DCIT v. Ananda Marakala

150 ITD 323Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2014#10193 most cited

What is DCIT v. Ananda Marakala authority for?

Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) cannot be made if the recipient has already paid tax on the impugned payment, to avoid double taxation. The legislative intent of Section 40(a)(ia) and its proviso is to prevent undue hardship.

10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2024.

Also referred to as

DCIT v. Ananda Marakala · Section 40(a)(ia) · TDS · disallowance · recipient paid tax · double taxation · undue hardship · Finance Act 2004 · proviso to section 40(a)(ia)

Judgments citing DCIT v. Ananda Marakala

Ups Jetair Express Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT - 11(1)(2), Mumbai

Appeal are dismissed, the ground no

ITA 1622/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआ.अ.सं.1622/मुं/2015 (नि.व. 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR
Section 144C(1)Section 234BSection 32Section 40

…inserted by Finance (No.1) Act, 2004. This view is propounded by various benches of the Tribunal which are as under (1) Dr. Adi R. Nazir v. ACIT [IT Appeal No. 10556 (Mum.) of 2011, dated 26-11- 2014]; (ii) Dy. CIT v. Ananda Marakala [2014] 48 taxmann.com 402/150 ITD 323 (Bang), and (iii) Rajeev Kumar Agarwal v. Addl. CIT [2014] 45 taxmann.com 555/149 ITD 363 (Agra) 16. In view of the above discussion, we restore the matter back to the file of AO to verify as to whether the Titus has paid tax on the impugned payments by incorporating the same in their respective income. If the AO finds that the Titus has already…

M/S. Ratan Conductors, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-4, Jaipur

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

ITA 1259/JPR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1259/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Ratan Conductors, Cuke A.C.I.T., Vs. H-377(B), Road No. 17, Vki Area, Circle-4, Jaipur. Jaipur. Pan No.: Aabfr 8166 P Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Ashok Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Jcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 05/08/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Jaipur Dated 21/08/2019 For The A.Y. 2012-13 Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. Disallowance Of Interest Of Rs. 17,73,769/- On Account Of Non Tds:- That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Law & Facts In Confirming Disallowance Of Interest Of Rs.17,73,769/- Paid To M/S Barelays Investment & Loan (India) Ltd. (Rs. 298826/-) & M/S Future Capital (Rs. 1474943/-) On Account Of Non Deduction Of Tds Thereon By Invoking Provisions Of Section 40(A)(Ia) Of The It Act 1961. (A) The Assessee Firm Paid, Interest Of Rs. 2,98,826/- To Nbfc. M/S Barelays Investment & Loan (India) Ltd. & Rs.14,74,943/- To M/S Future Capital Another Nbfc. The Assessee Firm Raised Loan

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kr. Gupta (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 40

…ITA No. 1832/Bang/2013 Dt. 10.10.2014, Agra Bench in case of Rajeev Kumar Agarwal Vs. ACIT (2010) 34 ITR (Trib). 479, Delhi Bench in case of ITO Vs. Dr. Jaideep Kumar Sharma (2014) 34 ITR (Trib.) 565, Bangalore Bench in case of DCIT Vs. Ananda Marakala (2014) 150 ITD 323 as the amendment was made to remove the undue hardship. This in accordance with second provision to Section 40 (a) (ia) no disallowance could be made in the hands of assessee u/s 40 (a) (ia) so the disallowance of Rs. 17,73,769/- made by Ld. A.O. by invoking provisions of Section 40 (a) (ia) deserves to be deleted. Without prejudice to above the…

Shri Kanheya Lal, Ajmer vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1316/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jul 2020AY 2015-16
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Miss Chanchal Meena (ACIT)
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…T(A) as well before the tribunal are reproduced as under:- “It is humbly requested that in this case the decision of The Honourable Supreme Court decision CIT vs. Vegetable Products Ltd. in 88 ITIZ 192 (SC) (CLC Page No. 120-124) DCIT vs. Ananda Marakala in 150 ITD 323 (Bang) "30 is applicable ----thus there are two views on the issue, one in favour of the assessee expressed by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court and the other against the assessee expressed by the Hon'ble Gujarat & Calcutta High Courts. Admittedly, there is no decision rendered by the jurisdictional High Court on this issue. In the given circumsta…

Shri Vikram Singh Shekhawat, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Sikar

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 484/JPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jan 2020AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.C. Gupta, JCIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 154Section 234A

…ITA No. 1832/Bang/2013 dt. 10.10.2014, Agra Bench in case of Rajeev Kumar Agarwal Vs. ACIT (2014) 34 ITR (Trib.) 479, Delhi Bench in case of ITO Vs. Dr. Jaideep Kumar Sharma (2014) 34 ITR (Trib.) 565, Bangalore Bench in case of DCIT Vs. Ananda Marakala (2014) 150 ITD 323 as the amendment was made to remove the undue hardship. 3. Books Rejected No disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia): Further Sec. 145(3) has already been invoked and trading addition has already been made hence no further disallowance can be made u/s 40(a)(ia). Further alternatively it is submitted that as in the above cases the books of accounts has been re…

Shankar Jhalani, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1053/JPR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma (Addl.CIT)
Section 144Section 40

…T in ITA No.l832/Bang/2013 dt. 10.10.2014, Agra Bench in case of Rajeev Kumar Agarwal Vs. ACIT (2014) 34 ITR(Trib.)479, Delhi Bench in case of ITO Vs. Dr. Jaideep Kumar Sharma (2014) 34 ITR(Trib.)565, Bangalore Bench in case of DCIT Vs. Ananda Marakala (2014) 150 ITD 323 as the amendment was made to remove the undue hardship. In view of above, disallowance of Rs.73,714/- made u/s 40(a)(ia) be directed to be deleted. 14. On the contrary, the ld Sr. DR has relied on the orders of the authorities below. 15. The Bench have heard both the sides on this issue. The ld. CIT(A) held that the assessee has not deducted…

M/S Aditya Chemicals Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5006/DEL/2013[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2017AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava[Assessment Year: 1997-98] Aditya Chemicals Ltd Vs. The I.T.O C/O Rra Tax India Company Ward-1(2) D -28, South Extn. Part - 1 New Delhi. New Delhi Pan : Aaaca 2835 J [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 06.11.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.11.2017 Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Tanena, Adv Shri Acrhit Rehan, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.K. Jain, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Tanena, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jain, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…prejudice to the above, in any case if two view are available then view in favour of assessee should be taken as has been held in the fo1lowing judgments: CIT vs. Vegetable Products Ltd. in 88 ITR 192 (SC) (CLC Page no. 120-124) DCIT vs. Ananda Marakala in 150 ITD 323 (Bang) "30. Thus there are two views on the issue, one in favour of the assessee expressed by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court and the other against the assessee expressed by the Hon'ble Gujarat & Calcutta High Courts. Admittedly, there is no decision rendered by the jurisdictional High Court on this issue. In the given circumstances, following…

M/S. Bharti Airtel Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee with respect to ground No

ITA 5816/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishibharti Airtel Ltd, Addl Cit, Bharti Crescent, 1, Vs. Range-2, Cr Building, Ip Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Estate, New Delhi Kunj, New Delhi Pan:Aaacb2894G (Appellant) (Respondent) Bharti Airtel Ltd, Addl Cit, Bharti Crescent, 1, Vs. Range-2, Cr Building, Ip Nelson Mandela Road, Vaxant Estate, New Delhi Kunj, New Delhi Pan:Aaacb2894G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, SrFor Respondent: Sh. NC Swain, CIT DR (OSD)
Section 201Section 254Section 40

…5548/Del./2010(Del) - ITO vs. Vinod Datta 22 ITR (Trib.) 243 (Mum) - DCIT vs. Halani Shipping Pvt Ltd.: - Arcadia Share & Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT: ITA No. 1871/Mum/2013 (Mum) - ITO vs. MGB Transport 23 ITR (Trib.) 391(Kol) - DCIT vs. Ananda Marakala: 150 ITD 323 (Bang) - DCIT vs. Udupi Ananda Marakala: ITA No.l584/Bang/2013 (Bang) - DCIT vs. MRF Limited: ITA. No, 1985/Mds/2011 (Chennai) - Devendra Exports (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT: ITA No.849 & 850/Mds/2013 (Chen) - DCIT vs. Gupta Overseas: 153 ITD 357 (Agra) Page 16 of 59 - Raja Mahendri Shipping & Oil Field Services Ltd. v. ACIT: 51 SOT 242 (Vishk.) m) In v…

Asst.C.I.T., Tumkur vs. Sri. B.N. Prasanna Kumar, Tumkur

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

ITA 389/BANG/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2016AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri. Ramasubramaniyan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Swapna Das, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 40

…e due date of filing of the return of income. According to the assessee disallowance was not called for. CIT(A) was appreciative of the above. According to him by virtue of the decision of the coordinate bench in the case DCIT v. Shri. Ananda Marakala [(2014) 150 ITD 323], if the TDS was remitted before the due date for filing of the return then a disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act, was not required. He allowed the claim of the assessee. 04. Now before us, ld. DR submitted that assessment order clearly mentioned the date of remittance of the TDS as 18.05.2008. According to ITA.389/Bang/2015 Page - 3 the Ld.…

Red Chillies Entertainment P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 29, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 5271/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Hiru RaiFor Respondent: Shri B.S. Bist

…sions:– i) CIT v/s Ansal Land Mark Township P. Ltd. [2015] 377 ITR 635 (Del.); ii) DCIT v/s UPS Jetair Express Pvt. Ltd. [2015 56 Taxmann.com 387 (Mum. Trib.); iii) Rajiv Kumar Agarwal v/s ACIT, [2014] 165 TTJ 228 (Agra); iv) DCIT v/s Ananda Marakala, [2014] 150 ITD 323; v) Brijgopal Madhusudan Bhattad v/s ITO, [2015] 155 ITD 90 (Nag. Trib.); and vi) Modi Builders v/s JCIT, [2015] 69 SOT 758 (Pune Trib.). 12. The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the reasoning of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and the Assessing Officer. 13. We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the mat…

M/S Times Vpl Ltd vs. Addl.C.I.T

In the result, the assessee's appeal for both assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1193/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Feb 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, C.AFor Respondent: Shri C.H. Sundar Rao, C.I.T (D.R)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 40

…the payee. In support of this proposition, the assessee has placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements :- (i) CIT V Alom Extrusions Ltd. 319 ITR 306 (SC); (ii) Allied Motors (P) Ltd. V CIT 224 ITR 677 (SC); and (iii) DCIT V Ananda Markala (2014) 150 ITD 323 (Bang). 7.3 It is the contention of the assessee that BCCL has already been paid these amounts by the assessee within the concerned previous years and nothing was outstanding as on 31st March, 2008 and 31st March, 2009. It was submitted that the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act can be invoked only to disallow expenditure which remains p…