CIT vs. Ajax Products Ltd. (1965) 55 ITR 741 (SC), CWT v. Ellis Bridge Gymkhana (229 ITR 1)

TAMILNADU INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORP CIRCLE 3(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1036/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1036/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Tamilnadu Industrial The Deputy Commissioner Of Development Corporation Limited, V. Income Tax, 19-A, Rukminilakshmipathy Road, Corporate Circle 3(1), Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. Chennai – 600 034. [Pan:Aaact-3409-P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2024 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.09.2024

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 18Section 234CSection 28Section 43Section 43B

…e the assessee is also engaged in the business of financial company, their lordship held as under: “13. The learned counsel for the assessee relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Wealth-tax v. Ellis Bridge Gymkhana and Others, [1998] 229 ITR 1, wherein it is held that the rule of construction of a charging section s that before taxing any person, it must be shown that he falls within the ambit of the charging section by clear words used in the section and no one can be taxed by implication. There is no dispute with regard to the said legal proposition. In the case on hand, the nature of…

EXOTICA HOUSING & INFRSTRUCTURE PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 8(4), NEW DELHI

ITA 5188/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jun 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Anil Chaturvedi

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jagdish Singh, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

…ess and until the assessee falls within the ambit of charging section by clear words, he cannot be taxed by implications. Hence the charging section has to be construed strictly and for this purpose the appellant relied on the CWT vs. Eliss Bridge Gymkhana in 229 ITR 1. The appellant states that the addition as made by the CIT (Appeals) is not only against the very purpose of provision of section 2(22)(e) of the IT Act but is also not covered by the provision of section 2(22)(e) of the IT Act. (iii) The provision of section 2(22)(e) of the IT Act is a deeming provision. Hence the deeming provision should be const…

PYRAMID REALTORS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 2057/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

…ess and until the assessee falls within the ambit of charging section by clear words, he cannot be taxed by implications. Hence the charging section has to be construed strictly and for this purpose the appellant relied on the CWT vs. Eliss Bridge Gymkhana in 229 ITR 1. The appellant states that the addition as made by the CIT (Appeals) is not only against the very purpose of provision of section 2(22)(e) of the IT Act but is also not covered by the provision of section 2(22)(e) of the IT Act. (iii) The provision of section 2(22)(e) of the IT Act is a deeming provision. Hence the deeming provision should be cons…

SAGA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 2056/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

…ess and until the assessee falls within the ambit of charging section by clear words, he cannot be taxed by implications. Hence the charging section has to be construed strictly and for this purpose the appellant relied on the CWT vs. Eliss Bridge Gymkhana in 229 ITR 1. The appellant states that the addition as made by the CIT (Appeals) is not only against the very purpose of provision of section 2(22)(e) of the IT Act but is also not covered by the provision of section 2(22)(e) of the IT Act. (iii) The provision of section 2(22)(e) of the IT Act is a deeming provision. Hence the deeming provision should be cons…

SAAMAG CONSTRUCTION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 2054/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

…ess and until the assessee falls within the ambit of charging section by clear words, he cannot be taxed by implications. Hence the charging section has to be construed strictly and for this purpose the appellant relied on the CWT vs. Eliss Bridge Gymkhana in 229 ITR 1. The appellant states that the addition as made by the CIT (Appeals) is not only against the very purpose of provision of section 2(22)(e) of the IT Act but is also not covered by the provision of section 2(22)(e) of the IT Act. (iii) The provision of section 2(22)(e) of the IT Act is a deeming provision. Hence the deeming provision should be cons…

SAAMAG DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 2053/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

…ess and until the assessee falls within the ambit of charging section by clear words, he cannot be taxed by implications. Hence the charging section has to be construed strictly and for this purpose the appellant relied on the CWT vs. Eliss Bridge Gymkhana in 229 ITR 1. The appellant states that the addition as made by the CIT (Appeals) is not only against the very purpose of provision of section 2(22)(e) of the IT Act but is also not covered by the provision of section 2(22)(e) of the IT Act. (iii) The provision of section 2(22)(e) of the IT Act is a deeming provision. Hence the deeming provision should be cons…

PARADEEP PHOSPHATES LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

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

ITA 560/CTK/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack27 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri B.K.Mahapatra/A.K.Sabat, ARFor Respondent: Shri Saad Kidwai, CITDR

…1) and 195(2), the TDS is required to be made on "any other sum chargeable under the provisions this Act". Chargeability is relevant in this 20 & ITA No.02/CTK/2014 case. As per decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CWT Vellis Bridge Gymkhan (1998) 229 ITR 1 (SC), if a person has not been brought in the ambit of Section by clear words, he cannot taxed at all. 2. In this case the above payments are made towards purchase of goods on principal to principal basis. Assessee has not entered into any contract with foreign parties rather assessee has procured the goods at its own cost like payment of customs d…

DCIT, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. PARADEEP PHOSPHATES LIMITED, BHUBANESWAR

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

ITA 331/CTK/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack09 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri B.K.Mahapatra, ARFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Mohapatra, CITDR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 147Section 148Section 40

…rovisions of Sec. 195(1) and 195(2), the TDS is required to be made on "any other sum chargeable under the provisions this Act". Chargeability is relevant in this case. As per decision of Hon'ble Supreme , Court in the case of CWT Vellis Bridge Gymkhan (1998) 229 ITR 1 (SC), if la person has not been brought in the ambit of Section by clear words, he nt4uPANCSWAP cannot taxed at all. In this case, the above payments are made towards purchase of goods on principal to principal basis. Assessee has not entered into any contract with foreign parties rather assessee has procured the goods at its own cost like payment…

PARADEEP PHOSPHATES LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, BHUBANESWAR

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

ITA 315/CTK/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack09 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri B.K.Mahapatra, ARFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Mohapatra, CITDR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 147Section 148Section 40

…rovisions of Sec. 195(1) and 195(2), the TDS is required to be made on "any other sum chargeable under the provisions this Act". Chargeability is relevant in this case. As per decision of Hon'ble Supreme , Court in the case of CWT Vellis Bridge Gymkhan (1998) 229 ITR 1 (SC), if la person has not been brought in the ambit of Section by clear words, he nt4uPANCSWAP cannot taxed at all. In this case, the above payments are made towards purchase of goods on principal to principal basis. Assessee has not entered into any contract with foreign parties rather assessee has procured the goods at its own cost like payment…

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. PARADEEP PHOSPHATES LIMITED, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and that of

ITA 289/CTK/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack04 Aug 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2010-2011

For Appellant: Shri B.K.MohapatraFor Respondent: Shri Kunal Singh, CIT DR

Section 195Section 195(1)Section 195(2)Section 197Section 263Section 40Section 92

…ed to be made on "any other sum chargeable under the provisions this Act". Changeability is relevant in this case. As per decision of Hon'ble Supreme ITA No. 264/CT K/ 2015 Asse ssment Year : 20 10- 201 1 Court in the case of CWT Vellis Bridge Gymkhan (1998) 229 ITR 1 (SC), if a person has not been brought in the ambit of Section by clear words, he cannot taxed at all. 2. In this case, the above payments are made towards purchase of goods on principal to principal basis. Assessee has not entered into any contract with foreign parties rather assessee has procured the goods at its own cost like payment of customs…

DCIT CIR 3(3), MUMBAI vs. SICOM LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed whereas appeal of the assessee is allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 1685/MUM/2009[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm M/S. Sicom Ltd., Vs. Dcit – 3(3) – Mumbai-20 Nirmal, 1St Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacs5524J Appellant) .. Respondent) & Dcit – 3(3) – Mumbai- Vs. M/S. Sicom Ltd., Nirmal, 1St Floor, Nariman Point, 20 Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacs5524J Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 41

…whatever is received by a person must be regarded as income liable to tax. In all cases in which a receipt is sought to be taxed as income, the burden lies upon the department to prove that it is within the taxing provision" b) CWT vs. Ellis Bridge Gymkhana (229 ITR 1….4)(SC) "The rule of construction of charging section is that before taxing any person, it must be shown that he falls within the ambit of the charging section by clear words used in the section. No one can be taxed by implication. A charging section has to be construed strictly. If a person has not been brought within the ambit of the charging sec…

SICOM LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed whereas appeal of the assessee is allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 1522/MUM/2009[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm M/S. Sicom Ltd., Vs. Dcit – 3(3) – Mumbai-20 Nirmal, 1St Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacs5524J Appellant) .. Respondent) & Dcit – 3(3) – Mumbai- Vs. M/S. Sicom Ltd., Nirmal, 1St Floor, Nariman Point, 20 Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacs5524J Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 41

…whatever is received by a person must be regarded as income liable to tax. In all cases in which a receipt is sought to be taxed as income, the burden lies upon the department to prove that it is within the taxing provision" b) CWT vs. Ellis Bridge Gymkhana (229 ITR 1….4)(SC) "The rule of construction of charging section is that before taxing any person, it must be shown that he falls within the ambit of the charging section by clear words used in the section. No one can be taxed by implication. A charging section has to be construed strictly. If a person has not been brought within the ambit of the charging sec…

DCIT (TDS) 3(2), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE LIFE NSURANACE CO. LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3011/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra B. SanghaviFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Singh, DR

Section 131Section 133ASection 194CSection 194DSection 194ISection 194JSection 201(1)

…t, it must be shown that the amount received by the recipient shall falls within the ambit of the charging section as per the provisions of the Act. In this regard, he relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of CWT vs. Ellis Bridge Gymkhana, Etc (229 ITR 1) (SC). Before the CIT (A) it is the case of the assessee that the assessee correctly deducted the tax at source under the provisions of section 194D of the Act on the ‗income‘ paid to or income received by the insurance agents and therefore, it should not be considered to be an assessee in default under section 201 of the Act. It was reiterated bef…

DCIT (TDS) 3(2), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3010/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra B. SanghaviFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Singh, DR

Section 131Section 133ASection 194CSection 194DSection 194ISection 194JSection 201(1)

…t, it must be shown that the amount received by the recipient shall falls within the ambit of the charging section as per the provisions of the Act. In this regard, he relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of CWT vs. Ellis Bridge Gymkhana, Etc (229 ITR 1) (SC). Before the CIT (A) it is the case of the assessee that the assessee correctly deducted the tax at source under the provisions of section 194D of the Act on the ‗income‘ paid to or income received by the insurance agents and therefore, it should not be considered to be an assessee in default under section 201 of the Act. It was reiterated bef…

DCIT (TDS) 3(2), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3009/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra B. SanghaviFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Singh, DR

Section 131Section 133ASection 194CSection 194DSection 194ISection 194JSection 201(1)

…t, it must be shown that the amount received by the recipient shall falls within the ambit of the charging section as per the provisions of the Act. In this regard, he relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of CWT vs. Ellis Bridge Gymkhana, Etc (229 ITR 1) (SC). Before the CIT (A) it is the case of the assessee that the assessee correctly deducted the tax at source under the provisions of section 194D of the Act on the ‗income‘ paid to or income received by the insurance agents and therefore, it should not be considered to be an assessee in default under section 201 of the Act. It was reiterated bef…