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.

How many judgments cite Merilyn Shipping & Transports v. Addl. CIT?

139 judgments on BharatTax cite Merilyn Shipping & Transports v. Addl. CIT (136 ITD 23), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Merilyn Shipping & Transports v. Addl. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 250, Section 194A, Section 194H, Section 2(28A), Section 201(1), Section 201(1A).

Merilyn Shipping & Transports v. Addl. CIT (136 ITD 23)

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A” (SMC), HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 1185/HYD/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Asst. Commissioner of Smt. Jasti Seethamahalakshmi, Income Tax, Vs Prop: M/s. Kanaka Durga Lorry Circle-9(1), Service, HYDERABAD HYDERABAD [PAN: ANPPS9623R] (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 35/HYD/2017 (in ITA No. 1185/Hyd/2017) Assessment Year: 2012-013 Smt. Jasti Seethamahalakshmi, The Asst. Commissioner of Prop: M/s. Kanaka Durga Lorry Vs Income Tax, Service, Circle-9(1), HYDERABAD HYDERABAD [PAN: ANPPS9623R] (Cross-Objector) (Respon…

Smt.Anuradha Sripathy, Bangalore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 1748/BANG/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Lalit Kumarsmt.Anuradha Sripathy, No.288, 10 D Main, Jayanagar 5Th Block, Bengaluru. … Appellant Vs. The Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals)-7, Bengaluru. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.Krishnaswamy, CAFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Biju, JCIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263oSection 40

…s that some payments are below the prescribed limit of Rs.10,000 to attract TDS provisions and some of the amounts are not outstanding at the end of the year. Therefore applying the Special bench decision in the case of Merilin Shipping & Transports vs. ACIT (136 ITD 23), provisions of section 40(a)(ia) cannot be applied. The submissions of the assessee company cannot be accepted for the reason that from the perusal of the details filed before the Assessing Officer as well as the ld.CIT(A) it is clear that each of the payments is above the limit of Rs.10000/- and the ratio of the special bench decision in the cas…

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

…t income. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made u/s,40(a)(ia) of the IT Act by relying on the ITAT Special Bench decision in the case of Merilyn Shipping and Transport Vs Addl. C1T 136 ITD 23 (SB) Vishakapatnam without considering the fact that the operation of the said decision has been stayed by the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh.” 3. The brief facts of the case, are that the assessee filed his return of income on 16.09.2011 declaring total income to the tune of Rs.5,41,38,530/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1). The case wa…

Original Kerala Jewellers, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

ITA 196/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jan 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos. 191 To 196/Mds/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2012-13) Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Original Kerala Jewellers, No.91, Sundaram Complex, Income Tax, Usman Road, T. Nagar, Non Corporate Circle – 2, Chennai – 600 017. Chennai -34. Pan:Aaafo0104F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. S. Vijayaprabha, Jcit

For Respondent: Smt. S. Vijayaprabha, JCIT

Section 147Section 250(6)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 43B

…1,245/- consists of EMI which includes both interest and principal amount paid to various finance companies. The assessee further relied in the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case Merilyn Shipping and Transports vs. Addl. CIT reported in 136 ITD 23 wherein it was held that the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act will not apply, if the amount was already paid by the assessee before the close of the relevant previous year. Since the assessee had already paid the amount of Rs.12,51,245/- before the end of the relevant previous year, the Ld.AR pleaded that disallowance may not be made inv…

Original Kerala Jewellers, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

ITA 195/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos. 191 To 196/Mds/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2012-13) Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Original Kerala Jewellers, No.91, Sundaram Complex, Income Tax, Usman Road, T. Nagar, Non Corporate Circle – 2, Chennai – 600 017. Chennai -34. Pan:Aaafo0104F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. S. Vijayaprabha, Jcit

For Respondent: Smt. S. Vijayaprabha, JCIT

Section 147Section 250(6)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 43B

…1,245/- consists of EMI which includes both interest and principal amount paid to various finance companies. The assessee further relied in the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case Merilyn Shipping and Transports vs. Addl. CIT reported in 136 ITD 23 wherein it was held that the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act will not apply, if the amount was already paid by the assessee before the close of the relevant previous year. Since the assessee had already paid the amount of Rs.12,51,245/- before the end of the relevant previous year, the Ld.AR pleaded that disallowance may not be made inv…

Original Kerala Jewellers, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

ITA 194/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos. 191 To 196/Mds/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2012-13) Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Original Kerala Jewellers, No.91, Sundaram Complex, Income Tax, Usman Road, T. Nagar, Non Corporate Circle – 2, Chennai – 600 017. Chennai -34. Pan:Aaafo0104F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. S. Vijayaprabha, Jcit

For Respondent: Smt. S. Vijayaprabha, JCIT

Section 147Section 250(6)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 43B

…1,245/- consists of EMI which includes both interest and principal amount paid to various finance companies. The assessee further relied in the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case Merilyn Shipping and Transports vs. Addl. CIT reported in 136 ITD 23 wherein it was held that the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act will not apply, if the amount was already paid by the assessee before the close of the relevant previous year. Since the assessee had already paid the amount of Rs.12,51,245/- before the end of the relevant previous year, the Ld.AR pleaded that disallowance may not be made inv…

Original Kerala Jewellers, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

ITA 193/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos. 191 To 196/Mds/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2012-13) Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Original Kerala Jewellers, No.91, Sundaram Complex, Income Tax, Usman Road, T. Nagar, Non Corporate Circle – 2, Chennai – 600 017. Chennai -34. Pan:Aaafo0104F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. S. Vijayaprabha, Jcit

For Respondent: Smt. S. Vijayaprabha, JCIT

Section 147Section 250(6)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 43B

…1,245/- consists of EMI which includes both interest and principal amount paid to various finance companies. The assessee further relied in the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case Merilyn Shipping and Transports vs. Addl. CIT reported in 136 ITD 23 wherein it was held that the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act will not apply, if the amount was already paid by the assessee before the close of the relevant previous year. Since the assessee had already paid the amount of Rs.12,51,245/- before the end of the relevant previous year, the Ld.AR pleaded that disallowance may not be made inv…

Original Kerala Jewellers, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

ITA 192/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos. 191 To 196/Mds/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2012-13) Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Original Kerala Jewellers, No.91, Sundaram Complex, Income Tax, Usman Road, T. Nagar, Non Corporate Circle – 2, Chennai – 600 017. Chennai -34. Pan:Aaafo0104F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. S. Vijayaprabha, Jcit

For Respondent: Smt. S. Vijayaprabha, JCIT

Section 147Section 250(6)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 43B

…1,245/- consists of EMI which includes both interest and principal amount paid to various finance companies. The assessee further relied in the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case Merilyn Shipping and Transports vs. Addl. CIT reported in 136 ITD 23 wherein it was held that the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act will not apply, if the amount was already paid by the assessee before the close of the relevant previous year. Since the assessee had already paid the amount of Rs.12,51,245/- before the end of the relevant previous year, the Ld.AR pleaded that disallowance may not be made inv…

Original Kerala Jewellers, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

ITA 191/CHNY/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos. 191 To 196/Mds/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2012-13) Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Original Kerala Jewellers, No.91, Sundaram Complex, Income Tax, Usman Road, T. Nagar, Non Corporate Circle – 2, Chennai – 600 017. Chennai -34. Pan:Aaafo0104F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. S. Vijayaprabha, Jcit

For Respondent: Smt. S. Vijayaprabha, JCIT

Section 147Section 250(6)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 43B

…1,245/- consists of EMI which includes both interest and principal amount paid to various finance companies. The assessee further relied in the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case Merilyn Shipping and Transports vs. Addl. CIT reported in 136 ITD 23 wherein it was held that the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act will not apply, if the amount was already paid by the assessee before the close of the relevant previous year. Since the assessee had already paid the amount of Rs.12,51,245/- before the end of the relevant previous year, the Ld.AR pleaded that disallowance may not be made inv…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Chennai Petroleum Corporation Limited, Chennai

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

ITA 853/CHNY/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Dec 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.Prabhu Mukunth Arun-

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40

…) can be made only in respect of amounts outstanding and payable as on 31st March and not on amounts which have been paid during the previous year. Appellant relies on the decision Special bench in the case of Merilyn Shipping and Transports V. ACIT, reported 16 ITR (Trib) 1 (Vis)(SB). 3.5 Without prejudice, if any disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) is warranted, it should, at best be restricted to the profit accruing to M/s.HEPI on sale of crude to the Appellant, on which tax Liability accrues to M/sHEPI and not the entire payment, i.e. the entire revenue to M/s.HEPI. 4. The Appellant craves leave to file additional gro…

Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Chennai vs. JCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 687/CHNY/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Dec 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.Prabhu Mukunth Arun-

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40

…) can be made only in respect of amounts outstanding and payable as on 31st March and not on amounts which have been paid during the previous year. Appellant relies on the decision Special bench in the case of Merilyn Shipping and Transports V. ACIT, reported 16 ITR (Trib) 1 (Vis)(SB). 3.5 Without prejudice, if any disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) is warranted, it should, at best be restricted to the profit accruing to M/s.HEPI on sale of crude to the Appellant, on which tax Liability accrues to M/sHEPI and not the entire payment, i.e. the entire revenue to M/s.HEPI. 4. The Appellant craves leave to file additional gro…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Uma Sharan Sharma

The appeal is allowed in the above terms

ITA/322/2016HC Delhi24 Nov 2017

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 139Section 196Section 201Section 201(1)Section 210Section 40

…$~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 322/2016 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II ..... Appellant Through : Sh. Rahul Chaudhary, Sr. Standing Counsel with Ms. Akriti Dawar, Advocate. versus UMA SHARAN SHARMA ..... Respondent Through : Sh. Satyen Sethi and Ms. Gargi Sethi, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. GAUBA O R D E R % 24.11.2017 1. Three questions have been urged by the Revenue in its appeal against the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The first pertains to t…

Gurera Synthetics P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 4(2)(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 476/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Gurera Synthetics Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax Officer 4(2)(3) बिधम/ 33/37 Dwarkesh Market, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Dr. A.M. Road, Bhuleshwar, Mumbai 400020 Vs. Mumbai 400 002 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan No. Aaacg2269G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Narayan Atal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Vidyadhar, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)Section 40Section 40A(3)

…as ‘Paid’ to the aforementioned payee during the year itself, and as such was not ‘Payable’ at the end of the year, therefore, in view of the order of the ITAT, Vishakhapatanam „Special bench‟ in the case of Merillyn shipping & Transport Vs. Addl. CIT. (2012) 136 ITD 23 (SB) no disallowance under the aforesaid statutory provision was called for in the hands of the assessee. We further find that the assessee had also relied on the judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of the CIT Vs. Vector Shipping Pvt. Ltd. (2013) 357 ITR 642 (All). We are of the considered view that the Hon‟ble Supreme Cour…

Shyam Apparels P.Ltd., Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

ITA 549/JPR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma, (Addl.CIT)

Section 201Section 40Section 40A(3)

…ering the cases of CIT vs. M/s ITA 497 & 549/JP/2016_ 6 ITO Vs. Shyam Apparels Vector Shipping Services (P) Ltd., (2013) 262 CTR (All) 545, V.M. Salgaocar & Bros. (P) Ltd., etc. vs. CIT, etc. (2000) 243 ITR 383 (SC), ACIT vs. Merilyn Shipping & Transporters 136 ITD 23 (SB) (Vishakhapatnam), Tube Investments of India Ltd. and another vs. ACIT, (TDS) and others, (2010) 325 ITR 610 (Mad)held that: “The provisions of section 40(a) (ia) of the Income Tax Act 1961, are applicable not only to the amount which is shown as payable on the date of balance sheet but it is applicable to such expenditure, which become payab…

ITO, Jaipur vs. Shyam Apparels Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

ITA 497/JPR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma, (Addl.CIT)

Section 201Section 40Section 40A(3)

…ering the cases of CIT vs. M/s ITA 497 & 549/JP/2016_ 6 ITO Vs. Shyam Apparels Vector Shipping Services (P) Ltd., (2013) 262 CTR (All) 545, V.M. Salgaocar & Bros. (P) Ltd., etc. vs. CIT, etc. (2000) 243 ITR 383 (SC), ACIT vs. Merilyn Shipping & Transporters 136 ITD 23 (SB) (Vishakhapatnam), Tube Investments of India Ltd. and another vs. ACIT, (TDS) and others, (2010) 325 ITR 610 (Mad)held that: “The provisions of section 40(a) (ia) of the Income Tax Act 1961, are applicable not only to the amount which is shown as payable on the date of balance sheet but it is applicable to such expenditure, which become payab…

ACIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Mother Mira Industries Ltd., Chennai

ITA 3194/CHNY/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Adv

Section 148Section 154Section 40

…was deducted at source. Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had allowed the claim on assessee’s appeal, relying on the Special Bench decision in the case of Merilyn Shipping & Transports vs. ACIT, (2012) 136 ITD 23. As per the ld. Departmental Representative, ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) held that disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act could be done only on amounts shown as payable and not as paid. As per the ld. Departmental Representative by virtue of judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Palam Gas Service vs CIT, 394 ITR 300 the vie…

ACIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Mother Mira Industries Ltd., Chennai

ITA 3193/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Adv

Section 148Section 154Section 40

…was deducted at source. Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had allowed the claim on assessee’s appeal, relying on the Special Bench decision in the case of Merilyn Shipping & Transports vs. ACIT, (2012) 136 ITD 23. As per the ld. Departmental Representative, ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) held that disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act could be done only on amounts shown as payable and not as paid. As per the ld. Departmental Representative by virtue of judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Palam Gas Service vs CIT, 394 ITR 300 the vie…

M/S Sabtex Exports, New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 3662/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Rajpal Yadav

Section 194HSection 40Section 69B

…hands of recipient and non-deduction of tax on such amounts, which were credited to the account of recipient. As far as the contention of the ld. Counsel on the strength of the decision of ITAT in the case of Merilyn Shipping & Transports v. Addl. CIT [2012] 136 ITD 23 that on the amount which remained payable, no disallowance can be made, is concerned, this decision has been overruled by Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sikandarkhan N. Tanvar, 357 ITR 312 (Guj.). Therefore, we do not find any ITA Nos. 3662 & 3789/Del./2011 4 merit in this contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee. Thus, th…

M/S. Nq Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 188/CTK/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack04 Oct 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri N.S Sainiassessment Year : 2013-2014

For Appellant: Shri C.Parida, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR

Section 194Section 40

…llowed Rs.3,45,000/-. 5. On appeal before the CIT(A), the assessee submitted that as no outstanding amount payable at the end of the year, therefore, in view of the decision of Visakhapatnam Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Merilyn Shipping & Transports, 136 ITD 23 (Viskhapatnam SB) and decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Vector Shipping Services (P) Ltd, 357 ITR 642 (All),no disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) was warranted. 6. The CIT(A) following the decision of Hon’ble H.P.High Court in the case of Palam Gas Service vs CIT, 47 TAXMANN.COM 310(H.P), wherein, it was held that section 40(a)(ia…

Howrah Mills Limited, Howrah vs. DCIT, CC-Xxii, Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1994/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Aug 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shr Rakesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden , Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 40

…ission/brokerage in question had already been paid and “did not remain payable” as on the last date of the previous year. The assessee relied on the decision of the Special Bench of ITAT, Visakhapatnam in the case of Merilyn Shipping & Transports vs Addl. CIT 136 ITD 23 (Visakhapatnam)(SB) and submitted that in a case where the amounts in question have already been paid as in the last date of the previous year no disallowance can be made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. This argument of the assessee was not accepted by CIT(A) by following the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Crescent Exports Sy…

Merilyn Shipping & Transports v. Addl. CIT

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

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Merilyn Shipping & Transports v. Addl. CIT

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-9(1)., Hyderabad vs. Jasti Seethamahalakshmi., Hyderabad

Smt.Anuradha Sripathy, Bangalore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

Jt. CIT (OSD) Cent. Cir. 4(1) Cent. RG. 4, Mumbai vs. Bijesh Thakkar, Mumbai

Original Kerala Jewellers, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

Original Kerala Jewellers, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

Original Kerala Jewellers, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

Original Kerala Jewellers, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

Original Kerala Jewellers, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

Original Kerala Jewellers, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

DCIT, Chennai vs. Chennai Petroleum Corporation Limited, Chennai

Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Chennai vs. JCIT, Chennai

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Uma Sharan Sharma

Gurera Synthetics P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 4(2)(3), Mumbai

Shyam Apparels P.Ltd., Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

ITO, Jaipur vs. Shyam Apparels Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

ACIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Mother Mira Industries Ltd., Chennai

ACIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Mother Mira Industries Ltd., Chennai

M/S Sabtex Exports, New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

M/S. Nq Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Bhubaneswar

Howrah Mills Limited, Howrah vs. DCIT, CC-Xxii, Kolkata