Merilyn Shipping and Transport v. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax

146 TTJ 1Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2012#7671 most cited

What is Merilyn Shipping and Transport v. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax authority for?

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, which disallows expenditure for non-deduction of TDS, applies only to amounts that are payable at the year-end and not to amounts already paid during the financial year.

14

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Merilyn Shipping and Transport · 146 TTJ 1 · ITAT · Section 40(a)(ia) · Section 194C · TDS disallowance · amounts payable · amounts paid

Sections most often in play

Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40(a)(ia)

Judgments citing Merilyn Shipping and Transport v. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax

M/S Tawari Traders, Buldhana vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -2, Khamgaon

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 193/NAG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur04 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Rachit ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGARAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER ITA no.193/Nag./2019 (Assessment Year : 2013–14) M/s. Tiwari Traders Near State Bank,. Buldhana Road ……………. Appellant At Post & Tq. Malkapur 443 101 Dist. Buldhana PAN – AAAFT6614P v/s Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–2, Khamgaon Assessee by : Shri Rachit Thakkar Revenue by : Shri Abhay Y. Marathe Date of Hearing – 11/02/2025 Date of Order – 04/03/2025 O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, J.M. Aforesaid appeal by the assessee is against the impugned order dated 03/06/2019,…

The ACIT, Guntur vs. Gude Venkata Krishna Rao, Guntur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 211/VIZ/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.211/Viz/2015 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2010-11) Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Sri Gude Venkata Krishna Rao Circle-2(1) D.No.4-2-17/8, 18Th Lane Guntur Chandramouli Nagar Guntur [ Pan :Ahepg4373K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Smt Suman Malik, Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri D.L.Narasimha Rao, Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04 .10.2019 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Smt Suman Malik, DRFor Respondent: Shri D.L.Narasimha Rao, AR
Section 194ASection 40

…lure to deduct tax at source. 3. Against the order of the AO, the assessee went on appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A), followed the decision of Hon’ble Special Bench in the case Merilyn Shipping and Transports Vs. Addl. CIT, Visakhapatnam reported in 146 TTJ 1 (Vizag) and held that TDS has no application for the amounts already paid before 31st March of the concerned year and accordingly directed the AO to work out the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act, based on amounts payable as on 31st March 2010. Thus, allowed the appeal of the assessee partly. 4. Against the order of the CIT(A), the department…

The ITO, Patan Ward-3, Mehsana vs. M/S. Siddhi Vinayak Transport, Mehsana

In the result, the Department’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2348/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jul 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Subhash Bains, CIT (D.R.)For Respondent: Shri M.J. Shah, A.R
Section 194ASection 194A(3)(iii)Section 40

…ITA No.2348/Ahd/2012 AY: 2008-09 Page 1 of 12 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI A.D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2008-09 Income Tax Officer, vs. M/s. Siddhi Vinayak Transport, Patan Ward – 3, Mehsana. 07, Krishnanagar Society, Kukarwada – 382 823. [PAN – AAZFS 0365 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Subhash Bains, CIT (D.R.) Respondent by : Shri M.J. Shah, A.R. Date of hearing : 17.06.2019 Date of pronouncement : 23.07.2019 O R D E R PER A.D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT: This is Department’s appeal against le…

M/S. Sachi Sarees, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 45, Kolkata

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

ITA 726/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] I.T.A. No. 726/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Sachi Sarees Vs. Acit, Circle – 45, Kolkata [Pan: Abjfs 3174 R] Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201(1)Section 40

…thereon. Since the appellant failed to deduct tax u/s 194C, the AO disallowed the expenditure of Rs.10,20,144/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Before the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee relying on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Merilyn Shipping & Transport (146 TTJ 1) submitted that since the amount was paid during the year, the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) was not applicable as it applied only to those instances were the amount remained payable at the year-end. This contention was rejected by the Ld. CIT(A) in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Palm Gas Services Vs CIT (81 Taxm…

M/S. Regma Ceramics Limited, Yanam vs. The Asst CIT, Kakinada

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 128/VIZ/2017[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Sept 2018AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.128 /Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-2013) M/S Regma Ceramics Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle-1 Yanam Kakinada [Pan :Aabcr8268F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri K.C.Das, DR
Section 194ASection 40

…the assessee has not deducted the tax at source and remitted to Government account, the payment of interest attracts disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Though the Ld.AR relied on the decision of special bench in the case of Merrilyn Shipping & Transport, 146 TTJ 1 of ITAT, Visakhapatnam, now the issue is settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Palam Gas Service [2017] 81 taxmann.com 43 (SC) and the Hon’ble Apex Court held that Word 'payable' occurring in section 40(a)(ia) not only covers cases where amount is yet to be paid but also those cases where amount has actually been paid. Therefore, we hold…

Ramesh Haribhau Gawali, Ahmednagar vs. Income-Tax Officer

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

ITA 1013/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.N. DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jha, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40A(3)

…id during the year and not outstanding and payable as on 31.03.2010 and therefore provisions of sec.40(a)(ia) are not attracted to the amounts already paid in view of the decision of the Special Bench in the case of CIT Vs. M/s. Merilyn Shipping & Transports (146 TTJ 1). This contention is also not legally sustainable. In the case of Merilyn Shipping & Transports, ITAT Special Bench held that provisions of section 40(a)(ia) are applicable only to amounts of expenditure which are payable as on 31st March of every year and it cannot be invoked to disallow expenditure which has been actually paid during previous yea…

Subhalaxmi Agencies Pvt. Ltd., Nayagarh vs. JCIT, Ramge-2, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and that of

ITA 132/CTK/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack21 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR
Section 194ASection 194CSection 194JSection 40

…erefore, no disallowance can be made u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act for non-deduction of TDS from such payments. We find that the assessee before the CIT(A) relied on the decision of ITAT Visakhapatnam Bench in the case of Merilyn Shipping & Transports vs ACIT, 146 TTJ 1, Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vector Shipping Services (P) Ltd.,262 CTR 545 that where no amount was outstanding and payable as at the end of the year, no TDS was required to be deducted from the payments made for transportation charges. The CIT(A) has found that in the case of Srikakulam Lorry Transport, Shree Hanuman Ind…

Hero Motocorp Limited, New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1545/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishihero Motocorp Limited, Jcit, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Range-1, New Delhi Vs. Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0812J (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community Vs. New Delhi Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. NC Sawain, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…Vs. Hero MotoCorp Ltd. ITA Nos. 1545/Del/2015 and 2424/Del/2015 (AY 2010-11) ITA No. 1609/Del/2016 and 914/Del/2016 (AY 2011-12) Page 147 of 484 revenue has been dismissed vide CC No(s). 8068/2014 dated 02.07.2014] and Merilyn Shipping and Transport v. ACIT: 146 TTJ 1 (Vishak.)(SB)] dd) The aforesaid issue is squarely covered by the decision of Delhi bench of Tribunal in the appellant‘s own case for the assessment year 2007-08 and 2008-09, wherein after exhaustive consideration of the facts, it was held that the impugned transactions are in the nature of contract of sale and not contract for carrying out work to…

Smt. Asha Chawla, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result ground no.2 of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3220/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Aug 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddyay: 2010-11 Smt. Asha Chawla Vs. Acit, Circle 39(1) Xiii/4836, Bara Tooti New Delhi Sadar Bazar New Delhi 110 006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Somil Aggarwal, Adv. Respondent By : None.

For Appellant: Sh. Somil Aggarwal, AdvFor Respondent: None
Section 40

…made in view of the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vector Shipping 357 ITR 642 (All) and the decision of the Vizag Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Merilyn Shipping and Transport vs. ACIT (2012) 16 ITR (Tribunal)/ 146 TTJ 1 (SB) (Vizag) as there is no amount payable by the assessee towards audit fee and professional charges as on 31st March, 2010. 6. In the result ground no.2 of the assessee is allowed. 7. In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 10th August, 2016. (J. SUDHAKAR REDDY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated:…

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)

…llow expenditure which has been actually paid during the previous year, without deduction of TDS. 28. In CIT Vs. Sikandarkhan N.Tunvar & Others, TAX APPEAL NO. 905 of 2012 & others Dated02/05/2013, the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court held that in Merilyn Shipping 146 TTJ 1 (Viz) (SB,) the majority held that as the Finance Bill proposed the words “amount credited or paid” and as the Finance Act used the words “amounts payable“, s. 40(a)(ia) could only apply to amounts that are outstanding as of 31st March and not to amounts already paid during the year. This view is not correct for two reasons. Firstly, a strict readi…

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

…llow expenditure which has been actually paid during the previous year, without deduction of TDS. 28. In CIT Vs. Sikandarkhan N.Tunvar & Others, TAX APPEAL NO. 905 of 2012 & others Dated02/05/2013, the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court held that in Merilyn Shipping 146 TTJ 1 (Viz) (SB,) the majority held that as the Finance Bill proposed the words “amount credited or paid” and as the Finance Act used the words “amounts payable“, s. 40(a)(ia) could only apply to amounts that are outstanding as of 31st March and not to amounts already paid during the year. This view is not correct for two reasons. Firstly, a strict readi…

M/S. Matrix Infrastructure, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5428/DEL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. A. T. Varkey, Jm & Sh. O.P.Kant, Am

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 40

…nd was not payable at the end of the year and thus Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act was not applicable in view of the judicial pronouncements in the case of CIT Vs. Vector Shipping 357 ITR 642 (All) and others cases reported in 43 CCH 1) (Hyd), 167 TTJ 493 (Mum), 146 TTJ 1(SB) (Vizag). Further, the ld AR submitted that , in absence of any judgement of jurisdictional High Court, even if contradictory decisions are there of other courts, the view favourable to the assessee might be taken, following the decision of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, B Bench Chennai in the case of ITO Vs. Theekathir Press in ITA no. 2076/(Md…

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JASON P. BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, Assessment year : 2008-09 Sri Satish Rajapur, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Prop: Rajapur Minerals, Income Tax, III Floor, Rajapur Inn, Circle 1, Bellary Road, J.P. Nagar, Bellary. Hospet. PAN : AEZPR 1636Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Gurunathan, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, Jt.CIT(DR) Date of hearing : 14.09.2015 Date of Pronouncement : 24.09.2015 O R D E R Per Vijay Pal Rao, Judicial Member This appeal by the assessee is direc…

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…

Merilyn Shipping and Transport v. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (146 TTJ 1) — Cited in 14 Judgments | BharatTax