLine CAL 12147

Issues it is cited on

section 35abbsection 35ddwaiver of loansection 40a(ia)short deduction of taxclarificatory amendmentazadi bachao andolansection 80ia(4)section 194hsection 194jright to receivecolourable device

Judgments citing CIT v. S. K. Tekriwal

DCIT-5(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S VODAFONE IDEA LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the ground no

ITA 2987/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2015-16
Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…in assessee's own case, where the Tribunal has\nheld that no disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act can be made for deduction of tax at\nlower rate. The assessee has also relied on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in\nthe case of CIT vs. S. K. Tekriwal (361 ITR 43) Calcutta High Court and Hon'ble\nDelhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Future First Info Services (P.) Ltd. [2022]\n447 ITR 299 (Delhi High Court), wherein it was held that Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act\nprovided for two limbs, where the assessee will have to deduct tax and has to pay the\nsame to the government and further in short fall in ded…

VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED (FORMERLY IDEA CELLULAR LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 14(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the ground no

ITA 2150/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2015-16
Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…in assessee's own case, where the Tribunal has\nheld that no disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act can be made for deduction of tax at\nlower rate. The assessee has also relied on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in\nthe case of CIT vs. S. K. Tekriwal (361 ITR 43) Calcutta High Court and Hon'ble\nDelhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Future First Info Services (P.) Ltd. [2022]\n447 ITR 299 (Delhi High Court), wherein it was held that Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act\nprovided for two limbs, where the assessee will have to deduct tax and has to pay the\nsame to the government and further in short fall in ded…

DCIT - 14(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. IDEA CELLULAR LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the ground no

ITA 2179/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2013-14
Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…in assessee's own case, where the Tribunal has\nheld that no disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act can be made for deduction of tax at\nlower rate. The assessee has also relied on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in\nthe case of CIT vs. S. K. Tekriwal (361 ITR 43) Calcutta High Court and Hon'ble\nDelhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Future First Info Services (P.) Ltd. [2022]\n447 ITR 299 (Delhi High Court), wherein it was held that Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act\nprovided for two limbs, where the assessee will have to deduct tax and has to pay the\nsame to the government and further in short fall in ded…

DCIT - 14(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. IDEA CELLULAR LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the ground no

ITA 2178/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2011-12
Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…in assessee's own case, where the Tribunal has\nheld that no disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act can be made for deduction of tax at\nlower rate. The assessee has also relied on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in\nthe case of CIT vs. S. K. Tekriwal (361 ITR 43) Calcutta High Court and Hon'ble\nDelhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Future First Info Services (P.) Ltd. [2022]\n447 ITR 299 (Delhi High Court), wherein it was held that Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act\nprovided for two limbs, where the assessee will have to deduct tax and has to pay the\nsame to the government and further in short fall in ded…

IDEA CELLULAR LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 14(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the ground no

ITA 1777/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2014-15
Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…in assessee's own case, where the Tribunal has\nheld that no disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act can be made for deduction of tax at\nlower rate. The assessee has also relied on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in\nthe case of CIT vs. S. K. Tekriwal (361 ITR 43) Calcutta High Court and Hon'ble\nDelhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Future First Info Services (P.) Ltd. [2022]\n447 ITR 299 (Delhi High Court), wherein it was held that Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act\nprovided for two limbs, where the assessee will have to deduct tax and has to pay the\nsame to the government and further in short fall in ded…

IDEA CELLULAR LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 14(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the ground no

ITA 1775/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2011-12
Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…in assessee's own case, where the Tribunal has\nheld that no disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act can be made for deduction of tax at\nlower rate. The assessee has also relied on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in\nthe case of CIT vs. S. K. Tekriwal (361 ITR 43) Calcutta High Court and Hon'ble\nDelhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Future First Info Services (P.) Ltd. [2022]\n447 ITR 299 (Delhi High Court), wherein it was held that Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act\nprovided for two limbs, where the assessee will have to deduct tax and has to pay the\nsame to the government and further in short fall in ded…

DCIT - 14(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. IDEA CELLULAR LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the ground no

ITA 5945/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2012-13
Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…in assessee's own case, where the Tribunal has\nheld that no disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act can be made for deduction of tax at\nlower rate. The assessee has also relied on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in\nthe case of CIT vs. S. K. Tekriwal (361 ITR 43) Calcutta High Court and Hon'ble\nDelhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Future First Info Services (P.) Ltd. [2022]\n447 ITR 299 (Delhi High Court), wherein it was held that Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act\nprovided for two limbs, where the assessee will have to deduct tax and has to pay the\nsame to the government and further in short fall in ded…

IDEA CELLULAR LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT HQ (JUDL.) TO CIT-14, MUMBAI

In the result, the ground no

ITA 5765/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2012-13
Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…in assessee's own case, where the Tribunal has\nheld that no disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act can be made for deduction of tax at\nlower rate. The assessee has also relied on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in\nthe case of CIT vs. S. K. Tekriwal (361 ITR 43) Calcutta High Court and Hon'ble\nDelhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Future First Info Services (P.) Ltd. [2022]\n447 ITR 299 (Delhi High Court), wherein it was held that Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act\nprovided for two limbs, where the assessee will have to deduct tax and has to pay the\nsame to the government and further in short fall in ded…

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. VIZAG SEAPORT PVT. LTD., VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 383/VIZ/2017[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam12 Apr 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon‟Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon‟Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 383/Viz/2017 (धनधाारणिर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2012-13) The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Vizag Seaport Pvt Ltd., Income Tax, Administrative Block, Circle-5(1), S4 Gallery, Port Area, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam – 530035. (अपीलाथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) [Pan :Aabcv2484K] अपीलाथी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri Fenil A Bhatt, Ar प्रत्याथी की ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुनिाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15/02/2024 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of : /04/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Pers. Balakrishnan:

For Appellant: Sri Fenil A Bhatt, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 194JSection 36(1)(iii)Section 40

…आयकर अपीलीय अधधकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री दुव्िूरु आर एल रेड्डी, न्याधयक सदस्य एिं श्री एस बालाकृष्णन, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, HON‟BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON‟BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 383/Viz/2017 (धनधाारणिर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2012-13) The Assistant Commissioner of Vs. M/s. Vizag Seaport Pvt Ltd., Income Tax, Administrative Block, Circle-5(1), S4 Gallery, Port Area, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam – 530035. (अपीलाथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Res…

TIRUPATI REDDY MUKKU,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-27(3), MUMBAI

ITA 858/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2023AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Nikhil NatekarFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194CSection 194C(2)Section 194ISection 40Section 40a

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "E" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Tirupati Reddy Mukku, Shop No. 2, Plot No. 9, Lalsharan CHSL, Near Nityanand Baug CHSL, Chembur Colony, Mumbai - 400074 [PAN: AJUPM2928A] …………… Appellant Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 27(3), Mumbai Respondent ……………. Vashi, Navi Mumbai - 400705 Appearance For the Appellant/Assessee : Shri Nikhil Natekar For the Respondent/Department : Ms. Richa Gulati Date : 06.06.2023 Conclusion of hearing : 27.06.2023 Pronouncement of order O R D E R Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member:…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 vs. FUTURE FIRST INFO. SERVICES PVT. LTD.

Appeal is dismissed

ITA/195/2022HC Delhi14 Jul 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

Section 194C(2)Section 194ISection 197(1)Section 201Section 40Section 40A(2)Section 40a

…ITA No.195/2022 Page 1 of 5 $~33 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 195/2022 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Sanjay Kumar, senior standing counsel with Ms.Easha Kadian, Advocate. versus FUTURE FIRST INFO. SERVICES PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Sumit Lalchandani, Advocate. Date of Decision: 14th July, 2022 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA J U D G M E N T MANMOHAN, J: C.M.No.30681/2022 Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. ITA No.195/2022 1. Present Incom…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 vs. FUTURE FIRST INFO. SERVICES PVT. LTD.

Appeal is dismissed

ITA - 195 / 2022HC Delhi14 Jul 2022
Section 194C(2)Section 194ISection 197(1)Section 201Section 40Section 40A(2)Section 40a

…ITA No.195/2022 Page 1 of 5 $~33 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 195/2022 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Sanjay Kumar, senior standing counsel with Ms.Easha Kadian, Advocate. versus FUTURE FIRST INFO. SERVICES PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Sumit Lalchandani, Advocate. Date of Decision: 14th July, 2022 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA J U D G M E N T MANMOHAN, J: C.M.No.30681/2022 Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. ITA No.195/2022 1. Present Incom…

DCIT 1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. COX & KINGS (I) LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is dismissed

ITA 5583/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manjunathad C I T – 1(1)(1) M/S. Cox & Kings (I) Ltd. Room No. 579, 5Th Floor Tuner Morrison Bldg. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 16, Bank Street Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400001 Pan – Aaacc1921B Appellant Respondent Co No. 117/Mum/2017 (In Ita No. 5583/Mum/2015) (Assessment Year: 2007-08)

For Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal
Section 14A

…ook a specific plea that the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act cannot be attracted towards short deduction of tax and in support of such contention he relied upon decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. S.K. Tekriwal (2012) 361 ITR 43 and the decision of the ITAT Mumbai Benches in the case of DCIT vs. BLC India P. Ltd. ITA No. 5793/Mum/2010. The learned CIT(A) however, did not accept the contention of the assessee. Relying upon a decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court the learned CIT(A) upheld the disallowance made by the AO. The learned A.R. reiterating the stand taken befo…

COX AND KINGS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is dismissed

ITA 5440/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manjunathad C I T – 1(1)(1) M/S. Cox & Kings (I) Ltd. Room No. 579, 5Th Floor Tuner Morrison Bldg. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 16, Bank Street Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400001 Pan – Aaacc1921B Appellant Respondent Co No. 117/Mum/2017 (In Ita No. 5583/Mum/2015) (Assessment Year: 2007-08)

For Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal
Section 14A

…ook a specific plea that the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act cannot be attracted towards short deduction of tax and in support of such contention he relied upon decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. S.K. Tekriwal (2012) 361 ITR 43 and the decision of the ITAT Mumbai Benches in the case of DCIT vs. BLC India P. Ltd. ITA No. 5793/Mum/2010. The learned CIT(A) however, did not accept the contention of the assessee. Relying upon a decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court the learned CIT(A) upheld the disallowance made by the AO. The learned A.R. reiterating the stand taken befo…

CIT v. S. K. Tekriwal (361 ITR 43) — Cited in 14 Judgments | BharatTax