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.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Vector Shipping Services (P) Ltd.?

87 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Vector Shipping Services (P) Ltd. (357 ITR 642), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Vector Shipping Services (P) Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 194C, Section 195, Section 40(a)(ia), Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 197.

CIT v. Vector Shipping Services (P) Ltd. (357 ITR 642)

Smt. Asha Chawla, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result ground no.2 of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3220/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Aug 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddyay: 2010-11 Smt. Asha Chawla Vs. Acit, Circle 39(1) Xiii/4836, Bara Tooti New Delhi Sadar Bazar New Delhi 110 006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Somil Aggarwal, Adv. Respondent By : None.

For Appellant: Sh. Somil Aggarwal, AdvFor Respondent: None

Section 40

…s further erred in sustaining the same to the extent of Rs.5,75,000/-.” 5. After hearing the ld.Counsel for the assessee I hold that the disallowance cannot be made in view of the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vector Shipping 357 ITR 642 (All) and the decision of the Vizag Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Merilyn Shipping and Transport vs. ACIT (2012) 16 ITR (Tribunal)/ 146 TTJ 1 (SB) (Vizag) as there is no amount payable by the assessee towards audit fee and professional charges as on 31st March, 2010. 6. In the result ground no.2 of the assessee is allowed. 7. In th…

M/S Bellad & Company, Hubli vs. DCIT, Hubli

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

ITA 1002/BANG/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Bellad & Co., Vidyanagar, Hubli. … Appellant Pa No: Aabfb 6457 D Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 1(1), Hubli. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri C.R.Nulvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri C.N.Bipin, JCIT(DR)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40a

…ing year. According to him, the issue is covered by the Special Bench of Tribunal in the case of Merilyn Shipping and Transport Ltd. reported in 136 ITD 23, Hon’ble Allahabad High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Vector Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd. (2013) 357 ITR 642). However, we find that this ground was not raised before the CIT(A) and no application was filed for admission of the additional ground of appeal. Moreover, the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ryatar Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamit vs. ACIT (ITR (2016) (383 ITR 561) had not followed the ratio of the decision of the Special Bench of Tr…

Regina Jayprakash, Mumbai vs. ITO 22(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our order as discussed above

ITA 1006/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Taneja

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201Section 40

…0 of 2013) have held that the decision rendered by the Special Bench in the case of Meryline Shipping & Transports is not a good law. The Ld A.R, however, placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Vector Shipping Services (357 ITR 642). On a careful perusal of the decision given by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, we notice that the High Court has decided the issue referred to it on a different footing and has made a passing comment about the decision rendered by the Special Bench. Thus, the ratio of the said decision is different from that rendered in the case of Meryline Shippi…

Regina Jayprakash, Mumbai vs. I.T.O.22(2)-4, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our order as discussed above

ITA 2561/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Taneja

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201Section 40

…0 of 2013) have held that the decision rendered by the Special Bench in the case of Meryline Shipping & Transports is not a good law. The Ld A.R, however, placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Vector Shipping Services (357 ITR 642). On a careful perusal of the decision given by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, we notice that the High Court has decided the issue referred to it on a different footing and has made a passing comment about the decision rendered by the Special Bench. Thus, the ratio of the said decision is different from that rendered in the case of Meryline Shippi…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Spice Communication Ltd., Noida

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 988/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2006-07 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Spice Communication Ltd., Tax, Circle 9(1), Room No. 163, C/O- Idea Cellular Ltd., A-68, C.R. Building, New Delhi Sector-64, Noida. Gir/Pan : Aagcs6070H (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No. 77/Del/2011 [In Ita No. 988/Del/2011] Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Spice Communication Ltd., Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income C/O- Idea Cellular Ltd., A-68, Tax, Circle 9(1), Room No. 163, Sector-64, Noida. C.R. Building, New Delhi Gir/Pan : Aagcs6070H (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Idea Cellular Ltd., A-68, Vs. Acit, Circle-50(1), New Delhi Sector-64, Noida Gir/Pan : Aaacb2100P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Ronak G. Doshi, Ca Department By Sh. B.K. Singh, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 05.04.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 25.05.2016 & C.O. No. 77/Del/2011

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…ecial bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Marylin Shipping and Transports Vs. ACIT in ITA No. 477/Viz/2008 and the judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vector & C.O. No. 77/Del/2011 Shipping Services Private Limited reported in 357 ITR 642. He further, relying on the decision in the case of Narang Overseas Private Limited Vs. ACIT reported in 111 ITD 1 submitted that in case of diverging views, view favourable to assessee should be considered. 13.2 On the other and the Ld. CIT(DR) relying on the orders of the authorities below submitted that it was not possible to extend the roamin…

Idea Cellular Ltd., Noida vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 801/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2006-07 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Spice Communication Ltd., Tax, Circle 9(1), Room No. 163, C/O- Idea Cellular Ltd., A-68, C.R. Building, New Delhi Sector-64, Noida. Gir/Pan : Aagcs6070H (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No. 77/Del/2011 [In Ita No. 988/Del/2011] Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Spice Communication Ltd., Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income C/O- Idea Cellular Ltd., A-68, Tax, Circle 9(1), Room No. 163, Sector-64, Noida. C.R. Building, New Delhi Gir/Pan : Aagcs6070H (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Idea Cellular Ltd., A-68, Vs. Acit, Circle-50(1), New Delhi Sector-64, Noida Gir/Pan : Aaacb2100P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Ronak G. Doshi, Ca Department By Sh. B.K. Singh, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 05.04.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 25.05.2016 & C.O. No. 77/Del/2011

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…ecial bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Marylin Shipping and Transports Vs. ACIT in ITA No. 477/Viz/2008 and the judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vector & C.O. No. 77/Del/2011 Shipping Services Private Limited reported in 357 ITR 642. He further, relying on the decision in the case of Narang Overseas Private Limited Vs. ACIT reported in 111 ITD 1 submitted that in case of diverging views, view favourable to assessee should be considered. 13.2 On the other and the Ld. CIT(DR) relying on the orders of the authorities below submitted that it was not possible to extend the roamin…

ITO, Chennai vs. United Capital Partners (India) P Ltd., Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and Revenue

ITA 1549/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Apr 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.B. Koli, JCIT

Section 40

…ot attracted. Therefore, according to the appellants, disallowance cannot be sustained. This contention was sought to be substantiated by relying on the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Vector Shipping Services (P) [(2013) 357 ITR 642 (All)]. Primarily, this contention should be answered with reference to the language used in the statutory provision. Section 40(a)(ia) makes it clear that the consequence of disallowance is attracted when an individual, who is liable to deduct tax on any interest payable to a resident on which tax is deductible at source, commits default. The la…

United Capital Partners (India) Private Limited, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and Revenue

ITA 1058/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Apr 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.B. Koli, JCIT

Section 40

…ot attracted. Therefore, according to the appellants, disallowance cannot be sustained. This contention was sought to be substantiated by relying on the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Vector Shipping Services (P) [(2013) 357 ITR 642 (All)]. Primarily, this contention should be answered with reference to the language used in the statutory provision. Section 40(a)(ia) makes it clear that the consequence of disallowance is attracted when an individual, who is liable to deduct tax on any interest payable to a resident on which tax is deductible at source, commits default. The la…

DCIT vs. M/S Aviators (India) Pvt. Ltd

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1796/BANG/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Apr 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Abraham P. George & Shri. Vijay Pal Raoi.T.A No.1796/Bang/2013 (Assessment Year : 2010-11) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle -11(1), Bangalore .. Appellant V. M/S. Aviators (India) P. Ltd, 1309, Brigade Towers, 135, Brigade Road, Bangalore 560 025 .. Respondent Pan : Aabca4499H Assessee By : Shri. G. Venkatesh, Advocate Revenue By : Dr. P. K. Srihari, Addl. Cit Heard On : 30.03.2015 Pronounced On : 12.04.2015 O R D E R Per Abraham P. George:

For Appellant: Shri. G. Venkatesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P. K. Srihari, Addl. CIT

Section 40

…s. Assessee also relied on a Special Bench decision of this Tribunal in the case of Merilyn Shipping and Transports v. Addl. CIT (2012) 16 ITR (Trib) 1 Vishakapatnam, that of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. Vector Shipping Services (P) Ltd [357 ITR 642], and that of a coordinate bench decision in the case of DCIT v. Ananda Markala [ITA.1584/Bang/2012, dt.13.09.2013], for arguing that Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act could be applied only on ‘payable’ sums and not paid amounts. CIT (A) was appreciative of the last line of the argument of the assessee i.e., Section 40(a)(ia) could be applied only on…

M.Arunachalam and Company, Chennai vs. JCIT, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1353/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Apr 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1352 & 1353/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 M/S M. Arunachalam & Company, The Joint / Assistant No.117/79, Lloyds Road, V. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Royapettah, Chennai - 600 014. Business Range Viii, Chennai - 600 006. Pan : Aaafm 6851 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J. Chandrasekaran, CAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Radhakrishnan, JCIT

…remains to be payable, therefore, the assessee is not expected to deduct tax on the amount paid and remains to be payable. The Ld. representative placed his reliance on the judgment of Allahabad High Court in CIT v. Vector Shipping Services (P.) Ltd. (2013) 357 ITR 642. 13. On the contrary, Sh. P. Radhakrishnan, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the assessment year under consideration is 2010-11. Section 194-I of the Act was amended with effect from 13.07.2006. When the assessee has paid charges/ rent for hiring equipment or machinery, the assessee has to necessarily deduct tax at 2% for use o…

M.Arunachalam and Company, Chennai vs. JCIT, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1352/CHNY/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Apr 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1352 & 1353/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 M/S M. Arunachalam & Company, The Joint / Assistant No.117/79, Lloyds Road, V. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Royapettah, Chennai - 600 014. Business Range Viii, Chennai - 600 006. Pan : Aaafm 6851 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J. Chandrasekaran, CAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Radhakrishnan, JCIT

…remains to be payable, therefore, the assessee is not expected to deduct tax on the amount paid and remains to be payable. The Ld. representative placed his reliance on the judgment of Allahabad High Court in CIT v. Vector Shipping Services (P.) Ltd. (2013) 357 ITR 642. 13. On the contrary, Sh. P. Radhakrishnan, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the assessment year under consideration is 2010-11. Section 194-I of the Act was amended with effect from 13.07.2006. When the assessee has paid charges/ rent for hiring equipment or machinery, the assessee has to necessarily deduct tax at 2% for use o…

National Agro Foods, Tiruppur vs. ITO, Tiruppur

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

ITA 2554/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Apr 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2554/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S National Agro Foods, The Income Tax Officer, 141, Mangalam Road, Avinashi, V. Ward – I(2), Tirupur – 641 654. Tirupur. Pan : Aahfn 1444 L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. B. Nischal, JCIT

Section 69C

…ot attracted. Therefore, according to the appellants, disallowance cannot be sustained. This contention was sought to be substantiated by relying on the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Vector Shipping Services (P) [(2013) 357 ITR 642 (All)]. Primarily, this contention should be answered with reference to the language used in the statutory provision. Section 40(a)(ia) makes it clear that the consequence of disallowance is attracted when an individual, who is liable to deduct tax on any interest payable to a resident on which tax is deductible at source, commits default. The la…

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)

…ping & Transports (supra), had held that disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) could not be made on amounts which stood paid during the relevant previous year. It is also true that Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v Vector Shipping Services P. Ltd [(2013) 357 ITR 642] took the very same view. However Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court after considering the latter judgment held that language of Section 40(a)(ia) could not be interpreted to mean that consequence of disallowance is attracted only in respect of amounts which remain payable as on the last day of the financial year. In other words Hon’ble jurisdicti…

M/S. Al- Hind Exports, Meerut vs. ITO, Meerut

In the result ground, No

ITA 439/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shrii.C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishial-Hind Exports, Ito, 13, Ismail Nagar, Ward-1(1), Vs. Meerut Meerut (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ravindra Aggarwal, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. Bharat Bhushan Garg, Sr DR

Section 40Section 68

…ade. Against this, the assessee preferred an appeal ld.CIT (A) who in turn confirmed addition. Before us, the ld. AR submitted that issue is now squarely covered in favour of assessee by the decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of Vector Shipping 357 ITR 642. It was further submitted that the payment are also made to agents of foreign shipping lines on which no TDS is required to be deducted in view of the CBDT Circular and further the CBDT 715 has been overlooked by the AO. The ld. DR relied on the order of lower authorities. Page 9 of 9 10. We have carefully considered the rival contentions the as…

ITO, Chennai vs. Xerago Crm Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 1543/CHNY/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1543/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 The Income Tax Officer, M/S Xerago Crm Solutions Pvt. Ltd., New No.3, 17Th Avenue, Corporate Ward – 3(3), V. Chennai - 600 034. Harrington Road, Chetpet, Chennai - 600 031. Pan : Aaacx 0348 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Sreekanth, JCITFor Respondent: Shri R. Badreenath, CA

Section 40

…not attracted. Therefore, according to the appellants, disallowance cannot be sustained. This contention was sought to be substantiated by relying on the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Vector Shipping Services (P) [2013] 357 ITR 642 (All)]. Primarily, this contention should be answered with reference to the language used in the statutory provision. Section 40(a)(ia) makes it clear that the consequence of disallowance is attracted when an individual, who is liable to deduct tax on any interest payable to a resident on which tax is deductible at source, commits default. The la…

ITO, Meerut vs. Sh. Arun Kumar, Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 5063/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 5063/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Income Tax Officer, Vs Sh. Arun Kumar Ward-1(1), 281, Boundry Road, Meerut Meerut (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaypk1784D Assessee By : Sh. O. P. Sapra, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. K. K. Jaiswal, Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.09.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.12.2015 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. O. P. Sapra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. K. K. Jaiswal, DR

Section 194CSection 197(2)Section 40

…e submissions made before the authorities below and further submitted that the issue under consideration is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs Vector Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd. 357 ITR 642. It was also pointed out that the SLP filed by the department against the said order was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It was contended that the Circular No. 10/DV of 2013 dated 16.12.2013 issued by the CBDT and reported in 360 ITR 36 (St) explained that the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act would not be applicable to the amoun…

Ariruz Zaman Kazi, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-49(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 366/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2015AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 194CSection 40Section 40a

…s applicable only for the expenditure i. e. "payable" as on 31s/ March, as per verdict of special bench i) Merilyn Shipping and Transport Ltd. (136 ITD 23) (SB) (viz) ii) Verdict of Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vector Shipping Services (P) Ltd. 357 ITR 642. The Department's SLP to the Supreme Court in this regard has been unconditionally dismissed in limine upholding the verdict of Special Bench (viz.). iii) That the provisions of section 194C will not be applicable to the term "work" where the "work" will not include manufacturing or supplying a product according to the requirement or specificati…

ITO, Chennai vs. Globe Transport Corporation Pvt Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 1783/CHNY/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Nov 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. P. Radhakrishnan, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. V.S. Jayakumar, Advocate

Section 143(1)Section 40

…e not applicable and relied on the decisions of Special Bench of Vizag Bench in the case of Merilyn Shipping and Transports vs. Addl. CIT (136 ITD 23) Vizag(SB) and also judgment of Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vector Shipping Services P. Ltd 357 ITR 642 (All). The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) after perusing Form No.15I and 15J filed before the Income Tax Officer, TDS ward, Chennai on 04.04.2006 and also list of truck drivers to whom truck charges was paid has held that provisions of u/sec 40(a)(ia) cannot be invoked since above amount was already paid and there are no outstanding p…

M/S. Luxmi Rice Mills, Karnal vs. ITO, Karnal

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

ITA 1497/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini:Asstt. Yrs: 2010-11 Luxmi Rice Mills, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, C/O Dharam Pal Gupta, Adv. Ward-4, Karnal. 7-Railway Road, Karnal. Pan: Aaafl 2868 D ( Appellant ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Permil Goel AdvFor Respondent: Shri K.K. Jaiswal, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 10(20)Section 143(1)Section 194Section 194CSection 40Section 40a

…was not justified. Reliance was placed on the decision of the ITAT Visakhapatnam, Special Bench in the case of Merilyn Shipping & Transport Vs. JCIT and the judgment of the Hon’ble Allahabad High court in the case of CIT vs. Vector Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd. 357 ITR 642. Reliance was also placed on the following case laws: 6 ITA 1497/Del/2015 - Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s DLF Commercial Project Corporation (ITA nos. 627/2012 & 507/2013 dated 15-7-2015); - ITAT Mumbai Bench ‘J’ in the case of Shri Jitendra Mansukhlal Shah Vs. DCIT (ITA nos. 2293 & 2294/Mum/2013 –order dated 4-3-2015). 12…

ACIT, Rewari vs. Sh. Rajender Singh Yadav, Gurgaon

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4169/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Oct 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri J.Sudhakar Reddyay : - 2008-09 Acit, Circle: Rewari Vs. Sh. Rajender Singh Yadav Aayakar Bhawan, Model Town 158, Housing Board Colony Rewari Jharsa Road, Gurgaon Pan: Aabpy 9819 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Vikram Sahay, Sr.D.R. Respondent By: Sh. Gautam Jain, C.A.

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Sahay, Sr.D.RFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Jain, C.A

Section 54F

…06,733/- out of loading expenses of Rs.1,59,360/- in respect of repair of JCB by invoking S.40A(ia) he relied on the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and the jdugement of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vectir /shipping Services (P) Ltd. reported in 357 ITR 642(Allahabad). He pointed out that the A.O. failed to appreciate the real nature of the business of the assessee. 7 A.Y. 2008-09 Sh. Rajender Singh Yadav, Gurgaeon 7.1. Regarding provision of a sum of Rs.76,584/-,he submits that this was actually liability. 7.2. Ld.Sr.D.R. relied on the orders of the A.O. on the second and third issues. He disting…

CIT v. Vector Shipping Services (P) Ltd.

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

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

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

Smt. Asha Chawla, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

M/S Bellad & Company, Hubli vs. DCIT, Hubli

Regina Jayprakash, Mumbai vs. ITO 22(2)(4), Mumbai

Regina Jayprakash, Mumbai vs. I.T.O.22(2)-4, Mumbai

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Spice Communication Ltd., Noida

Idea Cellular Ltd., Noida vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITO, Chennai vs. United Capital Partners (India) P Ltd., Chennai

United Capital Partners (India) Private Limited, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

DCIT vs. M/S Aviators (India) Pvt. Ltd

M.Arunachalam and Company, Chennai vs. JCIT, Chennai

M.Arunachalam and Company, Chennai vs. JCIT, Chennai

National Agro Foods, Tiruppur vs. ITO, Tiruppur

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

M/S. Al- Hind Exports, Meerut vs. ITO, Meerut

ITO, Chennai vs. Xerago Crm Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

ITO, Meerut vs. Sh. Arun Kumar, Meerut

Ariruz Zaman Kazi, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-49(2), Kolkata

ITO, Chennai vs. Globe Transport Corporation Pvt Ltd., Chennai

M/S. Luxmi Rice Mills, Karnal vs. ITO, Karnal

ACIT, Rewari vs. Sh. Rajender Singh Yadav, Gurgaon