Merilyn Shipping and Transport Ltd. v. ACIT

16 ITR 1Supreme Court of India2012#13560 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2022.

Judgments citing Merilyn Shipping and Transport Ltd. v. ACIT

SANGEETA BASAVRAJ MANGRULE,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, AURANGABAD

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 706/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PUNE SINGLE MEMBER CASE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 706/PUN/2019 : Assessment Year : 2015-16 Sangeeta B. Mangrule Plot No. 64, Mayurban Colony, Shahnoorwadi Darga Road, Aurangabad PAN: AJIPM 9153 H :Appellant Vs. The Asstt. CIT Cir. 2, Aurangabad : Respondent Appellant by : None Respondent by : Shri M.G. Jasnani Date of Hearing : 28-07-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 11-08-2022 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2015-16 arises against the CIT(A)- 2, Aurangabad’s order dated 07-02-2019 passed in case No. ABD/CIT(A)- 2/461/2017-18, involving proceedings u/s 143…

KNR CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 2253/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S.Godara

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey, DR

Section 143(3)

…T(A) has not adjudicated upon the factual matrix of the relation between the assessee-deductor and its payee-deductee as per law as he has only gone by the tribunal’s Special Bench’s decision in Merilyn Shipping and Transport Ltd., Vs. ACIT [136 ITD 23] (SB) [16 ITR 1] (SB)(Visakha.)(Trib.) dealing with ‘paid/payable’ issue. The Revenue fails to dispute that this issue is no more res integra in view of the hon'ble apex court’s judgment of Palam Gas Service Vs. CIT [394 ITR 300] (SC) that the impugned statutory provision applies in case of paid as well as expenses remaining payable during the year. The legislature…

KNR CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 2252/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S.Godara

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey, DR

Section 143(3)

ITO, WARD-3(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. SARANYA ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 386/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. N. Swapna, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 40

…ri T. Chaitanya Kumar appeared before the Ld. CIT(A) and was also present in the Court today. 7. We have carefully gone through the record. Since the decision of the ITAT Special Bench, Visakhapatnam in the case of Merylin Shipping & Transport vs. Addl. CIT (16 ITR 1) was reversed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Palam Gas Service vs. CIT (CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5512 OF 2017, DATED 03.05.2017), we set aside the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A), who is directed to reconsider the matter in accordance with the latest ruling of the Apex Court. 8. In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is treated as all…

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-9(1)., HYDERABAD vs. JASTI SEETHAMAHALAKSHMI., HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed and Cross-Objection of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1185/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jan 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B. Ramakotaiah

For Appellant: Shri M. Chandramouleswara Rao, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik, DR

Section 201(1)Section 40

…mount as on 31-03-2012 and the same was not outstanding. Therefore, the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) does not apply. He followed the decision of Special Bench of ITAT in the case of Merilyn Shipping and Transport Ltd., Vs. ACIT reported as 136 ITD 23 (SB) [16 ITR 1] (SB)(Visakha.)(Trib.). Revenue is aggrieved, hence preferred the present appeal. 3. The Cross-Objection by assessee, filed belatedly with 49 days delay, is in support of the Ld.CIT(A) order. In the grounds, assessee specifically contended that Revenue cannot prefer the appeal as the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 10 Lakhs and is in violation of Ci…

JT. CIT (OSD) CENT. CIR. 4(1) CENT. RG. 4, MUMBAI vs. BIJESH THAKKAR, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 2787/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2787/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Jt. Commissioner Of Income बिधम/ Shri Bijesh Thakker Prop, Tax, (Osd), Central Circle Thakker & Thakker 601, Vs. 4(1), Central Range-4, R.No. Embassy Centre, Nariman 1916, 19Th Floor, Air India Point, Mumbai 400021 Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaapt7758G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Saurabh Deshpande (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Sanjiv M. Shah सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26.10.2017 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15.01.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 01.01.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5 Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The Ay.2011-12. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds:- 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld.Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Made U/S.14A R.W. Rule

For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv M. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Deshpande (DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 14A(3)Section 195Section 40A

…e at the end of the accounting year as the same stands already paid before the end of the previous year. Therefore, same is not liable for disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act as laid down by the Hon'ble Special Bench in the case of Merilyn Shipping Vs. AC1T 16 ITR 1 (Vish) (SB). The said decision is also followed by Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT in the case of Emkay Share Brokers Ltd Vs. Addl CIT in ITA No.6479/Mum/2009 dated 20.06.2012 and also in the case of Hindustan Thomson Vs. ACIT in dated ITA. No. 2787/M/2016 A.Y. 2011-12 25.05.2012. Therefore, respectively following the aforesaid decisions of Hon’ble Jurisdicti…

The Commissioner of Income Tax - IV vs. National Mineral Development Corporation Ltd.,

The appeal is dismissed

ITTA/330/2013HC Telangana13 Aug 2013

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 260Section 40

…y and authenticity of this order/judgment ITA No.330 of 2013(O&M) 2024:PHHC:012644-DB 2 issue. Reliance was placed upon the decision of the majority view of the Special Bench of Vishakhapatnam Tribunal in ACIT Vs. Merilyn Shipping and Transports, (2012) 16 ITR 1, which thereafter had been set aside by the Gurjarat High Court in CIT Vs. Sikanderkhan N. Tunvar and others, (2013) 357 ITR 312 and Calcutta High Court in CIT Vs. Cresent Export Syndicate, 2013(1) ITR OL1. Reference was also made to the judgment of the Apex Court in Mepco Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT, 319 ITR 208 recording that the issue being debatab…