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

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act does not apply to disallow expenses when there is a short deduction of tax at source. This includes situations where TDS is deducted at a lower rate than required or under an incorrect section.

How many judgments cite CIT v. S.K. Tekriwal?

150 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. S.K. Tekriwal (361 ITR 432), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. S.K. Tekriwal come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 1961, Section 143(3), Section 40(a)(ia), Section 10A, Section 115JB Income Tax Act, Section 139(1).

CIT v. S.K. Tekriwal (361 ITR 432)

D.C.I.T., Circle-12, Kolkata vs. M/S Vantage Advertising Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2616/KOL/2013[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jan 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am]

For Appellant: Md. Usman, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri J.P.Khaitan, Sr.Advocate &

Section 133(6)Section 14A

…ee in default u/s 201 of the Act and no disallowance can be made by invoking the provision of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 38. The Assessee also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, in its judgement vide CIT Vs. M/s S.K. TEKRIWAL 361 ITR 432 (Cal) wherein it has been held the same issue and decided the same in the favour of the assessee that "if there is any shortfall due to any difference of opinion as to the taxability of any item or the nature of payments falling under various TDS provisions, the assessee can be declared to be an assessee in default u/s 201 of the Act and no disal…

Asst CIT 16(1), Mumbai vs. Yash Raj Films P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is treated as partly allowed

ITA 5738/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ravish Sood(Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40A(3)

…rned CIT(A) agreed with the same and accordingly deleted the disallowance of ` 3.73 lakhs. With regard to payment made to Reliance Media Works Ltd., assessee placed reliance on the decision rendered by Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of S.K. Kekriwal (361 ITR 432), wherein it was held that disallowance made u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act cannot be made for short deduction of tax at source. Accordingly, the learned CIT(A) deleted the disallowance of ` 375.00 lakhs also. 12. We heard the parties on this issue and perused the record. With regard to the payment of ` 3.73 lakhs made to Applause Bhansali Pvt. Ltd.,…

DCIT 2(2), Mumbai vs. Morgan Stanley India Capital P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3015/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year:2009-10 Dcit 2(2) Morgan Stanley India Capital P Ltd Mumbai 18F/19F, Tower 2, Vs. One Indiabulls Centre 841 Senapatibapat Marg, Mumbai 400 013 Pan Aabcb4845Q (Appellant) Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Suman KumarFor Respondent: S/Shri Sunil Motilala &

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…e the assessee has deducted TDS u/s. 194C of the Act. The allegation of the Assessing Officer is that the TDS is to be deduction u/s. 194J of the Act. The learned CIT(A) following the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. S K Tekriwal 361 ITR 432 (Cal) deleted the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in second appeal before the Tribunal. 6 Morgan Stanley India Capital P Ltd 9. We have heard the rival contentions and have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We find that the assessee has deducted TDS on payments u/s. 194C of the Act. It is…

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "C" Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Saktijit Dey, Judicial Member and Shri Manjunatha, Accountant Member D 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) M/s. Cox & Kings (I) Ltd. D C I T – 1(1)(1) Tuner Morrison Bldg. Room No. 579, 5th Floor Vs. 16, Bank Street Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai 400001 Mumbai 400020 PAN – AAACC1921B Appellant Respondent Reve…

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "C" Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Saktijit Dey, Judicial Member and Shri Manjunatha, Accountant Member D 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) M/s. Cox & Kings (I) Ltd. D C I T – 1(1)(1) Tuner Morrison Bldg. Room No. 579, 5th Floor Vs. 16, Bank Street Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai 400001 Mumbai 400020 PAN – AAACC1921B Appellant Respondent Reve…

The ACIT, Circle-4, Baroda vs. M/S. Welspun Projects Ltd., (Formerly Known As Msk Projects (India) Ltd., Baroda

ITA 2940/AHD/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Vartik R. Choksi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40Section 40A(7)Section 80I

…sing Officer had rightly disallowed assessee’s expenses to the tune of Rs.5,48,450/- since it had deducted less than the prescribed TDS deduction in chapter XVIIB of the Act. We find that hon’ble Calcutta high court’s judgment in CIT vs. S. K. Tekriwal (2014) 361 ITR 432 (Cal) holds that Section 40(a)(ia) disallowance does not apply in case of short deduction of TDS. Learned Departmental Representative thereafter seeks to invoke proportionate disallowance of expenses to the extent of short deduction of TDS only. We find no merit in the instant alternative plea as well since there is no such course of action presc…

The Hindustan Mineral Products Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 8(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 935/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)

Section 40Section 40A(2)(b)

…same afresh by considering the revised annual return filed by the assessee. In any case, the short deduction of TDS would not call for disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) as per the decision rendered by Hon’ble Kolkatta High Court in the case of CIT Vs. S.K.Tekriwal (361 ITR 432). 10. The next issue relates to the disallowance of retainership fee of Rs.7,76,981/- paid by the assessee to its ex-employees. The AO disallowed the same for want of evidences to prove the services rendered by them. The Ld CIT(A) also confirmed the same. The contention of the assessee is that the AO did not ask for the relevant details. The Ld…

DCIT, Cir-12(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Selvel Media Services Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue ( Ground No

ITA 2205/KOL/2014[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Aug 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2205/Kol/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 D.C.I.T, Cirle-12(2), Vs. M/S Selvel Media Services Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata 10/1B, Diamond Harbour Road, Kolkata – 700 027. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcs 7951 G (Revenue/Department) .. (Assessee) Assessee By :Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate Revenue/Department By :Shri G. Mallikarjuna, Cit Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 13/07/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/08/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2011-12, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–Xii, Kolkata, In Appeal No.237/Xii/Cir-12/14-15 Dated 17.09.2014, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 20.03.2014. 2. Revenue Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. “That In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In The Law The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Of Rs. 1,42,76,824/- Made By The A.O. On Depreciation On Hoarding Structures.” 2. “That In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In The Law The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Of Rs. 1,66,53,847/- Made By The A.O. On Account Of Deduction U/S. 80-Ia.”

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 80

…dition to this, the ld Counsel has relied on the following judgment: M/s Selvel Media Services Pvt. Ltd: ITA no.100/Kol/2014: 26.The Assessee also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, in its judgement vide CIT vs M/s. S.K. TEKRIWAL 361 ITR 432 (Cal) wherein it has been held the same issue and decided the same in favour of the assessee that “if there is any shortfall due to any difference of opinion as to the taxability of any item or the nature of payments falling under various TDS provisions, the assessee can be M/s Selvel Media Services Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Year: 2011-12 declared to…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Micromax Informatics Ltd., Gurgaon

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4647/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri B. P. Jain

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, C. AFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT [DR]

Section 142Section 143(3)Section 153A

…on the payment of Rs.2,14,74,439/- the tax at the rate of 1% was deducted by the assessee whereas as per section 194C the tax was to be deducted at the rate of 2%. Relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs. S.K. Tekriwal 361 ITR 432, the learned CIT (Appeals) deleted the disallowance. 83.2 The learned CIT [DR] relied on the order of the Assessing Officer. 83.3 The learned AR during the course of hearing before us stated that this issue is also covered in favour of the assessee by the order of the ITAT, Delhi Bench in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2011-12 in I. T.…

M/S. Micromax Informatics Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4642/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri B. P. Jain

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, C. AFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT [DR]

Section 142Section 143(3)Section 153A

…on the payment of Rs.2,14,74,439/- the tax at the rate of 1% was deducted by the assessee whereas as per section 194C the tax was to be deducted at the rate of 2%. Relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs. S.K. Tekriwal 361 ITR 432, the learned CIT (Appeals) deleted the disallowance. 83.2 The learned CIT [DR] relied on the order of the Assessing Officer. 83.3 The learned AR during the course of hearing before us stated that this issue is also covered in favour of the assessee by the order of the ITAT, Delhi Bench in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2011-12 in I. T.…

Airoil Flaregas P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 6(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the revenue is allowed

ITA 7171/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm श्री जी.एस. पन्नू, ऱेखा सदस्य एवं श्री रववश सूद सदस्य Asstt.Commissioner Of बनाम/ M/S Airoli Flaregas India Pvt.Ltd, 204/205, Sumer Kendra, Income Tax -6(1), Vs. Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Room No.506, 5Th Floor, Worli, Ayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400018 Mumbai-400020 M/S Airoli Flaregas India बनाम/ Addl.Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pvt.Ltd, Range 6(1), Vs. Mumbai-400018. Mumbai. ऱेखा सं.:Pan : Aacca2737M अपीऱधर्थी ओर से / Revenue By Shri Durga Dutt प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By Anuj Kishnadwalla सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 23.5.2017 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.5.2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per G.S.Pannu: The Captioned Are Cross-Appeals By The Assessee & Revenue Pertaining To Assessment Year 2009-10. The Appeals Are Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-14, Mumbai, Dated 27.09.2013 Which In Turn Has Arisen

Section 143(3)Section 194Section 194A(3)(iii)Section 194CSection 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ “ऐ” म ुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S.PANNU, AM AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM श्री जी.एस. पन्नू, ऱेखा सदस्य एवं श्री रववश सूद सदस्य Asstt.Commissioner of बनाम/ M/s Airoli Flaregas India Pvt.Ltd, 204/205, Sumer Kendra, Income Tax -6(1), Vs. Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Room No.506, 5th Floor, Worli, Ayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400018 Mumbai-400020 M/s Airoli Flaregas India बनाम/ Addl.Commissioner of Income Tax, Pvt.Ltd, Range 6(1), Vs. Mumbai-400018. Mumbai. ऱेखा सं.:PAN : AACCA2737M अपीऱधर्थी ओर से / Revenue by Shri Durga Dutt प्रत्यर्थी की…

Asst CIT Cir 6(1), Mumbai vs. Airoil Flaregas P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the revenue is allowed

ITA 6853/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm श्री जी.एस. पन्नू, ऱेखा सदस्य एवं श्री रववश सूद सदस्य Asstt.Commissioner Of बनाम/ M/S Airoli Flaregas India Pvt.Ltd, 204/205, Sumer Kendra, Income Tax -6(1), Vs. Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Room No.506, 5Th Floor, Worli, Ayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400018 Mumbai-400020 M/S Airoli Flaregas India बनाम/ Addl.Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pvt.Ltd, Range 6(1), Vs. Mumbai-400018. Mumbai. ऱेखा सं.:Pan : Aacca2737M अपीऱधर्थी ओर से / Revenue By Shri Durga Dutt प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By Anuj Kishnadwalla सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 23.5.2017 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.5.2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per G.S.Pannu: The Captioned Are Cross-Appeals By The Assessee & Revenue Pertaining To Assessment Year 2009-10. The Appeals Are Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-14, Mumbai, Dated 27.09.2013 Which In Turn Has Arisen

Section 143(3)Section 194Section 194A(3)(iii)Section 194CSection 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ “ऐ” म ुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S.PANNU, AM AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM श्री जी.एस. पन्नू, ऱेखा सदस्य एवं श्री रववश सूद सदस्य Asstt.Commissioner of बनाम/ M/s Airoli Flaregas India Pvt.Ltd, 204/205, Sumer Kendra, Income Tax -6(1), Vs. Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Room No.506, 5th Floor, Worli, Ayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400018 Mumbai-400020 M/s Airoli Flaregas India बनाम/ Addl.Commissioner of Income Tax, Pvt.Ltd, Range 6(1), Vs. Mumbai-400018. Mumbai. ऱेखा सं.:PAN : AACCA2737M अपीऱधर्थी ओर से / Revenue by Shri Durga Dutt प्रत्यर्थी की…

ACIT 16(1), Mumbai vs. Zoom Entertainment Network Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 3384/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh.S.VenkatramanFor Respondent: Sh.Rajesh Kumar Yadav

Section 143Section 194Section 194CSection 194C(2)Section 194JSection 254(1)Section 40

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, , , , मुंबई आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई “ए” खंडपीठ मुंबई खंडपीठ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“A”Bench Mumbai सव"ी जोिग"दर"सह "याियक सद"य एवं राजे"",लेखा सद"य Before S/Sh.JoginderSingh,Judicial Member and Rajendra,Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./3384/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11 ACIT 16(1) Zoom Entertainment Network Ltd. 1st floor, Trade Garden, 439,Aaykar Bhavan, M K Marg,Mumbai-20 Kamala Mills compound, Vs. Senapati Bapat Marg . Lower Parel,Mumai-400 013 PAN:AAACZ2897B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) ( !यथ" / Respondent…

DCIT, CC-VII, Kolkata vs. M/S Saltee Infrastructure Ltd., Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 856/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Mar 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194JSection 40

…f both the parties and perused the materials available on record. At the outset we find that the present issue has already been decided in favour of assessee by the judgment Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s S.K Tekriwal reported in 260 CTR 73 wherein it was held as under:- “Conditions laid down u/s. 40(a)(ia) of Act for making addition was that tax was deductible at source and such tax has not been deducted. If both conditions are satisfied then such payment can be disallowed u/s. 40(a)(ia) of Act but where tax was deducted by assessee, even under bonafide wrong impression, under wron…

ACIT, Kota vs. Vastuvedik Colonizers & Devlopers Pvt. Ltd., Kota

In the result, ground no. (ii) of the revenue is dismissed and ground no

ITA 320/JPR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: The Hon’Ble High Court Was Disallowance

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri P.P. Meena (JCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 194CSection 194JSection 201Section 40

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jkWo] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM AND SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 320/JP/2015 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2010-11. cuke Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax, M/s. Vastuvedik Colonizers & Vs. Circle-1, Developers Pvt. Ltd., Kota. 1, Aerodrum Circle, Kota. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN No. AABCV 9754 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri P.P. Meena (JCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj l…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Southern Agrifurance Industries Pvt Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for

ITA 1577/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. A.V. Sreekanth, IRS, JCIT

Section 148Section 194JSection 40Section 40a

…per assessee it had deducted 2% on all the payments made to M/s. United Spirits Limited and therefore Sec. 40(a)(ia) of the Act would not be attracted. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. S K Telcriwal 361 ITR 432. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) after considering the objections of the assessee held that Sec.40(a)(ia) of the Act was applicable only in the case of non deduction of tax and not for short deduction of tax. For taking this view, he relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of S K Telcriwal (supra). Now before…

Hero Motocorp Limited, New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1545/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishihero Motocorp Limited, Jcit, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Range-1, New Delhi Vs. Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0812J (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community Vs. New Delhi Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. NC Sawain, CIT DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…ted tax at source under section 194C, instead of section 194I of the Act, provisions of section 40(a)(ia) cannot be invoked to disallow deduction claimed by the appellant. Reliance, in this regard, is placed on the following decisions: - CIT v. S.K Tekriwal : 361 ITR 432 (Cal.)(HC) - DCIT v. Chandabhoy & Jassobhoy : 49 SOT 448 (Mum.) - Sunbell Alloys Company of India Ltd [TS-642-ITAT- 2012(Mum)] - M/s. Saralee Household & Bodycare India Pvt. Ltd. (Mum.) - UE Trade Corpn. (India) Ltd. v. DCIT: 28 taxmann.com 77 (Del.) - Highlight Pictures India Ltd. v. ACIT: 49 taxmann.com 187 (Mum.) - ITO v. Premier Medical Suppl…

Nobel Biocare India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is hereby treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 864/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Nobel Biocare India Pvt. The Deputy Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax 15(2)(1), Unit No.702, 7Th Floor, 4Th Room No.403, Floor, A – Wing, Hon’Ble Supreme Aayakar Bhavan, Court Business Park, Vs. M.K. Road, Behind Lake Castle, Mumbai - 400020 Hiranandani Garden, Powai, Mumbai – 400 076 Pan: Aaccn0274A (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Dhanesh Bafna, A.R Ms. Chandni Shah, A.R. Revenue By : Shri N.K. Chand, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 25.05.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.09.2016

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, A.RFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Chand, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234BSection 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “K”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s. Nobel Biocare India Pvt. The Deputy Commissioner of Ltd., Income Tax 15(2)(1), Unit No.702, 7th Floor, 4th Room No.403, Floor, A – Wing, Hon’ble Supreme Aayakar Bhavan, Court Business Park, Vs. M.K. Road, Behind Lake Castle, Mumbai - 400020 Hiranandani Garden, Powai, Mumbai – 400 076 PAN: AACCN0274A (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Dhanesh Bafna, A.R Ms. Chandni Shah, A.R. Revenue by : Shri N.K. Chand, D.R. Dat…

Indo Nabin Projects Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-10, Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assesse is partly allowed for statistical purpose as stated above

ITA 1323/KOL/2015[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Aug 2016AY 2011-2012

Bench: : Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Smiriti Ranjan Bhattachary & Sh.Sujay Kr. Basak, ARFor Respondent: Shri Jungiv, JCIT

Section 143

…or short deduction. In the case of short deduction no disallowance can be made by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. This view of ours is fortified by the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs. S.K Tekriwal (2014) 361 ITR 432 (Cal), wherein Hon’ble High Court has confirmed the findings of Tribunal by observing as under : “S. 40(a)(ia) can be invoked only when the two conditions, namely, that tax is deductible at source and such tax has not been deducted is satisfied. Where tax is deducted by the assessee under a wrong provisions of TDS and there is a shortfall, s. 40(…

S.P.Balasubramanyam, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and Revenue appeal is dismissed

ITA 696/CHNY/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.696 /Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri. Y. Sridhar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. A.V. Sreekanth, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 44A

…er due date of filing of Return u/s.139(1) of the Act for the assessment year 2006-07. In respect of short deduction of TDS, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) relied on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. S.K. Tekriwal 361 ITR 432 wherein it was held as under:- ‘’If there is any shortfall due to any difference of opinion as to taxability of any item or nature of payments falling under various TDS provisions, assessee can be declared to be an assessee in default under section 201 but no disallowance can be made by invoking provisions of Sec. 40(a)(ia).’’ Respectfully foll…

CIT v. S.K. Tekriwal