CIT v. S.K. Tekriwal

361 ITR 432High Court2014#664 most cited

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.

150

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. S.K. Tekriwal · 361 ITR 432 · Section 40(a)(ia) disallowance · short deduction of tax · short deduction of TDS · TDS rate difference · Section 194C · Section 194J · disallowance of expenditure · TDS compliance

Also reported as

46 Taxmann.com 444260 CTR 73

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 143(3)Section 40(a)(ia)Section 10ASection 115JB Income Tax ActSection 139(1)Section 139(1) Income Tax ActSection 143(3) Income Tax Act

Issues it is cited on

short deduction of tdsshort deduction of taxdisallowance under section 40(a)(ia)section 194csection 40(a)(ia)section 40(a)section 201section 40section 194section 19section 20salary

Judgments citing CIT v. S.K. Tekriwal

ACIT, Chennai vs. S.P.Balasubramanyam, Chennai

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

ITA 1160/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…

Ciba India Ltd ( Through Their Succesors Basf India Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Cir 8(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 759/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2007-08 Ciba India Limited (Through Addl. Cit, Their Successors Basf India Circle-8(1), बनाम/ Ltd.), 1St Floor, Vibgyor Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Towers, Unit No.101, M.K. Road, Plot No.C-62, G-Block, Mumbai-400020 Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051 Pan No. Aaccr3698A (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee)

Section 14A

…amount on which tax was deducted at lower rate. The ld. counsel for the assessee contended that for short deduction, no disallowance is to be made for which he place reliance upon the decision from Hon’ble Kolkata High Court in CT vs S.K. Tekriwal (2014) 361 ITR 432 (Cal.) and the decision of the Tribunal in DCIT vs Chanda Bhoy and Jassobhoi (2012) 17 taxmanc.om 158 (Mum.). This factual matrix was not controverted by the ld. DR. 5.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that so far as, the issue of short deduction of TDS is concerned, the ld. DRP ha…

Sports Broadcast P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 10, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 2766/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Apr 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm M/S. Neo Sports Broadcast Pvt. Ltd. 3Rd Floor, Nimbus Centre Oberoi Complex, Andheri (W) Appellant Mumbai 400053

For Appellant: Dr. K. ShivaramFor Respondent: Shri N.P. Singh
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 194JSection 201(1)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C. SHARMA, AM AND SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM M/s. Neo Sports Broadcast Pvt. Ltd. 3rd Floor, Nimbus Centre Oberoi Complex, Andheri (W) Appellant Mumbai 400053 Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-10 Room No. 416, 4th Floor Respondent Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai 400020 PAN - AACCN2854Q Appellant by: Dr. K. Shivaram Respondent by: Shri N.P. Singh Date of Hearing : 23.03.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 01.04.2016 O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the revision order of Principal CIT-10, Mumbai passed u…

M/S Udbhav Constructions, Udupi vs. DCIT, Udupi

In the result, while disallowance of Rs

ITA 828/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. Abraham P. George & Shri. Vijay Pal Raoi.T.A No.828/Bang/2014 (Assessment Year : 2009-10) M/S. Udbhav Constructions, 3Rd Floor, Maithri Complex, Udupi – 576 101 .. Appellant Pan : Aabfu3330N V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle -1, Udupi .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri. S. Ramasubramanian, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sunil Kumar Agarwala, Jcit Heard On : 09.03.2016 Pronounced On : 30.03.2016 O R D E R Per Abraham P. George:

For Appellant: Shri. S. Ramasubramanian, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sunil Kumar Agarwala, JCIT
Section 119Section 120Section 120(3)Section 124Section 124(3)Section 143(2)

…ib) 1], disallowance could not be made of paid amounts. Vis-a-vis the balance according to Ld. AR, there was a deduction of tax by the assessee albeit at a lower rate. Relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Kolkata High Court in the case of CIT v. S. K. Tekriwal (361 ITR 432). Ld. AR submitted that Section 40(a)(ia) would not be attracted for short deduction of tax. 22. Per contra, Ld. DR supported the orders of authorities below. 23. We have perused the orders and heard the rival contentions. In so far as Rs.2,60,000/- is concerned, it is not disputed that the amounts were paid during the relevant previous year, b…

ACIT 11(1), Mumbai vs. Lamhas Satellite Services Ltd, Navi Mumbai

ITA 5966/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2016AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Shailesh N. DoshiFor Respondent: Shri M. Murli
Section 143(3)Section 194Section 194CSection 194JSection 254(1)Section 40

…allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5.Before us, the Authorised Representative(AR)relied upon the cases of Hindustan Thompson Associates Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.746/Mum/2014 dt.19.2.2016);Shri Zubin J. Gandevia (ITA No.3357/Mum/2014 dated 1.2.2016);S.K. Tekriwal (361 ITR 432));Pentagon System & Services P. Ltd.(ITA No.6879/Mum/2012 dated 22.1.2014);Cinetek Telefiles P.Ltd.(ITA No.7834 & 7645/M/2010 dated 7.6.2013);Chandabhoy & Jassobhoy(17 taxmann.com 158) Three Star Granites (49 taxmann.com 578);Apollo Tyres Ltd. (ITA No.74/Coch/2010) and UE Trade Corpn.(India) Ltd.(28 taxmann.com 77).He further stated that provisio…

ACIT 11(1), Mumbai vs. Hindustan Thomspon Associates P. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 746/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2016AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Arvind Sonde-ARFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman-CIT-DR
Section 194Section 194CSection 194JSection 254(1)Section 40

…आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, ‘एच’ खंडपीठ अिधकरण खंडपीठ खंडपीठ मुंबई खंडपीठ मुंबई मुंबई मुंबई INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI “H” BENCH सव"ी सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" सव"ी राजे"" राजे"", लेखा राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं सद"य एवं एवं राम लाल नेगी एवं राम लाल नेगी राम लाल नेगी, , , , "याियक सद"य राम लाल नेगी "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य Before S/Sh. Rajendra,Accountant Member & Ram Lal Negi,Judicial Member आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/.ITA No.746/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year-2009-10 वष" Asstt. Com…

ACIT 16(2), Mumbai vs. Zubin J Gandevia, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3357/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 194JSection 40Section 40(1)(ia)Section 9(1)(vi)

…resulting into short- deduction of tax, then no disallowance can be made applicable under section 40(a)(ia). Such a proposition has been upheld by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs S K Tekriwal, 3 Shri Zubin J Gandevia reported in [2014] 361 ITR 432. Following the said decision, the Tribunal in the case of Punit Securities Pvt Ltd. in ITA No. 1212/Mum/2013, has held that if the assessee has deducted tax under TDS under section 194C instead of 194J no disallowance under section 40(1)(ia) should be made on account of short deduction of tax at source. However, the Ld. Counsel very fairly, point…

Puneet Securities P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 4(2), Mumbai

ITA 6127/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Dec 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Puneet Securities Pvt. Ltd., Office Of The Acit 4(2), 6D/225, Rajabahadur Aayakar Bhavan, Compound, Vs. Mumbai Ambalal Doshi Marg, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Pan: Aaacp 2313C (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Ms. Vinita Shah, A.R. Revenue By : Shri K. Ravikiran, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 21.12.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.12.2015 O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms. Vinita Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K. Ravikiran, D.R
Section 194CSection 194JSection 40

…. There is nothing in the section to treat the assessee as defaulter for claiming a deduction, where there is a short fall in deduction. This proposition has been upheld by the Hon'ble Kolkata High Court in the case of CIT Vs. S.K. Tekriwal reported in (2014) 361 ITR 432 (Kol). In this case the assessee has deducted tax u/s 194C instead of 194J, the Hon'ble High Court held that the expenses cannot be disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) merely on account of short deduction of tax at source. Similar view has been taken by the Co-ordinate Benches in the cases relied upon by the learned counsel, which has been referred in the f…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Vijaya Bank

ITA/343/2014HC Karnataka15 Sept 2015

Bench: The Tribunal Which Has Been Allowed. Aggrieved By The Same, This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue On The Following Two Questions Of Law: “I. Whether The Tribunal Was Correct In Holding That Disallowance Under Section

Section 260Section 263Section 3Section 40

…which was accepted by the Assessing Officer. It also considered that the same was in consonance with the view expressed by the Tribunal earlier and confirmed by the Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT –vs- S.K.Tekriwal (361 ITR 432). Further, it has been held that since two views were possible to be taken by the Assessing Officer in the case of the assessee, and one of the possible views has been taken, then in such a situation the jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act could not have been exercised. 5 4. We do not find any infirmity with the orde…

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

…lity of any expenditure or the nature of payment falling under various TDS provisions. It was submitted by the learned Authorised Representative that the decision of the ITAT, Kolkata in S.K. Tekriwal was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in (2014) 361 ITR 432 (Cal). It is prayed that since the issue in question was covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of S.K. Tekriwal (supra), the assessee's appeal may be allowed on this ground. 5.2 Per contra, the learned Departmental Representative supported the orders of the authorities below. 5.3.1 We…