Merilyn Shipping & Transports v. Addl. CIT

136 ITD 23Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2012#733 most cited

What is Merilyn Shipping & Transports v. Addl. CIT authority for?

Section 40(a)(ia) disallowance applies only to expenses that remain payable at the end of the financial year, not to expenses that have been actually paid during the previous year without deduction of tax at source.

139

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Merilyn Shipping & Transports v. Addl. CIT · Section 40(a)(ia) · disallowance of expenditure · TDS default · expenses payable at year-end · amounts paid during previous year · deduction of tax at source · ITAT Special Bench decision · section 40(a) · business income deductions

Also reported as

20 Taxmann.com 24416 ITR (Trib) 1

Sections most often in play

Section 250Section 194ASection 194HSection 2(28A)Section 201(1)Section 201(1A)Section 40(a)(ia)Section 133A(2A)

Issues it is cited on

section 40(a)section 40(a)(ia)section 36(1)section 40section 36section 37previous yeartransferprescribedbusinessindiainterest

Judgments citing Merilyn Shipping & Transports v. Addl. CIT

Dy..C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S State Bank of Mysore, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue Ground-3 is dismissed

ITA 683/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Account Member & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved & Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray, Spl. Counsel
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 41(1)Section 41(4)

…ent expenses payable at the end of the Financial Year under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act in line with the principles laid down by the following judicial precedents (including that of jurisdictional Tribunal): Merilyn Shipping and Transports v. Addi CIT [2012] 16 ITR (Trib) 1 ITAT, Viskhapatnam (Spl Bench): • CIT vs. M/s Vector Shipping Services (P) Ltd ITA No. 122 of 2013 dated 9.7.2013 (All HC) (SLP dismissed by SC on 2nd July,2014); • Capital Pharma v. ITO (ITAT Bang) (ITA No. 34/2013); • DCIT v. Ananda Marakala (ITAT Bang) (ITA No. 1584/2012); • Arcadia Share and Stock Brokers ITA 1871/Mum/2013; • S.S. Network…

State Bank of Mysore, Bangalore vs. JCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue Ground-3 is dismissed

ITA 660/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Account Member & Shri Anikesh Banerjeestate Bank Of India Vs Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax, (Erstwhile State Bank Of Large Tax Payers Unit, Bangalore Mysore Prior To Merger) Local Head Office Compliance Department, 4Th Floor, 65, St. Marks Road, Bangalore-560 001 Pan: Aaccs0155P Appellant Respondent Deputy Commissioner Of Vs State Bank Of Mysore Income-Tax, Ltu, Circle-1, Head Office, Finance & Accounts Bangalore Department, Kg Road, Bangalore- 560 009 Pan: Aaccs0155P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved & Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray, Spl. Counsel
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 41(1)Section 41(4)

…nt expenses payable at the end of the Financial Year under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act in line with the principles laid down by the following judicial precedents (including that of jurisdictional Tribunal): Merilyn Shipping and Transports v. Addi CIT [2012] 16 ITR (Trib) 1 ITAT, Viskhapatnam (Spl Bench): • CIT vs. M/s Vector Shipping Services (P) Ltd ITA No. 122 of 2013 dated 9.7.2013 (All HC) (SLP dismissed by SC on 2nd July,2014); • Capital Pharma v. ITO (ITAT Bang) (ITA No. 34/2013); • DCIT v. Ananda Marakala (ITAT Bang) (ITA No. 1584/2012); • Arcadia Share and Stock Brokers ITA 1871/Mum/2013; • S.S. Ne…

DCIT(OSD)(TDS) - 2(3), Mumbai vs. Wockhardt Ltd., Mumbai

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2636/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ayush Chhajed, ARFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 194ASection 194HSection 201(1)Section 250Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE MS PADMAVATHY S, AM & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JM I.T.A. No. 2636/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) DCIT (OSD)-2(3), Wockhardt Ltd. Room No. 310, 3rd Floor, Wockhardt Tower, Bandra Kurla Vs. Cumbala Hill, MTNL TE Building, Complex, Bandra, Mumbai-400051. Peddar Road, Mumbai-400026 PAN: AAACW2472M Appellant) : Respondent) Appellant /Assessee by : Shri Ayush Chhajed, AR Revenue / Respondent by : Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 10.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 19.06.2025 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, AM: This appeal by the revenue is…

DCIT(OSD)(TDS)-2(3), Mumbai vs. Wockhardt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2633/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 194ASection 194HSection 2Section 201Section 201(1)Section 222Section 271C

…e payment having been made during the previous year relevant to the assessment year under dispute no disallowance could be made under section 40(a)(ia) in view of the ITAT Special Bench decision in the case of Merilyn Shipping & Transports v. Addl. CIT [2012] 136 ITD 23/ 20 taxmann.com 244 (Visakha). In the afore said view of the matter, the disallowance made under section 40(a)(ia) cannot be sustained. Therefore, the Assessing Officer is to be directed to delete the same. The appeal is to be allowed. 10. We have heard rival contentions and perused the material on record. It is not disputed that the interest paid…

DCIT (TDS)(OSD) - 2(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Wockhardt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2131/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit (Tds) (Osd)-2(3), M/S Wockhardt Ltd., Room No. 310, 3Rd Floor, Mtnl Wockhardt Towers, Bandra Building, Cumballa Hill, Vs. Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400026. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaacw 2472 M Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Pranay Gandhi, Ar : Revenue By Mr. Byomakesh Pradipta Kumar Panda, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 20/12/2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 30/12/2022

For Respondent: Assessee by Mr. Pranay Gandhi, AR
Section 194H

…under section 40(a)(ia) in view of the ITAT Special Bench made under section 40(a)(ia) in view of the ITAT Special Bench decision in the case of Merilyn Shippin decision in the case of Merilyn Shipping & Transports v. Addl. g & Transports v. Addl. CIT [2012] 136 ITD 23/ 20 taxmann.com 244 (Visakha) . In CIT [2012] 136 ITD 23/ 20 taxmann.com 244 (Visakha) . In CIT [2012] 136 ITD 23/ 20 taxmann.com 244 (Visakha) . In the afore said view of the matter, the disallowance made the afore said view of the matter, the disallowance made the afore said view of the matter, the disallowance made under section 40(a)(ia ) cann…

DCIT (TDS)-2(3), Mumbai vs. Wockhardt Limited, Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2314/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Vallabh Gokhale, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Byomakesh Pradipta Kumar Panda, D.R
Section 133ASection 194ASection 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

…e payment having been made during the previous year relevant to the assessment year under dispute no disallowance could be made under section 40(a)(ia) in view of the ITAT Special Bench decision in the case of Merilyn Shipping & Transports v. Addl. CIT [2012] 136 ITD 23/ 20 taxmann.com 244 (Visakha). In the afore said view of the matter, the disallowance made under section 40(a)(ia ) cannot be sustained. Therefore, the Assessing Officer is to be directed to delete the same. The appeal is to be allowed. 10. We have heard rival contentions and perused the material on record. It is not disputed that the interest pa…

JCIT (OSD) (TDS)-2(3). Mumbai, Mumbai vs. M/S Wockhardt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2012–

ITA 894/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Pranay GandhiFor Respondent: Shri A.B. Koli
Section 133ASection 194ASection 194HSection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

…e payment having been made during the previous year relevant to the assessment year under dispute no disallowance could be made under section 40(a)(ia) in view of the ITAT Special Bench decision in the case of Merilyn Shipping & Transports v. Addl. CIT [2012] 136 ITD 23/ 20 taxmann.com 244 (Visakha) . In the afore said view of the matter, the disallowance made under section 40(a)(ia ) cannot be sustained. Therefore, the Assessing Officer is to be directed to delete the same. The appeal is to be allowed. 10. We have heard rival contentions and perused the material on record. It is not disputed that the interest pa…

JCIT (OSD) (TDS)-2(3), Mumbai. vs. M/S Wockhardt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2012–

ITA 893/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Pranay GandhiFor Respondent: Shri A.B. Koli
Section 133ASection 194ASection 194HSection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

…e payment having been made during the previous year relevant to the assessment year under dispute no disallowance could be made under section 40(a)(ia) in view of the ITAT Special Bench decision in the case of Merilyn Shipping & Transports v. Addl. CIT [2012] 136 ITD 23/ 20 taxmann.com 244 (Visakha) . In the afore said view of the matter, the disallowance made under section 40(a)(ia ) cannot be sustained. Therefore, the Assessing Officer is to be directed to delete the same. The appeal is to be allowed. 10. We have heard rival contentions and perused the material on record. It is not disputed that the interest pa…

Shri Shri Nishant Jain, Bilaspur(Cg) vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-I, Bilaspur(Cg)

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 199/BIL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.199/Rpr/2016 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Nishant Jain, Vs Jcit, Range-1, Bilaspur(Cg) M/S Landmark Engineer, Flat No.27, Shantinagar, Ring Road No.2, Bilaspur Pan No. : Agepj 9793 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri R.B.Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.N.Singh, Sr. DR
Section 40

…आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, रायऩुर न्यायऩीठ, रायऩुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR श्री रविश सूद, न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री अरुण खोड़वऩया, ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष । BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM आयकर अऩीऱ सं./ITA No.199/RPR/2016 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Nishant Jain, Vs JCIT, Range-1, Bilaspur(CG) M/s Landmark Engineer, Flat No.27, Shantinagar, Ring Road No.2, Bilaspur PAN No. : AGEPJ 9793 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri R.B.Doshi, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri G.N.Singh, Sr. DR सुनिाई की तारीख /…

M/S Kinnor Kinnoree, Kolkata vs. CIT-X, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 176/KOL/2022[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Aug 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Borad

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…el of the Tribunal in 2009 and ultimately a reference was made to the Special Bench of the Tribunal at Visakhapatnam in the case of Merilyn Shipping & Transports, 4 Assessment Year : 2005-2006 M/s. Kinnor Kinnoree Visakhapatnam –vs.- Addl. CIT reported in 136 ITD 23 (VSP). The Special Bench has decided that this clause is applicable only on the amounts payable. However, this view did not meed the approval of Higher Appellate Authority. Hence, this contention of the assessee was rejected by the ld. Commissioner. He held that assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue without touch…

M/S Meenaxi Building Solutions Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-4(1)(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 686/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Paresh S. Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 40Section 44

…ange-3 ITA Nos.685 & 686/Bang/2018 Page 3 of 6 Mathura bearing ITA No.337/Agra/A13 dated 29.05.2013 b) Judgment in the case of Jitendra Mansukhlal Shah v/s. DCIT(ITAT Mumbai) c) Special bench decision of Allahabad High Court in the case of Merilyin Shipping 136 ITD 23(SB) when there are contrary decisions of different Honorable High Courts, then the decision which is in the favor of the Assessee has to be followed in the light of the decision of the Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Vegetable Products Ltd 88 ITR 192 8. The Appellant humbly prays to set aside the Appeal Order passed by CIT Appeals-4 as well…

M/S Meenaxi Building Solutions Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-4(1)(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 685/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Paresh S. Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 40Section 44

…ange-3 ITA Nos.685 & 686/Bang/2018 Page 3 of 6 Mathura bearing ITA No.337/Agra/A13 dated 29.05.2013 b) Judgment in the case of Jitendra Mansukhlal Shah v/s. DCIT(ITAT Mumbai) c) Special bench decision of Allahabad High Court in the case of Merilyin Shipping 136 ITD 23(SB) when there are contrary decisions of different Honorable High Courts, then the decision which is in the favor of the Assessee has to be followed in the light of the decision of the Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Vegetable Products Ltd 88 ITR 192 8. The Appellant humbly prays to set aside the Appeal Order passed by CIT Appeals-4 as well…

DCIT, Cirlce-2(1), Hyd, Hyderabad vs. Janapriya Properties Pvt.Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 417/HYD/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Sept 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri A. Srinivas, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sunku Srinivas, DR
Section 143(3)Section 201(1)Section 40Section 80

…substantive grounds. Coming to the latter issue of Sec.40(a)(ia), disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and reversed in the CIT(A)’s order by following tribunal’s Special Bench decision of M/s. Merylin Shipping and Transports Ltd., Vs. ACIT in (2012) 136 ITD 23 (SB) (45) that the same only covers those expenses which remain “payable” on the last day of the relevant accounting period, we find that the same is no more res integra since hon’ble apex court in Palam Gas Service Vs. CIT in 394 ITR 300 (SC) holds that Sec.40(a)(ia) also covers both “paid” as well as “payable” expenses. The fact also remains…

DCIT, Cirlce-2(1), Hyd, Hyderabad vs. Janapriya Properties Pvt.Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 416/HYD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Sept 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri A. Srinivas, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sunku Srinivas, DR
Section 143(3)Section 201(1)Section 40Section 80

…substantive grounds. Coming to the latter issue of Sec.40(a)(ia), disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and reversed in the CIT(A)’s order by following tribunal’s Special Bench decision of M/s. Merylin Shipping and Transports Ltd., Vs. ACIT in (2012) 136 ITD 23 (SB) (45) that the same only covers those expenses which remain “payable” on the last day of the relevant accounting period, we find that the same is no more res integra since hon’ble apex court in Palam Gas Service Vs. CIT in 394 ITR 300 (SC) holds that Sec.40(a)(ia) also covers both “paid” as well as “payable” expenses. The fact also remains…

M/S. Ratan Conductors, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-4, Jaipur

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

ITA 1259/JPR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1259/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Ratan Conductors, Cuke A.C.I.T., Vs. H-377(B), Road No. 17, Vki Area, Circle-4, Jaipur. Jaipur. Pan No.: Aabfr 8166 P Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Ashok Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Jcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 05/08/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Jaipur Dated 21/08/2019 For The A.Y. 2012-13 Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. Disallowance Of Interest Of Rs. 17,73,769/- On Account Of Non Tds:- That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Law & Facts In Confirming Disallowance Of Interest Of Rs.17,73,769/- Paid To M/S Barelays Investment & Loan (India) Ltd. (Rs. 298826/-) & M/S Future Capital (Rs. 1474943/-) On Account Of Non Deduction Of Tds Thereon By Invoking Provisions Of Section 40(A)(Ia) Of The It Act 1961. (A) The Assessee Firm Paid, Interest Of Rs. 2,98,826/- To Nbfc. M/S Barelays Investment & Loan (India) Ltd. & Rs.14,74,943/- To M/S Future Capital Another Nbfc. The Assessee Firm Raised Loan

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kr. Gupta (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 40

…no dispute as to the fact that Interest to NBFCs has actually been paid to payees and as on 31.03.2012 no amount of interest was payable. 5 ITA 1259/JP/2019_ Ratan Conductors Vs ACIT The Special Bench of IT AT in case of Merilyn Shipping & Transport Vs. ACIT 16 ITR (Trib) 1 (PB 62-63) has held that section 40 (a) (ia) cannot be invoked in respect of amounts actually paid within the previous years without deduction of tax at source. After tis decision the Gujarat High Court in case of CIT Vs. Sikandar Khan N. Tunvar 357 ITR 312 and Calcutta High Court in case of CIT Vs. Crescent Export Syndicate 94 DTR 81 held th…

DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Hyd, Hyderabad vs. R.R.Movie Makers, Hyd, Hyderabad

ITA 211/HYD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Apr 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Ranka, DR
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40A(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A” : HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 211/HYD/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dy.Commissioner of M/s.R.R. Movie Makers, Income Tax, Vs HYDERABAD Central Circle-2(1), [PAN: AAIFR0164J] HYDERABAD (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue : Shri Rajeev Ranka, DR For Assessee : NONE Date of Hearing : 25-02-2021 Date of Pronouncement : 21-04-2021 O R D E R PER S.S.GODARA, J.M. : This Revenue’s appeal for AY.2012-13 arises from the CIT(A)-12, Hyderabad’s order dat…

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)

…notice that the CIT(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 yea…

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)

…notice that the CIT(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 yea…

DCIT (TDS)-2(3), Mumbai vs. Wockhardt Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly, the grounds (c) raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6803/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6803/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit (Tds)-2(3), M/S Wockhardt Ltd. 6Th Floor, Wockhardt Smt. K. G. Mittal बिधम/ Ayurvedic Hospital Bldg. Tower, G Block, Bandra Vs. Room No. 718, 7Th Floor, Kurla Complex, Bandra, Charni Road (W), Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 002 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaacw2472M (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & C.O. No. 51/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S Wockhardt Ltd. Dcit (Tds)-2(3), 6Th Floor, Wockhardt Smt. K. G. Mittal बिधम/ Tower, G Block, Bandra Ayurvedic Hospital Bldg. Vs. Room No. 718, 7Th Floor, Kurla Complex, Bandra, Charni Road (W), Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 002 (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Anand Mohan, Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri Kirit Kamdar, Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 02.11.2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 11.12.2020 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Anand Mohan, DRFor Respondent: Shri Kirit Kamdar, AR
Section 133ASection 194ASection 194HSection 201(1)

…the assessment year under dispute no disallowance could be made under 23 I.T.A. No. 6803/Mum/2018 & CO 51/Mum/2020 M/s Wockhardt Ltd. section 40(a)(ia) in view of the ITAT Special Bench decision in the case of Merilyn Shipping & Transports v. Addl. CIT [2012] 136 ITD 23/ 20 taxmann.com 244 (Visakha) . In the afore said view of the matter, the disallowance made under section 40(a)(ia ) cannot be sustained. Therefore, the Assessing Officer is to be directed to delete the same. The appeal is to be allowed. 10. We have heard rival contentions and perused the material on record. It is not disputed that the interest p…

25 Frames Media House, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 983/HYD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Oct 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Sh. S. Rama Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Solgy Jose T Kottaram, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 40

…he assessee. As regards disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the I.T.Act, 1961 the CIT(A) followed the decision of the Visakhapatnam Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Merilyn Shipping & Transports Visakhapatnam vs. ACIT, Range 1, Visakhapatnam reported in 136 ITD 23. 2.1. With regard to disallowance of 50% of the expenditure, the CIT(A) observed that assessee has filed details before her which are forwarded to the AO and a remand report were called for. After considering the remand report, she held that the action of the AO in disallowing 50% of the misc. expenses and salaries was not justifiable, and that if…