CIT vs. Ansal Landmark Township, 377 ITR 635; (ii) Rajeev Kumar Agarwal v. Addl. CIT

422 ITR 209High Court2020#25091 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2024.

Judgments citing CIT vs. Ansal Landmark Township, 377 ITR 635; (ii) Rajeev Kumar Agarwal v. Addl. CIT

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. VIZAG SEAPORT PVT. LTD., VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 383/VIZ/2017[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam12 Apr 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon‟Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon‟Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 383/Viz/2017 (धनधाारणिर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2012-13) The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Vizag Seaport Pvt Ltd., Income Tax, Administrative Block, Circle-5(1), S4 Gallery, Port Area, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam – 530035. (अपीलाथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) [Pan :Aabcv2484K] अपीलाथी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri Fenil A Bhatt, Ar प्रत्याथी की ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुनिाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15/02/2024 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of : /04/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Pers. Balakrishnan:

For Appellant: Sri Fenil A Bhatt, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 194JSection 36(1)(iii)Section 40

…was held that second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) is applicable from 1/4/2013 only. Countering the arguments of the Ld. DR, the Ld. AR submitted that the Hon‟ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Belgaum vs. S.M. Anand [2020] 422 ITR 209 (Karnataka) held that the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) inserted by Finance Act, 2012 is clarificatory and it has retrospective effect from 1/4/2013. On perusal of various case laws submitted by the 10 assessee as well as the Ld. DR, we find that most of the judicial pronouncements have held that when there is a short deduction of TDS, the…

MR.K E GNANAVELRAJ / PROPRIETOR,CHENNAI vs. CIT[A], CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for

ITA 403/CHNY/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.403/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Vs The Assistant Commissioner Of Shri K.E. Gnanavelraja, Old No.16, New No.13 Income Tax, Jagadeeshwari Road, Central Circle-1(2) T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017. Chennai. Pan :Agapg 5673M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. V.Vivek Rajan, C.A ""For Respondent: Mr. D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

Section 153ASection 154Section 201Section 40

…tion 40(a)(ia) of the Act and relied on the following case laws in support of his claim:- i) CIT Vs. Ansal Land Mark Township P.Ltd. (2015) 377 ITR 635 (Del) ii) PCIT Vs Perfect Circle India Pvt. Ltd. (2019) 13 ITR-OL 78 (Bom) iii) CIT vs. S.M. Anand (2020) 422 ITR 209 (Karn) 6. We noted that the assessee’s only contention now before us is that in view of the 2nd proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, the assesse should not be held as assessee in default for non-deduction of TDS, as the assessee has collected all the details in prescribed form u/s.201(Form No.26A) that the payees have included the above in…

KIMBERLY CLARK LEVER P.LTD.,PUNE vs. ACIT, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2481/PUN/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2481/Pun/2012 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Kimberly Clark Lever P. Ltd., Gat No.934 To 937, Village Sanaswadi Off Nagar Road, Ta- Shirur, Pune-412208. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaack4647E बनाम / V/S. Acit, Circle-Xi(I), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwalla Revenue By : Shri Sandeep Garg सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 22.02.2021 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Final Assessment Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short) Of The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-11(1), Pune (‘The Assessing Officer’ For Short) Dated 29.10.2012 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “The Appellant Objects To The Order Dated 29 October 2012 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 11(1), Pune [‘Acit’ Or ‘Ao’] Following The Directions Issued By The Dispute Resolution Panel (‘Drp’) In Respect Of The Aforesaid Assessment Year On The Following Among Other Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Garg

Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 194JSection 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…f the Act should be granted. The ld. Sr. Counsel also placed reliance on the following decisions in support of this contention :- (i) CIT vs. Ansal Landmark Township, 377 ITR 635; (ii) Rajeev Kumar Agarwal vs. Addl. CIT, 149 ITD 363; (iii) CIT vs. S.M. Anand, 422 ITR 209; (iv) PCIT vs. Perfect Circle India Pvt. Ltd., 104 CCH 8; (v) Calcutta Export Company, 93 taxman 51; (vi) G. Shankar vs. ACIT, 41 CCH 309; and, (vii) Vardhvinayak Township Development, 168 ITD 456. 15. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR submitted that the details of the expenditure were not filed before the Assessing Officer and, therefore, the As…