CIT v. Vector Shipping Services (P) Ltd.

357 ITR 642High Court2013#1313 most cited

What is CIT v. Vector Shipping Services (P) Ltd. authority for?

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, applies only when an amount is payable (accrued) and not when the amount has already been disbursed or paid.

87

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Vector Shipping Services (P) Ltd. · Section 40(a)(ia) · applicability of Section 40(a)(ia) · amounts payable · amounts paid · TDS default disallowance · Allahabad High Court 2013 · SLP dismissed Supreme Court · disallowance expenses · unpaid liabilities

Also reported as

38 Taxmann.com 77218 Taxmann 93

Sections most often in play

Section 194CSection 195Section 40(a)(ia)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 197Section 197ASection 43B

Issues it is cited on

section 194csection 201(1)section 40(a)section 40(a)(ia)non-application of mindsection 40speaking ordersection 143(3)previous yearindiaprescribedcompany

Judgments citing CIT v. Vector Shipping Services (P) Ltd.

M/S Parry Sugar Industries Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(1)(2), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed

ITA 2814/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 May 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Raghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vilas V Shinde, CIT (D.R)
Section 194CSection 40

…s held by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of Thomas George Muthoot v. CIT in ITA No. 278 of 2014? 3. Whether the Tribunal erred in placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in CIT v. Vector Shipping Services (P) Ltd. (2013) 357 ITR 642 (All.), that the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) are applicable only in respect of amounts which remain payable on the last day of financial year ignoring the language used in the statutory provisions which makes it clear that the consequences of disallowance is attracted when a person liable to deduct tax on any interest payable to a resident, o…

Nuberg Engineering Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 18(2), New Delhi

In the result this issue is decided in favour of the assessee

ITA 4219/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Vinay Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 194HSection 201Section 40

…on despite the legal position that disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) applies only to amounts “payable” as of 31st March and not to amounts already “paid” during the year, as upheld by the Allahabad High Court in CIT v. Vector Shipping Services (P) Ltd. (ALL.) (2013) 357 ITR 642 and against which the SLP of the department was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 5. That without prejudice to the above grounds of appeal and in the alternative, the Ld GIT(A) erred in law and on facts by sustaining the abovementioned disallowance of Rs.64,57,567/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act, despite the fact that the assessee was not deemed…

Nuberg Engineering Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result this issue is decided in favour of the assessee

ITA 382/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Vinay Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 194HSection 201Section 40

…on despite the legal position that disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) applies only to amounts “payable” as of 31st March and not to amounts already “paid” during the year, as upheld by the Allahabad High Court in CIT v. Vector Shipping Services (P) Ltd. (ALL.) (2013) 357 ITR 642 and against which the SLP of the department was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 5. That without prejudice to the above grounds of appeal and in the alternative, the Ld GIT(A) erred in law and on facts by sustaining the abovementioned disallowance of Rs.64,57,567/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act, despite the fact that the assessee was not deemed…

ITO 21 (1) (5), Mumbai vs. Janseva Majoor Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Mumbai

In the result, ground 1 of assessee’s appeal is allowed and

ITA 5881/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh (Jm) & Shri S Rifaur Rahman (Am) Ito 21(1)(5), Room No. Vs M/S Janseva Majoor Sahakari 120, 1Stfloor, Piramal Sanstha Maryadit, Chambers, Parel, 1, Dev Darshan, Ground Floor, Mumbai-400016 In Front Of Wakade House T.H. Kataria Marg, Mahim, Mumbai-400 016 Pan : Aadfj0626J Appellant Respondednt M/S Janseva Majoor Sahakari Vs Ito 21(1)(5), Room No. 120, 1Stfloor, Piramal Sanstha Maryadit, 1, Dev Darshan, Ground Floor, Chambers, Parel, In Front Of Wakade House Mumbai-400016 T.H. Kataria Marg, Mahim, Mumbai-400 016 Pan : Aadfj0626J Appellant Respondednt

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 40Section 80PSection 80P(2)(vi)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH (JM) & SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) ITO 21(1)(5), Room No. Vs M/s Janseva Majoor Sahakari 120, 1stFloor, Piramal Sanstha Maryadit, Chambers, Parel, 1, Dev Darshan, Ground Floor, Mumbai-400016 In front of Wakade House T.H. Kataria Marg, Mahim, Mumbai-400 016 PAN : AADFJ0626J APPELLANT RESPONDEDNT M/s Janseva Majoor Sahakari Vs ITO 21(1)(5), Room No. 120, 1stFloor, Piramal Sanstha Maryadit, 1, Dev Darshan, Ground Floor, Chambers, Parel, In front of Wakade House Mumbai-400016 T.H. Kataria Marg, Mahim, Mumbai-400 016 PAN : AADFJ0626J…

The ACIT, Guntur vs. Gude Venkata Krishna Rao, Guntur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 211/VIZ/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.211/Viz/2015 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2010-11) Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Sri Gude Venkata Krishna Rao Circle-2(1) D.No.4-2-17/8, 18Th Lane Guntur Chandramouli Nagar Guntur [ Pan :Ahepg4373K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Smt Suman Malik, Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri D.L.Narasimha Rao, Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04 .10.2019 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Smt Suman Malik, DRFor Respondent: Shri D.L.Narasimha Rao, AR
Section 194ASection 40

…held as under : “in view of the aforesaid discussion we hold that the view taken by the High Courts of Punjab & Haryana, Madras and Calcutta is the correct view and the judgement of the Allahabad High Court in CIT Vs. Victor Shipping Services (P) Ltd. [2013] 357 ITR 642 did not decide the question of law correctly” And the appeal of the assessee is accordingly, dismissed with no costs. The court thus held that the word payable in section 40(a)(ia) also covers cases where amounts have been paid.” 5.1. ITAT, Visakhapatnam following the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Palam Gas Service (supra) rec…

Bajinath Melaram, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 18, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 1795/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm / I.T.A. No.1795/M/16 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Baijnath Melaram Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income C/O.Mangaldas D. Shah & Co Tax – 18 506, Lotus House, 5Th Floor, 6Th Floor, Earnest House, 33-A, New Marine Lines Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400021 Pan/Gir No. : Aaafb2675E (/Appellant) .. Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Dhirendra M. ShahFor Respondent: Shri N. P. Singh & B.S.Bist
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)Section 43BSection 44A

…are proprietor, therefore, provisions of section 40(a)(ia) are not attracted. The payment of the transport charges referred to are paid during the year and not outstanding at the end of the year.(Reliance is placed on CIT v. Vector Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd. 357 ITR 642(AII)". 8.4.1 On perusal of the assessee's submission , it appears that PAN of following 5 parties out of 19 parties (mentioned in para (ii) of this office letter dtd. 14.10.2015)to whom payments were made are wrong and PAN in their cases pertain to some other persons. The details of the same are as follows: Sr. PAN of the Amou Status of Evidence…

DCIT 14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Chemical Process Piping P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1503/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm Dcit 14(1)(2) Vs. M/S. Chemical Process Room No.470, 4Th Floor Piping Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan Cpe Plots, Bsd Marg Maharshikarve Road Off. Sion Trombay Road Mumbai – 400 020 Govandi, Mumbai – 400 088 Pan/Gir No. Aaccc6212D Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9Section 9(2)

…. Crescent Export Syndicate (2013) 2'J6 Taxman 258 (Cal) and Commissioner of Income .Tax vs. Sikandar Khan N. Tunwar (2013) 357 ITR 312 (Guj) followed) ii. Though in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Vector Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd (2013)262 CTR (All) 545, 357 ITR 642 it was held that no disallowance could be made u/s 40(a)(ia) as no amount remained payable at the year end and the Special Bench decision of the Tribunal in Merilyn Shipping & Transports, 136 ITD 23 (SB) (Vishakhapatnam) was noted, this cannot be agreed with as there is no reasoning for the finding. The dismissal of the department's petition for…

Shri Vinshnu Kumar Jalan, Ranchi vs. ACIT Cir-3, Ranchi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 98/RAN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi21 May 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year: 2013-2014

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Poddar/Devesh Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mondal, JCIT
Section 194(6)Section 194CSection 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Shri Vishnu Kumar Jalan, Vs. ACIT, Circle-3, Ranchi M/s. Jalan Food Product, Ranglal Jalan Road, Upper Bazar, Ranchi. PAN/GIR No. AAWPJ 3994 J (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee by: Shri S.K.Poddar/Devesh Poddar, Adv Revenue by : Shri P.K.Mondal, JCIT Date of Hearing : 22/05/ 2018 Date of Pronouncement : 23 /05/ 2018 O R D E R Per N.S.Saini, AM This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A), Ranchi, dated 1.3.2017,…

DCIT, Cir-12(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Organon (India) Pvt. Limited, Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 578/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2010-11 Dcit, Circle-12(1), V/S. M/S Organon (India) Pvt. Ltd., G-Block, 7Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Aayakar Palatina, Plot No. C-59, Bhawan, 7Th Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Kolkata-69 Bandra (East) Mumbai-98 [Pan No. Aaacl 6949 R] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Taisha Guh Neogy, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 10-05-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 17-05-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2010-11 Arises Against Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata’S Order Dated 15.02.2017, Passed In Appeal No.1203/Cit(A)-4/Circle-12/Kol/14-15, Reversing The Assessing Officer’S Action Invoking Section 40(A)(Ia) For Disallowing Assessee’S Travel Expenditure Towards Payments Of Tickets Of ₹2,85,05,786/- & ₹1,92,61,607/- Of Similar Expenditure Incurred Without Deducting Tds, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties Vehemently Reiterating Their Respective Stands In Favour & Against The Impugned Disallowances. Case File Perused. 2. We Notice First Of All That The Cit(A)’S Detailed Discussion In Reversing The Above Two Disallowance(S) Made By The Assessing Officer U/S. 40(A)(Ia) Of The Act Reads As Under:-

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 40

…आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “B” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “B” KOLKATA Before Shri S.S.Godara, Judicial Member and Dr. A.L. Saini, Accountant Member Assessment Year :2010-11 DCIT, Circle-12(1), V/s. M/s Organon (India) Pvt. Ltd., G-Block, 7th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Aayakar Palatina, Plot No. C-59, Bhawan, 7th Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Kolkata-69 Bandra (East) Mumbai-98 [PAN No. AAACL 6949 R] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. CIT-DR अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Taisha Guh Neogy, AR ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 10-05-2018 सुनवाई क" त…

ITO Company Ward 5(3), Chennai vs. Q Source Global Consulting Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the Revenue appeals in ITA No

ITA 2062/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 May 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 1260 & 2062/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Nataraja, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 201(1)Section 40

…ayees have admitted the impugned rental payments in their returns and paid the taxes. When the genuineness of the expenditure is not doubted, disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) cannot be made and it relied on the decision of CIT vs Vector Shipping Services Ltd., (357 ITR 642) (Allahabad) etc. The CIT(A) allowed the appeal. Aggrieved against the orders of the CIT(A), the Revenue filed these appeals. :-3-: ITA Nos.1260 & 2062/Chny/2017 4. We heard the rival submissions. On the issue of disallowance on the Employees Contribution towards PF/ESI, u/s.s 2(24)(x) r.w.s 36(1)(va) since, the CIT(A) has applied the Jurisdi…

ITO, Chennai vs. Q.Source Global Consulting Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the Revenue appeals in ITA No

ITA 1260/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 May 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 1260 & 2062/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Nataraja, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 201(1)Section 40

…ayees have admitted the impugned rental payments in their returns and paid the taxes. When the genuineness of the expenditure is not doubted, disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) cannot be made and it relied on the decision of CIT vs Vector Shipping Services Ltd., (357 ITR 642) (Allahabad) etc. The CIT(A) allowed the appeal. Aggrieved against the orders of the CIT(A), the Revenue filed these appeals. :-3-: ITA Nos.1260 & 2062/Chny/2017 4. We heard the rival submissions. On the issue of disallowance on the Employees Contribution towards PF/ESI, u/s.s 2(24)(x) r.w.s 36(1)(va) since, the CIT(A) has applied the Jurisdi…

Ramesh Haribhau Gawali, Ahmednagar vs. Income-Tax Officer

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 1013/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.N. DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jha, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40A(3)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण] पुणे "यायपीठ “बी” पुणे म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1013/PUN/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Ramesh Haribhau Gawali, ………. अपीलाथ" / 107, Samartha Apartments, Appellant Near Gulmohar Police Chowkey, Swami Samartha Mandir, Ahmednagar – 414 003. PAN : AHEPG1692H. बनाम v/s The Income Tax Officer, ………. ""यथ" / Ward – 1, Ahmednagar. Respondent अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by : Shri S.N. Doshi. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Respondent by : Shri Mukesh Jha, JCIT. सुनवाई क" त…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Eskay Designs, Chennai

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

ITA 247/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I T.A. No. 247/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Eskay Designs, No. 25, 1St Street, Cenotaph Road, Income Tax, Non-Corporate Circle 3, Vs. 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aaafe1480C] (Appellant) (Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Mrs. S. Vijayaprabha, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K. Ravi, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 07.02.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 4, Chennai Dated 31.10.2016 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13. The First Issue Raised In The Appeal Of The Revenue Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Directing To Assess The Rental Income Received By The Assessee On Sub-Letting Of Its Leased Out Properties Under The Head “Income From House Property” & The Second Issue Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Directing To Allow The Expenses If They Are Paid As On 2

For Appellant: Mrs. S. Vijayaprabha, JCITFor Respondent: Shri K. Ravi, Advocate
Section 27Section 40

…he Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal decided the issue in assessee’s favour. 6.2 Now, the above issue has attained its finality, by holding that the judgement of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. Vector Shipping Services (P) Ltd. [2013] 357 ITR 642 in which the decision in the case of Merilyn Shipping and Transports v. Addl. CIT has been followed, did 6 I.T.A. No.247/M/17 not decide the question of law correctly and overruled the same in a recent judgement in the case of Palam Gas Services v. CIT in Civil Appeal No. 5512 of 2017 dated 03.05.2017, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed and…

ITO 17(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Ramkrishna Billava, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal and assessee’s cross objection are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5306/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Viraj MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop
Section 201(1)Section 40

…wed the deduction claimed by the assessee. The assessee challenged the disallowance by filing an appeal before the first appellate authority. 4. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) following the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Victor Shipping, 357 ITR 642, held that only the amount remaining payable on 31st March 2012, can be disallowed under section 40(a)(ia). Accordingly, out of the total payment of ` 2,37,02,594, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) restricted the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) to an amount of ` 33,72,515. 5. We have heard rival submissions and perused material on record. T…

Gurera Synthetics P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 4(2)(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 476/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Gurera Synthetics Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax Officer 4(2)(3) बिधम/ 33/37 Dwarkesh Market, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Dr. A.M. Road, Bhuleshwar, Mumbai 400020 Vs. Mumbai 400 002 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan No. Aaacg2269G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Narayan Atal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Vidyadhar, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)Section 40Section 40A(3)

…allowance under the aforesaid statutory provision was called for in the hands of the assessee. We further find that the assessee had also relied on the judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of the CIT Vs. Vector Shipping Pvt. Ltd. (2013) 357 ITR 642 (All). We are of the considered view that the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Palam Gas Service Vs. CIT (2017) 394 ITR 300 (SC) had recently held that Section 40(a)(ia) covers not only those cases where the amount is payable, but also where the amounts which had been paid. Thus, in the backdrop of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Apex C…

Shyam Apparels P.Ltd., Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

ITA 549/JPR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Nov 2017AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma, (Addl.CIT)
Section 201Section 40Section 40A(3)

…ularly when the ITAT has after taking into consideration all the relevant and contradictory judgments rendered by various High Courts, has decided to follow the judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vector Shipping Services (P) Ltd. [357 ITR 642] (affirmed by Supreme Court) by following the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s direction rendered in CIT Vs. Vegetable Products Ltd. reported in 88 ITR 192 to the effect that when two views are possible on an issue, then the one favouring assessee has to be preferred. Thus, the action of ITA 497 & 549/JP/2016_ 3 ITO Vs. Shyam Apparels Ld. CIT(A) deserves…

ITO, Jaipur vs. Shyam Apparels Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

ITA 497/JPR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Nov 2017AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma, (Addl.CIT)
Section 201Section 40Section 40A(3)

…ularly when the ITAT has after taking into consideration all the relevant and contradictory judgments rendered by various High Courts, has decided to follow the judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vector Shipping Services (P) Ltd. [357 ITR 642] (affirmed by Supreme Court) by following the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s direction rendered in CIT Vs. Vegetable Products Ltd. reported in 88 ITR 192 to the effect that when two views are possible on an issue, then the one favouring assessee has to be preferred. Thus, the action of ITA 497 & 549/JP/2016_ 3 ITO Vs. Shyam Apparels Ld. CIT(A) deserves…

ITO WD 2(4), Thane vs. Sai Shakti Enterprises, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4266/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhsai Shakti Enterprises, Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Shop No. 2, Building No. B/4, Thane, First Floor, Vardhan Shanti Nagar, Sector 10, Vs. Building, Midc, Wagle Industrial Mira Road, Thane-400604. Estate, Thane-401107 Pan: Aaxfs8506L (Appellant) (Respondent) Income Tax Officer, Sai Shakti Enterprises, Ashar I.T. Park, 6Th Floor, Shop No. 2, Building No. B/4, Wagle Industrial Estate, Vs. Shanti Nagar, Sector 10, Road No. 167, Thane (W) Mira Road,Thane. Pan: Aaxfs8506L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Virag H. ShahFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin (Sr. DR)
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 263Section 40Section 44A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Sai Shakti Enterprises, Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Shop No. 2, Building No. B/4, Thane, first floor, Vardhan Shanti Nagar, Sector 10, Vs. Building, MIDC, Wagle Industrial Mira Road, Thane-400604. Estate, Thane-401107 PAN: AAXFS8506L (Appellant) (Respondent) Income Tax Officer, Sai Shakti Enterprises, Ashar I.T. Park, 6th Floor, Shop No. 2, Building No. B/4, Wagle Industrial Estate, Vs. Shanti Nagar, Sector 10, Road No. 167, Thane (W) Mira Road,Thane. PAN: AAXFS8506L (Appell…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6, Jaipur vs. M/S. Anamika Conductors Ltd., Jaipur

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

ITA 612/JPR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Oct 2017AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri G.M. Mehta (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)
Section 14ASection 201(1)Section 36(1)Section 40Section 43B

…verify the same in the light of the directions as above. With regard to an amount of Rs. 1,23,732/- relating testing charges paid to Shri Ramesh Kumar and Tag Corporation, the Authorized Representative relying on the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court 357 ITR 642 for the fact that these amounts had been paid during the year and hence, the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) were not applicable. However, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Palam Gas Service 81 Taxman.com 43 (SC) has held that section 40(a)(ia) covers not only those cases where the amount is payable but also when…

M/S. Nq Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 188/CTK/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack04 Oct 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri N.S Sainiassessment Year : 2013-2014

For Appellant: Shri C.Parida, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR
Section 194Section 40

…nd of the year, therefore, in view of the decision of Visakhapatnam Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Merilyn Shipping & Transports, 136 ITD 23 (Viskhapatnam SB) and decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Vector Shipping Services (P) Ltd, 357 ITR 642 (All),no disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) was warranted. 6. The CIT(A) following the decision of Hon’ble H.P.High Court in the case of Palam Gas Service vs CIT, 47 TAXMANN.COM 310(H.P), wherein, it was held that section 40(a)(ia) was applicable both the amount which was shown outstanding as at end the of the relevant previous year as well as the amo…