DCIT v. Ashika Stock Broking Ltd.

44 SOT 556Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2011#14205 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2021.

Judgments citing DCIT v. Ashika Stock Broking Ltd.

Morya House Makers, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 39, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5264/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2021AY 2008-09

Section 40Section 68

…ant has raised another argument that provisions of section 40(a)(ia) is applicable only when there is an amount outstanding and payable. This argument of the appellant is answered by the Hon'ble Calcutta Tribunal in case of DCIT vs. Ashika Stock Broking Ltd. (44 SOT 556) where it is held that whether even the sum is payable or paid to contractor or sub- contractor on which tax is deductible at source as per the provisions of the I.T. Act, section 40(a)(ia) would be attracted. Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances, it is held that the case of the appellant is covered by the decision of Hon'ble Mu…

Wallace Sports and Research Foundation, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

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

ITA 1304/CHNY/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Oct 2017AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Asish Tripathi, JCITFor Respondent: 29.08.2017

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 40

…le to M/s. Religare as on 31/3/2012. Therefore, in view of the judicial pronouncements, cited by the assessee, the TDS was not deductible by it. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention here that in the case of DCIT vs. Ashika Stock Broking Ltd. reported in 44 SOT 556 the Hon’ble Kolkatta ITAT has decided the matter in favour of the Revenue and after following its decision dated 15.01.2010 in the case of Poddar Son’s ExL P Ltd vs. ITO in ITA no.1418(Kol.)/09 has held that provisions of Section 40(1)8ia) of the Act are applicable to even sums paid during the year. In the recently decided case of M/s. P.M.S Diese…

ACIT vs. M/S Coastal Roaways

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed and the CO is partly allowed

ITA 1139/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoasst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 1(1), Mangalore. … Appellant Vs. M/S. Coastal Roadways, D.No.4-64/11, Bantwal Chambers, Balikampady, Mangalore. … Respondent Pan:Aaffc 5977 M Cross Objn.No.35/Bang/2013 (In Ita No.1139/Bang/2013) (Assessment Year: 2008-09) (By The Assessee) ****** Revenue By: Dr. P.K.Srihari, Addl.Cit. Assessee By: Shri R.E.Balasubramaniyan, Ca. Date Of Hearing : 05/01/2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 08/01/2016 O R D E R Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri R.E.Balasubramaniyan, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.K.Srihari, Addl.CIT

Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

…of word “Payable”, in Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act has created controversy as to whether payable includes amounts paid during the year. There were conflicting decisions rendered by the Tribunal.  In the case of DCIT vs. Ashika Stock Broking Ltd. reported in 44 SOT 556 the Hon’ble Kolkatta ITAT has decided the matter in favour of revenue and after following its decision dated 15.01.2010 in the case of Poddar Son’s EXL. P Ltd vs. ITO in ITA No. 1418(Kol.)/09 has held that provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act are applicable to even sums paid during the year.  In the case of Teja Construction vs. ACIT report…

Prb Marketing Pvt. Ltd vs. ITO

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 663/BANG/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Prb Marketing Pvt. Ltd., #192/12-2, 1St ‘C’ Cross, Revenue Layout, 5Th Block, Bsk 3Rd Stage, Bangalore-560085. … Appellant Pan:Aaecp 5655 M Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 12(1), Bangalore. … Respondent Appellant By: Shri S.Venkatesan, Ca. Respondent By: Shri Naresh Saka, Addl.Cit(Dr).

For Appellant: Shri S.Venkatesan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Naresh Saka, Addl.CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 234Section 40

…of word “Payable”, in Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act has created controversy as to whether payable includes amounts paid during the year. There were conflicting decisions rendered by the Tribunal. In the case of DCIT vs. Ashika Stock " Broking Ltd. reported in 44 SOT 556 the Hon’ble Kolkatta ITAT has decided the matter in favour of revenue and after following its decision dated 15.01.2010 in the case of Poddar Son’s EXL. P Ltd vs. ITO in ITA No. 1418(Kol.)/09 has held that provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act are applicable to even sums paid during the year. In the case of Teja Construction vs. ACIT " report…

DCIT, Circle -6 Kolkata, Kolkata vs. M/S Crosses Capital Services Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed and assessee’s CO is allowed

ITA 639/KOL/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Oct 2015AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Sanjit Kr. Das, JCIT, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri S. M. Surana, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 94(7)

…ge income on the basis of turnover and income basis as determined by the assessee in the calculation submitted during appellate proceedings. 12. The A.R of the assessee has relied upon the case of DCIT, Circle-1, Kolkata Vs M/s Ashika Stock Broking Ltd (2011) 44 SOT 556 (Kol) wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Tribunal that if there is a net surplus from share dealing of capital market segment and future option segment taken together and there is a net profit therefrom, the assessee is entitled for a rebate of STT paid thereon as per section 88E of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Pare-15) 13. Theref…

Sri. Satish Rajapur, Hospet vs. DCIT, Bellary

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

ITA 425/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Sept 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Jason P. Boaz, Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Gurunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, Jt.CIT(DR)

Section 2Section 32(1)(iia)Section 40a

…of word “Payable”, in Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act has created controversy as to whether payable includes amounts paid during the year. There were conflicting decisions rendered by the Tribunal. " In the case of DCIT vs. Ashika Stock Broking Ltd. reported in 44 SOT 556 the Hon’ble Kolkatta ITAT has decided the matter in favour of revenue and after following its decision dated 15.01.2010 in the case of Poddar Son’s EXL. P Ltd vs. ITO in ITA No. 1418(Kol.)/09 has held that provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act are applicable to even sums paid during the year. " In the case of Teja Construction vs. ACIT report…

Sri. Anil Kumar Joseph, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed, while the cross objection by the assessee is allowed

ITA 845/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri N. Balakrishnan, JCIT (D.R)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH “ C ” BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JASON P. BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.845/Bang/2014 (Assessment Year : 2008-09) Shri Anil Kumar Joseph, Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, No.3/3, 59th Cross, V Block, Circle 9(1), Bangalore. Rajajinagar, Bangalore-560 010 PAN ACQPJ 6856K Appellant Respondent. I.T.A. No.1036/Bang/2014 (Assessment Year : 2008-09) Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Vs. Shri Anil Kumar Joseph, No.3/3, 59th Cross, V Block, Circle 9(1), Bangalore. Rajajinagar, Bangalore-560 010 Appellant Respondent. Appellant By : Shri…