DIT v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.

365 ITR 560High Court2014#2906 most cited

What is DIT v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. authority for?

If a sum is not chargeable to tax in the hands of the recipient, the payer is not obligated to deduct tax at source, and consequently, no disallowance under section 40(a)(i) can be made. The Bombay High Court also affirmed that penalty proceedings under section 271B may be quashed in certain circumstances.

41

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2025.

Also referred to as

DIT v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. · 365 ITR 560 · Bombay High Court · section 40(a)(i) · section 195 · recipient's income not taxable · no TDS obligation · disallowance for non-deduction · penalty section 271B

Sections most often in play

Section 139(1)Section 250Section 132Section 139(4)Section 142(2A)Section 153ASection 271BSection 274

Issues it is cited on

section 201(3)section 206c(6)section 206c(6a)section 206c(7)section 153(1)(a)tax collected at sourceprincipal officerpenalty proceedings initiatedsection 142(2a)assessee in defaultsection 192section 201(1)

Judgments citing DIT v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 901/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 32Section 35Section 43B

…the hands of the recipient it is held that the sum was not chargeable to tax, there cannot be cast any obligation on the payer to deduct tax at source. To the same effect is the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of DIT vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd: 365 ITR 560. In view of the aforesaid, no disallowance under section 40(a)(i) of the Act is called for. Re: Attribution of income/ amount disallowable under section 40(a)(i) Without prejudice to the aforesaid it is further submitted, as under: Disallowance of ‘other sum chargeable under the Act’ in terms of section 40(a)(i) of the Act is applicable only when…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1024/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 32Section 35Section 43B

…the hands of the recipient it is held that the sum was not chargeable to tax, there cannot be cast any obligation on the payer to deduct tax at source. To the same effect is the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of DIT vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd: 365 ITR 560. In view of the aforesaid, no disallowance under section 40(a)(i) of the Act is called for. Re: Attribution of income/ amount disallowable under section 40(a)(i) Without prejudice to the aforesaid it is further submitted, as under: Disallowance of ‘other sum chargeable under the Act’ in terms of section 40(a)(i) of the Act is applicable only when…

NAGESH BABU VALIVETI,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNAL TAXATION), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 9/VIZ/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Bles & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.9/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2012-13) Nagesh Babu Valiveti, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Vijayawada. Ward-International Taxation, Pan: Accpv7063J Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 23/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 30/04/2025 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250

…आयकर अपीलीयअिधकरण, िवशाखापटणम पीठ, िवशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM “DIVN” BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM "ी िवजय पाल राव, उपा"य" एवं "ी एस बालाकृ"णन, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT S & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.9/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2012-13) Nagesh Babu Valiveti, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Vijayawada. Ward-International Taxation, PAN: ACCPV7063J Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, CA ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent by : Dr. Ap…

THE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, NO.F 583,MALAPPURAM vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 887/COCH/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Sri.M.Ramkumar Menon, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142Section 153ASection 250Section 271BSection 274Section 44A

…ld by the Special Bench of the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd v. Dy. CIT (2010) 5 ITA Nos.884-887/Coch/2024. The Service Co-op.Bank Limited No.F 583. 122 ITD 216 (SB)(Mum) (Trib) [affirmed in DIT(IT) v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. (2014) 365 ITR 560 (Bom) (HC)]. Thus, the penalty proceedings in respect of ITA Nos.884 & 885/Coch/2024 for assessment years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 respectively are bad in law and accordingly we quash the penalty proceedings initiated u/s.271B of the Act and direct the AO to delete the same. 8. As regards the penalty levied u/s.271B of the Act in the other appeal…

THE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, NO.F 583,MALAPPURAM vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 886/COCH/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Sri.M.Ramkumar Menon, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142Section 153ASection 250Section 271BSection 274Section 44A

…ld by the Special Bench of the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd v. Dy. CIT (2010) 5 ITA Nos.884-887/Coch/2024. The Service Co-op.Bank Limited No.F 583. 122 ITD 216 (SB)(Mum) (Trib) [affirmed in DIT(IT) v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. (2014) 365 ITR 560 (Bom) (HC)]. Thus, the penalty proceedings in respect of ITA Nos.884 & 885/Coch/2024 for assessment years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 respectively are bad in law and accordingly we quash the penalty proceedings initiated u/s.271B of the Act and direct the AO to delete the same. 8. As regards the penalty levied u/s.271B of the Act in the other appeal…

THE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, NO.F 583,MALAPPURAM vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 885/COCH/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Sri.M.Ramkumar Menon, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142Section 153ASection 250Section 271BSection 274Section 44A

…ld by the Special Bench of the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd v. Dy. CIT (2010) 5 ITA Nos.884-887/Coch/2024. The Service Co-op.Bank Limited No.F 583. 122 ITD 216 (SB)(Mum) (Trib) [affirmed in DIT(IT) v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. (2014) 365 ITR 560 (Bom) (HC)]. Thus, the penalty proceedings in respect of ITA Nos.884 & 885/Coch/2024 for assessment years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 respectively are bad in law and accordingly we quash the penalty proceedings initiated u/s.271B of the Act and direct the AO to delete the same. 8. As regards the penalty levied u/s.271B of the Act in the other appeal…

THE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, NO.F 583,MALAPPURAM vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 884/COCH/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Sri.M.Ramkumar Menon, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142Section 153ASection 250Section 271BSection 274Section 44A

…ld by the Special Bench of the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd v. Dy. CIT (2010) 5 ITA Nos.884-887/Coch/2024. The Service Co-op.Bank Limited No.F 583. 122 ITD 216 (SB)(Mum) (Trib) [affirmed in DIT(IT) v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. (2014) 365 ITR 560 (Bom) (HC)]. Thus, the penalty proceedings in respect of ITA Nos.884 & 885/Coch/2024 for assessment years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 respectively are bad in law and accordingly we quash the penalty proceedings initiated u/s.271B of the Act and direct the AO to delete the same. 8. As regards the penalty levied u/s.271B of the Act in the other appeal…

INDOWORTH INDIA LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ACIT(TDS), CIRCLE 51(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 4/NAG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur23 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri R.K. GaneriwalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 201Section 201(1)Section 201(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER ITA no.3/Nag./2024 (Assessment Year : 2012–13) ITA no.4/Nag./2024 (Assessment Year : 2013–14) M/s. Indoworth India Ltd. B–130, MIDC, Butibori ……………. Appellant Nagpur 441 108 PAN – AABCI0704R v/s Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) ……………. Respondent Circle–51(1), Nagpur / DCIT / ACIT, Circle–3, Nagpur Assessee by : Shri R.K. Ganeriwal Revenue by : Shri Abhay Y. Marathe Date of Hearing – 19/09/2024 Date of Order – 23/09/2024 O R D E R PER K.M. ROY, A.M. The present appe…

M/S INDOWORTH INDIA LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ACIT(TDS), CIRCLE 51(1) , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 3/NAG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur23 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri R.K. GaneriwalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 201Section 201(1)Section 201(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER ITA no.3/Nag./2024 (Assessment Year : 2012–13) ITA no.4/Nag./2024 (Assessment Year : 2013–14) M/s. Indoworth India Ltd. B–130, MIDC, Butibori ……………. Appellant Nagpur 441 108 PAN – AABCI0704R v/s Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) ……………. Respondent Circle–51(1), Nagpur / DCIT / ACIT, Circle–3, Nagpur Assessee by : Shri R.K. Ganeriwal Revenue by : Shri Abhay Y. Marathe Date of Hearing – 19/09/2024 Date of Order – 23/09/2024 O R D E R PER K.M. ROY, A.M. The present appe…

ASHWINI SAHAKARI RUNGNALAYA & RESEARCH CENTER,,SOLAPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (EXEMPTIONS),, PUNE

ITA 714/PUN/2018[N.A]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Mar 2024

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 714/Pun/2018 Ashwini Sahakari Rugnalaya & Research Centre 7107/1, Plot No. 180, North Sadar Bazar, Solapur-413003. Pan: Aaaja0041K . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Shingte [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Keyur Patel [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 10Section 10(23)Section 11Section 12ASection 22Section 253(1)(c)

…was first initiated, hence such far-fetched proceedings are untenable in law in the light of binding judicial precedents laid in ‘CIT Vs. NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation’, reported in 305 ITR 137 (Del.); ‘DIT Vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.’, finds placed in 365 ITR 560 (Bom). ITAT-Pune Page 10 of 66 Ashwini Sahakari Rugnalaya & Research Centre 7.6 Lastly on the point of retrospective cancellation, the Ld. AR remonstrated that the power to cancel registration granted u/c (b) of s/s (1) of section 12AA was brought to statute first time by Finance Act of 2004 by inserting s/s (3) to section 12AA of the Act whic…

SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 127/JODH/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur23 Aug 2023AY 2013-14
Section 206CSection 5

…nts in NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporat ion 305 ITR 137 (Del ) and CIT vs. Hutchison Essar Telecom Ltd. (2010) 323 ITR 230(Del ). 10. With reference to obligations towards TDS provisions, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in DIT(Inv. ) vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. 365 ITR 560 (Bom. ) concerning AY 1998-99 ruled that limitation period would apply to TDS orders under s.201/1A of the Act even though no time limit was prescribed under the Act at the relevant time. The Hon’ble High Court observed that time limit would be three years from the end of the financial year which seemed to be reasonable period as accepted under s…

SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS , UDAIPU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 126/JODH/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur23 Aug 2023AY 2012-13
Section 206CSection 5

…nts in NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporat ion 305 ITR 137 (Del ) and CIT vs. Hutchison Essar Telecom Ltd. (2010) 323 ITR 230(Del ). 10. With reference to obligations towards TDS provisions, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in DIT(Inv. ) vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. 365 ITR 560 (Bom. ) concerning AY 1998-99 ruled that limitation period would apply to TDS orders under s.201/1A of the Act even though no time limit was prescribed under the Act at the relevant time. The Hon’ble High Court observed that time limit would be three years from the end of the financial year which seemed to be reasonable period as accepted under s…

SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 125/JODH/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur23 Aug 2023AY 2011-12
Section 206CSection 5

…nts in NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporat ion 305 ITR 137 (Del ) and CIT vs. Hutchison Essar Telecom Ltd. (2010) 323 ITR 230(Del ). 10. With reference to obligations towards TDS provisions, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in DIT(Inv. ) vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. 365 ITR 560 (Bom. ) concerning AY 1998-99 ruled that limitation period would apply to TDS orders under s.201/1A of the Act even though no time limit was prescribed under the Act at the relevant time. The Hon’ble High Court observed that time limit would be three years from the end of the financial year which seemed to be reasonable period as accepted under s…

THATTANTAVITA ASHARAF,VADAKARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD2(2), KOZHIKODE

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

ITA 900/COCH/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 900/Coch/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Thattantavita Asharaf बनाम/ Ito, Ward-2(2) 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Thattantavita House, P.O, Vs. Thuneri, Vadakara, North Block, Mananchira, Kozhikode District-673514. Kozhikode-673001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aivpa7829G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri R. Krishnan Revenue By: Smt J. M Jamuna Devi, (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 22.07.2022 For Ay. 2011-12. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Imposition Of Penalty U/S 271F Of The Income Tax Act, 1969 (Hereinafter “The Act”) On The Ground Of Failure To Furnish Return Of Income (Roi) As Required U/S 139(1) Or Proviso To That Sub-Section. In This Case, The Assessee Had Filed Return Of Income Belatedly On 28.03.2013 Reflecting An Income Of Rs.3,72,410/- Whereas As Per Section 139(1) Of The Act Assessee Was To File The Return Of Income On 31.07.2011 (And U/S 139(4) By 31.03.2012). 3. The Ao Before Imposing The Penalty Of Rs.5000/- U/S 271F Of The Act Had Issued Notice Dated 21.12.2018 & After Giving Opportunity To Assessee Has Imposed Penalty On 12.03.2019. 2 A.Ys. 2012-12 Thattantavita Asharaf

For Appellant: Shri R. KrishnanFor Respondent: Smt J. M Jamuna Devi, (Sr. AR)
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 271FSection 273B

…(1969) SC 1297) 3 A.Ys. 2012-12 Thattantavita Asharaf (2) State of Punjab and Others Vs. Bhatinda District Co- operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. [(2007) 11 SCC 363]. (3) Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) Vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. [(2014) 365 ITR 560 Bom].” 5. The assessee filed the written submission before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dated 12.07.2022 wherein the assessee brought to the notice of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC that assessee in the instant case has filed ROI belatedly on 28.03.2013, showing income of Rs.3,72,410/- as well as claimed refund of Rs.32,280/-. Therefore, assessee has raised the defense…

STATE BANK OF INDIA-CAG BRANCH,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-TDS-2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 2726/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi a/w Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Shri Paresh Deshpande
Section 10(5)Section 192Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250

…y relying on the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Mahindra &Mahindra Ltd. vs. CIT (30 SOT 374), which was subsequently affirmed by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of DIT(IT) vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.[2014] 365 ITR 560 (Bom). 4. The brief facts of the case are that the A.O. observed that the assessee bank was allowing tax exemption on leave fare concession (‘LFC’ for short)/ leave travel concession (‘LTC’ for short) reimbursement where the employees have taken circuitous route in which foreign leg was included. It was also observed that the assessee has not…

STATE BANK OF INDIA-CORPORATE CENTRE ,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS). NFAC, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 2609/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi a/w Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Shri Paresh Deshpande
Section 10(5)Section 192Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250

…y relying on the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Mahindra &Mahindra Ltd. vs. CIT (30 SOT 374), which was subsequently affirmed by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of DIT(IT) vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.[2014] 365 ITR 560 (Bom). 4. The brief facts of the case are that the A.O. observed that the assessee bank was allowing tax exemption on leave fare concession (‘LFC’ for short)/ leave travel concession (‘LTC’ for short) reimbursement where the employees have taken circuitous route in which foreign leg was included. It was also observed that the assessee has not…

AMBATTUR DEVELOPER (P) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 1(1), CHENNAI

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 2348/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Jan 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) –Ld. DR
Section 201Section 201(1)Section 201(3)

…ame should have been passed within a reasonable time otherwise the same would not withstand the legal scrutiny being violative of principle of natural justice and reasonableness. 5. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of DIT vs Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. (365 ITR 560), addressing the issue of reasonableness of time limit, held that even though Section 201 do not prescribe any limitation period for assessee being declared as assessee-in-default yet revenue is required to exercise the powers in that regard within a reasonable time. 6. The Bangalore Tribunal in DCIT vs. Coffeeday Enterprises Ltd. (ITA Nos.2931/B…

M/S GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DY. D.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1512/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K V Aravind, Standing Counsel

…d in CIT v. C.J. International Hotels (P.) Ltd. [2015] 56 taxmann.com 458/231 Taxman 818/372 ITR 684. The Hon'ble Tech Mahindra Ltd. Jurisdictional High Court in DIT (International Taxation) v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. [2014] 48 taxmann.com 150/225 Taxman 306/365 ITR 560 (Bom.) also followed the decision in NHK Japan Broadcasting Corprn. (supra). The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Bharat Hotels Ltd. (supra) also took the view that period of limitation prior to the insertion of sec. 201(3) of the Act, w.e.f. 1-4-2010 would be 4 years from the end of the relevant AY. The payees in these cases were also…

M/S GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DY. D.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1511/BANG/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K V Aravind, Standing Counsel

…d in CIT v. C.J. International Hotels (P.) Ltd. [2015] 56 taxmann.com 458/231 Taxman 818/372 ITR 684. The Hon'ble Tech Mahindra Ltd. Jurisdictional High Court in DIT (International Taxation) v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. [2014] 48 taxmann.com 150/225 Taxman 306/365 ITR 560 (Bom.) also followed the decision in NHK Japan Broadcasting Corprn. (supra). The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Bharat Hotels Ltd. (supra) also took the view that period of limitation prior to the insertion of sec. 201(3) of the Act, w.e.f. 1-4-2010 would be 4 years from the end of the relevant AY. The payees in these cases were also…

ADABALA MANMOHAN,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 135/VIZ/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अऩीऱ सं./ I.T.A. No.135/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year :2011-12) Mr. Adabala Manmohan, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Ward-International Taxation, Pan: Vpnao 1959 G Visakhapatnam. (अऩीऱधथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) अऩीऱधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Spg Mudaliar, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, CAFor Respondent: Sri SPG Mudaliar, Sr. AR
Section 2Section 201Section 201(1)Section 201(2)Section 234B

…आयकर अपीऱीयअधिकरण, विशाखापटणम पीठ, विशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री दुव्िूरु आर एऱ रेड्डी, न्याययक सदस्य एिं श्री एस बाऱाकृष्णन, ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अऩीऱ सं./ I.T.A. No.135/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year :2011-12) Mr. Adabala Manmohan, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Ward-International Taxation, PAN: VPNAO 1959 G Visakhapatnam. (अऩीऱधथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) अऩीऱधथी की ओर से/ Appellant by : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, CA प्रत्यधथ…

Showing 1–20 of 41 · Page 1 of 3