ITO v. Anil Kumar & Co.

354 ITR 170High Court#24771 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2015.

Judgments citing ITO v. Anil Kumar & Co.

M/S MANJUNATHA LAND DEVELOPERS AND CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose, whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 642/BANG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Nov 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri. Abraham P. George & Shri. Vijaypal Raoi.T.A No.642/Bang/2014 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S. Manjunatha Land Developers & Constructions Pvt. Ltd, No.849, 1St Floor, 12Th Cross, 4Th Main, 1St Stage, Indiranagar, Bangalore 560 038 .. Appellant Pan : Aadcm9356M V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle -12(1), Bangalore .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Prashanth G. S, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjay Kumar, CIT -III
Section 234BSection 80I

…or sub- contracts. Therefore according to him, AO was justified in invoking section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 17. Per contra, Ld. AR supported the order of CIT (A). Reliance was placed on judgment of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in Anil Kumar & Co., V. ITO (354 ITR 170). 18. We have perused the orders and heard the rival contentions. There is no dispute that tax was deducted by the assessee and remitted by it before the due date of filing the return of income. As per the AO, amendment to Section 40(a)(ia) made through Finance Act, 2010, was applicable only prospectively. We find that this issue had come up bef…

PLANMAN CONSULTING (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 5753/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Inturi Rama Rao & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Anjula Jain, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 80G

…er vide page no. 13 of the assessment order. It is settled principle of law that the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) is applicable with retrospective effect and in this connection reliance is placed on the following decisions: i. ITO Vs. Anil Kumar & Co., 354 ITR 170 (Kar.) ii. CIT Vs. Virgin Creation, ITA No. 302 of 2011, dated 23.11.2011 (Cal.) iii. CIT Vs. Talbros P. Ltd., ITA No. 218 of 2013, dated 06.09.2013 (Del.) iv. CIT Vs. Santosh Kumar Shetty, ITA No. 590/2013, dated 15.07.2014 (Del. ) 5.1 Following the ratio laid down in the above cases, we allow this ground of appeal. 6. Ground no. 4 relates to th…

PLANMAN CONSULTING (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 5752/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Inturi Rama Rao & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Anjula Jain, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 80G

…er vide page no. 13 of the assessment order. It is settled principle of law that the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) is applicable with retrospective effect and in this connection reliance is placed on the following decisions: i. ITO Vs. Anil Kumar & Co., 354 ITR 170 (Kar.) ii. CIT Vs. Virgin Creation, ITA No. 302 of 2011, dated 23.11.2011 (Cal.) iii. CIT Vs. Talbros P. Ltd., ITA No. 218 of 2013, dated 06.09.2013 (Del.) iv. CIT Vs. Santosh Kumar Shetty, ITA No. 590/2013, dated 15.07.2014 (Del. ) 5.1 Following the ratio laid down in the above cases, we allow this ground of appeal. 6. Ground no. 4 relates to th…

ITO v. Anil Kumar & Co. (354 ITR 170) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax