Developers & Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT

175 TTJ 81Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2016#17077 most cited
5

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

Issues it is cited on

section 36(i)(iii)section 9(i)section 5(2)(b)section 36(i)section 36(l)(iii)section 9(1)(i)tax residency certificatesection 40a(ia)section 5(2)trcinterest free advancesright to receive

Judgments citing Developers & Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT

M/S STYLAM INDUSTRIES LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Department’s appeal in for assessment year

ITA 394/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vineet Krishan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 14ASection 195Section 40Section 40ASection 5(2)Section 6Section 9(1)

…it within the stipulated time. The ld. CIT(A) has held the penalty to be in the nature of a fine which is compensatory. The ld. CIT(A), to hold this, followed “Lachhmandas Mathuradas”, 254 ITR 799 (S.C.) and “Gillco Developers & Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT” 175 TTJ 81 (CHD). 33. Before us, the Department has not been able to make out any case as to how the ld. CIT(A) is wrong in holding the penalty in question to be compensatory payment. No decision contrary to those relied on by the ld. CIT(A) has been cited before us. Therefore, finding no error therein, the Commissioner’s action of deleting the addition is…

DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S STYLAM INDUSTRIES LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Department’s appeal in for assessment year

ITA 389/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vineet Krishan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 14ASection 195Section 40Section 40ASection 5(2)Section 6Section 9(1)

…it within the stipulated time. The ld. CIT(A) has held the penalty to be in the nature of a fine which is compensatory. The ld. CIT(A), to hold this, followed “Lachhmandas Mathuradas”, 254 ITR 799 (S.C.) and “Gillco Developers & Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT” 175 TTJ 81 (CHD). 33. Before us, the Department has not been able to make out any case as to how the ld. CIT(A) is wrong in holding the penalty in question to be compensatory payment. No decision contrary to those relied on by the ld. CIT(A) has been cited before us. Therefore, finding no error therein, the Commissioner’s action of deleting the addition is…

M/S STYLAM INDUSTRIES LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Department’s appeal in for assessment year

ITA 960/CHANDI/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vineet Krishan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 14ASection 195Section 40Section 40ASection 5(2)Section 6Section 9(1)

…it within the stipulated time. The ld. CIT(A) has held the penalty to be in the nature of a fine which is compensatory. The ld. CIT(A), to hold this, followed “Lachhmandas Mathuradas”, 254 ITR 799 (S.C.) and “Gillco Developers & Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT” 175 TTJ 81 (CHD). 33. Before us, the Department has not been able to make out any case as to how the ld. CIT(A) is wrong in holding the penalty in question to be compensatory payment. No decision contrary to those relied on by the ld. CIT(A) has been cited before us. Therefore, finding no error therein, the Commissioner’s action of deleting the addition is…

DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S STYLAM INDUSTRIES LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Department’s appeal in for assessment year

ITA 1033/CHANDI/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vineet Krishan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 14ASection 195Section 40Section 40ASection 5(2)Section 6Section 9(1)

…it within the stipulated time. The ld. CIT(A) has held the penalty to be in the nature of a fine which is compensatory. The ld. CIT(A), to hold this, followed “Lachhmandas Mathuradas”, 254 ITR 799 (S.C.) and “Gillco Developers & Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT” 175 TTJ 81 (CHD). 33. Before us, the Department has not been able to make out any case as to how the ld. CIT(A) is wrong in holding the penalty in question to be compensatory payment. No decision contrary to those relied on by the ld. CIT(A) has been cited before us. Therefore, finding no error therein, the Commissioner’s action of deleting the addition is…

BSCPL INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 1817/HYD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2014-15 Bscpl Infrastructure Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Central Circle – 1(3), Pan – Aaacb 8316K Hyderabad.

For Appellant: Shri D.V. AnjaneyuluFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 37Section 37(1)Section 80I

…TDS payable under Chapter XVII – B i.e. deduction at source. It was therefore submitted that the disallowance made by the AO was totally unjustified. The assessee relied on the decision in the case of M/s Gillco Developers & Builders (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2016] 175 TTJ 81 (ITAT – Chandigarh). 9.2 After considering the submissions of the assessee, the CIT(A) observed that it is a serious and criminal offence for not remitting tax deducted at source to the Govt. treasury and Rs. 55,77,052/- is the penal interest paid by the assessee for non-remittance of TDS to the Govt. account. He further observed that the assesse…

Developers & Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (175 TTJ 81) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax