CIT v. United Towers (P) Ltd. (296 ITR 106)

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. SHRI DULHE RAM MEENA, JAIPUR

ITA 288/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev sogani, C.A. &For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69

…ccepted, it would make Rule 46A otiose...)  High Court of Kerala (Commissioner of Income tax. Trichur v ED. Benny [2015] 62 вехтанn.com 302 (Kerala)) (para 23 of the Order)  High Court of Delhi (Commissioner of Income tax v. United Tower (1)(P.) Ltd. [2007] 296 ITR 106 (Delhi)). (para 5-7 of the Order)  ITAT Chandigarh Bench "A" (Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v Genex Industries Ltd [2019] 109 taxmann.com 402 (Chandigarh-Trib)). (para 5.5 of the Order.... The statutory mandate to provide the Assessing Officer opportunity to rebut the evidence is not discretionary. The requirement has been considered to be a…

ITO, ANGUL WARD, , ANGUL vs. M/S. NCC SMASL JRT(JV),, ANGUL

ITA 99/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor and Bibhu Jain, AdvsFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 40A(2)(b)

…l Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shree Kangra Steel (P) Ltd. (320 ITR 691) (para-B) 2) Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Subbu Shashank (327 ITR 577) (para-G) 3) Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. United Towers (P) Ltd. (296 ITR 106) 4) Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Manish Build Well (P) Ltd. (16 taxmann.com 27) ix.) As regards the late deposit of employee's PF, the same shall constitute income in the hands of the employer as per section 2(24)(x) of the Act. As per section 36(1)(va), employee's PF should be paid with due dates as prescribed under PF Act i.e. 15th o…

ITO, ANGUL WARD, ANGUL vs. NCC-SMASL-JRT(JV), ANGUL

ITA 39/CTK/2018[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack25 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor and Bibhu Jain, AdvsFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 40A(2)(b)

…l Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shree Kangra Steel (P) Ltd. (320 ITR 691) (para-B) 2) Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Subbu Shashank (327 ITR 577) (para-G) 3) Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. United Towers (P) Ltd. (296 ITR 106) 4) Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Manish Build Well (P) Ltd. (16 taxmann.com 27) ix.) As regards the late deposit of employee's PF, the same shall constitute income in the hands of the employer as per section 2(24)(x) of the Act. As per section 36(1)(va), employee's PF should be paid with due dates as prescribed under PF Act i.e. 15th o…

DCIT,CORPORATE CIRC CLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. PARADEEP PHOSPHATES LIMITED, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the cross objection of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 355/CTK/2019[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack12 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2013-14 Dy. Cit, Corporate Circle Dy. Cit, Corporate Circle- Vs. Paradeep Paradeep Phosphate Phosphate 3Rd 1(2), Floor, Aayakar Limited, Limited, Bayan Bayan Bhawan, Bhawan, Bhavan, Bhubaneswar. Bhavan, Bhubaneswar. J.N.Marg, J.N.Marg, Kharvel Kharvel Nagar, Nagar, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aabcp 3276 D (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) C.O.No.11/Ctk/2020 (Arising Of Ita No.355/Ctk/2019) (Arising Of Ita No.355/Ctk/2019) .327/Ctk/2019 Assessment Year : 2013-14 14 Paradeep Paradeep Phosphate Phosphate Vs. Dy. Cit, Dy. Cit, Corporate Circle- 3Rd Rd Limited, Limited, Bayan Bayan Bhawan, Bhawan, 1(2), Floor, Aayakar J.N.Marg, J.N.Marg, Kharvel Kharvel Nagar, Nagar, Bhavan, Bhubaneswar Bhavan, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar.. Pan/Gir No.Aabcp 3276 D Pan/Gir No.Aabcp 3276 D (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : S/Shri A.K.Sabat/B.K.Mahapatra, Ars A.K.Sabat/B.K.Mahapatra, Ars Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 12 /10 10/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/10 10/2022 O R D E R Per Bench These Are Cross These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Revenue & Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A) The Order Of The Ld Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Dated 19.8.2019 19.8.2019 In Appeal No.

For Appellant: S/Shri A.K.Sabat/B.K.Mahapatra, ARsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam

Section 35A

…al Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shree Kangra Steel (P) Ltd. (320 ITR 691) (para-8) 2) Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Subbu Shashank (327 ITR 577)(para-6) 3) Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. United Towers (P) Ltd. (296 ITR 106) 4) Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Manish Build Well (P) Ltd. (16 taxmann.com 27) In view of above facts and circumstances, the matter should be restored to the file of A.O. so as to examine these fresh evidences.” 5. Ld CIT DR drew our attention to para 4.2 of the order of the ld CIT(A) to submit that he has admitted the evidences in th…

PARADEEP PHOSPHATES LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the cross objection of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 327/CTK/2019[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack12 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2013-14 Dy. Cit, Corporate Circle Dy. Cit, Corporate Circle- Vs. Paradeep Paradeep Phosphate Phosphate 3Rd 1(2), Floor, Aayakar Limited, Limited, Bayan Bayan Bhawan, Bhawan, Bhavan, Bhubaneswar. Bhavan, Bhubaneswar. J.N.Marg, J.N.Marg, Kharvel Kharvel Nagar, Nagar, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aabcp 3276 D (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) C.O.No.11/Ctk/2020 (Arising Of Ita No.355/Ctk/2019) (Arising Of Ita No.355/Ctk/2019) .327/Ctk/2019 Assessment Year : 2013-14 14 Paradeep Paradeep Phosphate Phosphate Vs. Dy. Cit, Dy. Cit, Corporate Circle- 3Rd Rd Limited, Limited, Bayan Bayan Bhawan, Bhawan, 1(2), Floor, Aayakar J.N.Marg, J.N.Marg, Kharvel Kharvel Nagar, Nagar, Bhavan, Bhubaneswar Bhavan, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar.. Pan/Gir No.Aabcp 3276 D Pan/Gir No.Aabcp 3276 D (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : S/Shri A.K.Sabat/B.K.Mahapatra, Ars A.K.Sabat/B.K.Mahapatra, Ars Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 12 /10 10/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/10 10/2022 O R D E R Per Bench These Are Cross These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Revenue & Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A) The Order Of The Ld Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Dated 19.8.2019 19.8.2019 In Appeal No.

For Appellant: S/Shri A.K.Sabat/B.K.Mahapatra, ARsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam

Section 35A

…al Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shree Kangra Steel (P) Ltd. (320 ITR 691) (para-8) 2) Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Subbu Shashank (327 ITR 577)(para-6) 3) Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. United Towers (P) Ltd. (296 ITR 106) 4) Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Manish Build Well (P) Ltd. (16 taxmann.com 27) In view of above facts and circumstances, the matter should be restored to the file of A.O. so as to examine these fresh evidences.” 5. Ld CIT DR drew our attention to para 4.2 of the order of the ld CIT(A) to submit that he has admitted the evidences in th…

DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. THE ORISSA STATE CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS FEDERATION LTD., BHUBANESWAR

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

ITA 319/CTK/2017[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack20 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2009-10 Dcit, Circle Dcit, Circle-4(1), Vs. The Orissa State Co The Orissa State Co-Op.Milk Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Producers Federation Ltd., Producers Federation Ltd., D-2, 2, Sahid Sahid Nagar, Nagar, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aabtt 3220 G (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri B.K.Mahapatra, Ca B.K.Mahapatra, Ca Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 21 /9 9/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/9 9/2022 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar 2, Bhubaneswar Dated 31.5.2017 In Appeal No In Appeal No.0251/2015-16 For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2009-2010. 2. Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue & Shri Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue & Shri Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue & Shri B.K.Mahapatra, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee. B.K.Mahapatra, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri B.K.Mahapatra, CAFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT

Section 43B

…al Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shree Kangra Steel (P) Ltd. (320 ITR 691) (para-8) 2) Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Subbu Shashank (327 ITR 577)(para-6) 3) Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. United Towers (P) Ltd. (296 ITR 106) 4) Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Manish Build Well (P) Ltd. (16 taxmann.com 27) In view of above facts and circumstances, the matter is required to be remitted back to the A.O. to verify these fresh evidences. b) As regards the disallowance of provision for arrears of salary as per sixth Pay commission and provision of agents commissio…

SRI. GEORGE MATHEW,COCHIN vs. THE ITO, COCHIN

In the result, appeal of the Revenue as well as the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 251/COCH/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuteam Sustain Cr Building Vs. Plot No. 71, Mra I.S. Press Rod Kakkanadu, Kochi 682030 Kochi 682018 Pan – Adwpm1819L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. Preetha S. Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shantam Bose, CIT-DR

Section 40

…s) and in cases where the documents produced are conclusive, the principles of natural justice are excluded. We are unable to enclose these finding of the Tribunal. As held by Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. United Towers (I,) P. Ltd. [2008] 296 ITR 106 (Delhi), Rule 46A(4) of the Rules does not specifically exclude the principles of natural justice and, therefore, these principles are to be read into the Rules. Therefore, we disprove the finding of the Tribunal as contained in paragraph 9 of the order extracted above. 24. Having considered the sole contention urged, we do not find any merit in…

THE ACIT, COCHIN vs. SRI. GEORGE MATHEW, COCHIN

In the result, appeal of the Revenue as well as the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 220/COCH/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuteam Sustain Cr Building Vs. Plot No. 71, Mra I.S. Press Rod Kakkanadu, Kochi 682030 Kochi 682018 Pan – Adwpm1819L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. Preetha S. Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shantam Bose, CIT-DR

Section 40

…s) and in cases where the documents produced are conclusive, the principles of natural justice are excluded. We are unable to enclose these finding of the Tribunal. As held by Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. United Towers (I,) P. Ltd. [2008] 296 ITR 106 (Delhi), Rule 46A(4) of the Rules does not specifically exclude the principles of natural justice and, therefore, these principles are to be read into the Rules. Therefore, we disprove the finding of the Tribunal as contained in paragraph 9 of the order extracted above. 24. Having considered the sole contention urged, we do not find any merit in…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK vs. SRI DIPENDRA BAHADUR SINGH, KEONJHAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 265/CTK/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack06 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-1(1), 1(1), Vs. Sri Dipendra Bahadur Singh, Sri Dipendra Bahadur Singh, Cuttack Hudisahi, Joda, Keonjhar Hudisahi, Joda, Keonjhar Pan/Gir No. No.Adjps 5869 D (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Agarwal S.K.Agarwalla, Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Goutam, M.K.Goutam, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 30/3/ 20 / 2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 6 /4 4/2022 O R D E R Per C.M.Garg G, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.K.AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Goutam

Section 1Section 194ASection 194A(3)(iii)Section 201Section 263Section 40

…the matter back to the file of the AO for fresh verification. For this proposition, he relied on the following decisions: i) CIT vs Shree Kangra Steel pvt Ltd., 320 ITR 691 (hp) II) CIT vs Subbu Shashank, 327 ITR 577 (Mad) iii) CIT vs United Towers Pvt Ltd., 296 ITR 106(Del) iv) Manish Build Well Pvt Ltd., 16 taxmann.com 27 8. With regard to the issue of disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) and second proviso being retrospective, ld CIT DR submitted that the second proviso to P a g e 5 | 9 Assessment Year : 2013-14 section 40(a)(ia) was linked with first proviso to section 201(1) which was effective from 1.7.2012, where…

ACIT, ROURKELA CIRCLE, ROURKELA vs. PAWANJAY SPONGE IRON LTD., ROURKELA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 404/CTK/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack21 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Manish Borad & Manish Borad & Manish Boradassessment Year : 2013-14 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Pawanjay Sponge Iron Ltd., Y Pawanjay Sponge Iron Ltd., Y- Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela. Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela. 20, Civil Township, 7 20, Civil Township, 7-8, Area, Rourkela Pan/Gir No. No.Addpr 7405 G (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.C.Bhadra S.C.Bhadra , Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 27/10/ 20 / 2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 21 / /1/2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri S.C.BhadraFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam

Section 68

…mar Choudhury, 288 ITR 179 (Gau) ii) C. Unnikrisnan vs CIT, 233 ITR 485 (Ker) iii) Prabhavati S Shah vs CIT, 231 ITR 1 (Bom) iv) CIT vs Shree Kangra Steel Pvt Ltd., 320 ITR 691(hp) v) CIT vs Subbu Shashank, 327 ITR 577 (Mad) vi) CIT vs United Towers Pvt Ltd., 296 ITR 106(Del)] vii) Manish Build Well PvtLtd., 16 taxmann.com 27 (Del) Further, ld CIT DR relied on the order of the ITAT Chandigarh in the case of DCIT vs Genex Industries Ltd., (2019) 109 taxmann.com 402 (Chandigarh), wherein, the ld CIT(A) had accepted additional evidences violating the sub- rule (3) of Rule 46A without affording opportunity to the AO…

MOHD. SULEMAN,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, GHAZIABAD

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

ITA 6491/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 6491/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Mohd. Suleman, Vs Income Tax Officer, S/O Anwar, H.No. 104, Shekhpur, Ward-1(4), Khichra Gulawati Road, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Clzps3936F Assessee By : Sh. Harsh Pandey, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Bedobani Choudhari, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.03.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.03.2017 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.09.2016 Of Ld. Cit(A), Ghaziabad.

For Appellant: Sh. Harsh Pandey, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Bedobani Choudhari, Sr. DR

Section 148Section 69A

…ITR 525 approved by SC in Jute Corporation VCIT 187 ITR 688, 695 and EM Chettyar V CIT 4 ITC 111. Compliance with the principle of natural justice must necessarily be read into the provisions of rules. CIT v United 7 Mohd. Suleman Towers (I) Pvt. Ltd. 2008, 296 ITR 106 DEL We hope that above clarification along with additional evidences produce before your honor are enough to your's satisfaction to dispose the case. Your honour is hereby prayed to examine the person giving the Affidavit on oath by himself or may remand back the case to Assessing Officer as he may deem fit in the best interest of justice, any ot…

CIT v. United Towers (P) Ltd.

Sections most often in play

Judgments citing CIT v. United Towers (P) Ltd.