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

D.C.I.T., Circle-1, Kolkata vs. M/S. Howrah Mills Company Limited, Howrah

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1894/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…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Tirunelveli Vayu Energy Generation Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in I

ITA 2647/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jul 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1961/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri V. Nagaprasad, CAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Radhakrishnan, JCIT

…holding that Section 40(a)(ia) is applicable not only to the amount paid but also remains to be paid. Now the contention of the assessee before this Tribunal is that the decision of Special Bench of this Tribunal in Merilyn Shipping and Transport v. ACIT in 136 ITD 23 was confirmed by Allahabad High Court in Vector Shipping Services (P) Ltd. (2013) 357 ITR 642. It is also an admitted fact that Apex Court recently held that Section 40(a)(ia) is applicable not only to the amount paid but also the amount remains to be paid. In fact, the Apex Court upheld the judgment of Calcutta High Court in Crescent Export Sy…

Shuka Consultancy Services Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in I

ITA 1961/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jul 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1961/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri V. Nagaprasad, CAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Radhakrishnan, JCIT

…holding that Section 40(a)(ia) is applicable not only to the amount paid but also remains to be paid. Now the contention of the assessee before this Tribunal is that the decision of Special Bench of this Tribunal in Merilyn Shipping and Transport v. ACIT in 136 ITD 23 was confirmed by Allahabad High Court in Vector Shipping Services (P) Ltd. (2013) 357 ITR 642. It is also an admitted fact that Apex Court recently held that Section 40(a)(ia) is applicable not only to the amount paid but also the amount remains to be paid. In fact, the Apex Court upheld the judgment of Calcutta High Court in Crescent Export Sy…

Magick Woods Exports P Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 2105/CHNY/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jun 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

Section 1Section 10BSection 10fSection 143(3)Section 2Section 250(6)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 438

…iew is supported by the decisions in the following cases, (i) CIT v. Crescent Export Syndicate, 216 taxman 2S8 (Cal.HC) (ii) CIT v. Sekanderkhan N Tanvar (ITA No.90S of 2012) (Guj.HC) On the other hand, the case of Merilyn Shipping & Transports v. Addl.CIT (136 ITD 23) (Vizag.) (SB) the decision of the ITAT Vizag. (SB) was stayed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. There is a difference between the word 'paid' and 'payable'. The legislature has used the word 'payable' very carefully in sec. 40(a)(ia). As no tax can be deducted after the amount is actually paid, the legislature has used the word 'payable' and…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Binny Ltd., Chennai

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1675/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1675/Mds/2016 "नधा+रण वष+ /Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Mr.B.Ramakrishnan, CA
Section 41Section 41(1)

…duction of tax at source. 11.0 The assessee went on appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) allowed the assessee’s appeal placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble ITAT Special Bench, Visakhapatnam in the case of Merilyn Shipping and Transport [16 ITR (Trib) 1] and the decision of this this Tribunal in the case of ITAT No.985/Mds/2012 ITO v. M/s.Theekathir Press. 12.0 We heard both the parties from the orders of the lower authorities, the facts are not ascertainable, no details are placed regarding the name of payees, the amount paid date of payment whether TDS is applicable or not on the payme…

Ms. Asha Gupta, New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6747/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.P. Jainassessment Year 2010-11 Ms. Asha Gupta, Vs. Jcit, Range-36, 423, Kanungo Apartments, New Delhi. I.P, Ext., Patpar Ganj, Delhi. Pan: Aetpg 8803J (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri P.C. Yadav, Advocate, Assessee(S) By : Ms. Bedobani Chaudhuri, Sr.D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20/04/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 20/04/2017 Order This Appeal Of The Assessee Arises From The Order Of Learned Cit(A)- Xxvii, New Delhi Vide Order Dated 15.09.2014 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

For Respondent: Shri P.C. Yadav, Advocate
Section 139Section 194Section 40

…t Syndicate 216 Taxman 250 = 2013-TIOL-404-HC-KOL-IT and Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs Sikandarkhan N Tunvar 357 ITR 312 = 2013-TIOL-389-HC-AHM-IT has overruled the Special Bench decision in the case of Merilyn Shipping & Transports Vs ACIT 136 ITD 23 = 2012-TIOL-184-ITAT-VIZAG-SB. However, the Special Bench Decision has been approved by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in CIT Vs Vector Shipping Services (P) Ltd. 357 ITR 642 = 2013-TIOL- 599-HC-ALL-ITand moreover, SLP filed by the Department against Hon'ble Allahabad High Court decision in the case of Vector Shipping Services has been dismissed by…

J.C.I.T Range - 56, Kolkata vs. M/S Arti & Sons., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue on ground No

ITA 1932/KOL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1932/Kol/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2009-2010) Jcit, Range-56, 3, Govt Place Vs. M/S Arti & Sons, (W), 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700001 167/4, Lenin Sarani, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700072 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefa 6622 J .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit Dr Revenue By : Shri V.N.Purohit, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 09/03/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 19/04/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Revenue Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2009-2010, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-Xxxvi, Kolkata In Appeal No.357/Cit(A)-Xxxvi/Kol/R-56/10-11, Dated 29.10.2012, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 30.12.2010. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Filed Its E-Return Of Income, Disclosing Total Income Of Rs.99,12,640/- On 22.09.2008. The Assessee’S Case Was Selected For Scrutiny U/S.143(3) Of The Act & The Ao Has Completed The Assessment By Making Addition On Account Of Gross Receipts From C&F Commission At Rs.5,33,81,892/- & On Account Of Undisclosed Liabilities Paid Through Credits In The Books Of Tiger Associates At Rs.7,12,32,585/-.

For Appellant: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri V.N.Purohit, AR
Section 143(3)Section 194G(1)Section 40Section 40a

…spelt out, the nature of payment as to whether, it is commission or any other payment on which TDS has to be made. The CIT(A) deleted the addition U/s 40 (a) (ia) by applying Merilyn Shipping & Transport, ITA No. 477/Vizag/2008 ( Visakhapatnam Special Bench) 20 Taxmann.com 244. It is not in dispute before us, that the decision in the case of Merilyn Shipping & Transport (supra) has been overruled by Hon`ble Kolkata High court in the case of Crescent Exports Syndicate 216 Taxmann 258. Therefore, the nature of payment by the assessee to the sub-distributer has not been explained by the Revenue Authorities. Without…

Himmat Mal Doshi, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, ground taken by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 276/JPR/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Mar 2017AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri G.L. Gupta (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma (Addl. CIT)
Section 145(3)Section 40a

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh dqy Hkkjr] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ ITA No. 276/JP/2015 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2011-12 cuke Shri Himmat Mal Doshi, The ITO, G-845, Road, No.14, Ward-4(2), Vs. V.K.I. Area, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN No. ABRPD 3822 B izR;FkhZ@Respondent vihykFkhZ@Appellant fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri G.L. Gupta (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by :Shri R.A. Verma (Addl. CIT) lq…

A.C.I.T Cir - 52, Kolkata vs. Sri Sudarshan Panja, Kolkata

In the result the appeal by the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1878/KOL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am ] Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Saurav Kumar, JCITFor Respondent: Shri Somnath Roy Chowdhury, AR
Section 144Section 194ISection 40

…ant previous year, is no good law. From a reading of the order of CIT(A) it is very clear that CIT(A) has proceeded to allow relief to the assessee by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Special Bench in the case of Merilyn Shipping and Transports 136 ITD 23 (SB)(Visakhapatnam). In view of the decision of the Honh’ble Calcutta High Court we are of the view that the ITA No.1878/Kol/2013-Sri Sudarshan Panja A.Y.2007-08 relief allowed by CIT(A) cannot be sustained and therefore the addition u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act ought to be sustained. 5. The ld. Counsel for the assessee however made submissions befo…

I.T.O WD - 8(3), Kolkata vs. M/S Ruia Sons Pvt Ltd., Kolkata

In the result the appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 365/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm] I.T.A No. 365/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2009-10 I.T.O., Ward-8(3), -Vs.- M/S. Ruia Sons Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaccr 3949 Q] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Arup Kumar Sinha, Cit For The Respondent : Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate

For Appellant: Shri Arup Kumar Sinha, CITFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 194JSection 301Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Sri M.Balaganesh, AM & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, JM] I.T.A No. 365/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2009-10 I.T.O., Ward-8(3), -vs.- M/s. Ruia Sons Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata [PAN : AACCR 3949 Q] (Respondent) (Appellant) For the Appellant : Shri Arup Kumar Sinha, CIT For the Respondent : Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate Date of Hearing : 02.02.2017. Date of Pronouncement : 03.03.2017. ORDER Per Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, JM This appeal preferred by the Revenue emanates from the order of ld. CIT(A)- VIII, Kolkata dated 26.11.2012 on t…

M/S Dhameja Mining, Sikkim vs. ITO, WD-2(4), Asansol

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

ITA 701/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Dec 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: : Shri M.Balaganesh & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(2)Section 194Section 40Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,‘D’ BENCH KOLKATA Before : Shri M.Balaganesh, Accountant Member and Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member I.T.A. No. 701/KOL/2015 A.Y: 2010-11 M/s. Dhameja Mining Vs. I.T.O., W 2(4), Asansol PAN: AAFFD 6501A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appearances by: Shri U. Dasgupta, Advocate, ld.AR None appeared for the revenue Date of hearing : 01-11-2016 Date of pronouncement : 21-12-2016 O R D E R Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, JM :- This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 16-03-2015 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals),Asansol for the…

M/S. Bharti Airtel Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee with respect to ground No

ITA 5816/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishibharti Airtel Ltd, Addl Cit, Bharti Crescent, 1, Vs. Range-2, Cr Building, Ip Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Estate, New Delhi Kunj, New Delhi Pan:Aaacb2894G (Appellant) (Respondent) Bharti Airtel Ltd, Addl Cit, Bharti Crescent, 1, Vs. Range-2, Cr Building, Ip Nelson Mandela Road, Vaxant Estate, New Delhi Kunj, New Delhi Pan:Aaacb2894G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, SrFor Respondent: Sh. NC Swain, CIT DR (OSD)
Section 201Section 254Section 40

…of addition u/s. 40(a)(ia) is duly covered in favour of assessee because it is an undisputed fact that payments were made during the year itself and therefore, were not outstanding as payable. The Special Bench in the case of Merlyn Shipping ^Transport Co. in 136 ITD 23 has clearly held Page 15 of 59 that disallowance u/s. 4Q(a)(ia), can be made of the amounts which are payable and cannot be made of the amounts which have already been paid. Similar findings has also been made by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in case of Vector Shipping Service Pvt. Ltd. Reported at 357ITR 642 against which SLP filed by the departm…

Shakti International Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 10(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3243/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri C.N. Prasadshakti International Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit – 10(3), C/O D.C. Bothra & Co. (Ca), Mumbai. 297, Tardeo Road, Wille Mansion, 1St Floor, Opp. Bank Of India, Nana Chowk, Mumbai. Pan : Aaics 4914 J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar Singh - CAFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Gaikwad - DR
Section 143(3)Section 40

…oposition, he placed reliance on the following decisions:- a) Shri Jitendra Mansukhlal Shah Vs. DCIT [I.T.A.T., Mumbai “J” Bench in ITA No. 2293/MUM/2013, order dated 04/03/2015.] 3 Assessment Year: 2008-09 b) Merilyn Shipping & Transport Vs. ACIT [(2012) 136 ITD 23 (Visakhapatnam)] c) CIT Vs. Vector Shipping Services (P) Ltd. [SLP CC No.8068/2014 (SC) 6. The Departmental Representative submitted that there is no evidence to show that it is only reimbursement other than debit note. He further submitted that whether it is reimbursement expenses or contractual payments, TDS has to be deducted. Since assessee f…

ACIT 25(2), Mumbai vs. Himanshu K Modi, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby Dismissed

ITA 6866/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Arora & Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6866/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Asst. Commissioner Of Shri Himanshu K. Modi बनाम/ Income Tax 25(2) Prop.M/S.Vitrag Vs. Room No.108, 1St Floor, Construction, C-4/406, Bldg. No.C-11, Yogi Nagar, Borivali (W) Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Mumbai - 400091 Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacpm8724B .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri S.K.Mishra
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 40Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE S/SHRI SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6866/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Asst. Commissioner of Shri Himanshu K. Modi बनाम/ Income Tax 25(2) Prop.M/s.Vitrag Vs. Room No.108, 1st Floor, Construction, C-4/406, Bldg. No.C-11, Yogi Nagar, Borivali (W) Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Mumbai - 400091 Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AACPM8724B .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Vimal Punmiya Departmen…

ACIT, Tambaram vs. Enrec Engineers, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 1911/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: None
Section 194CSection 40

…al before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). In the appellate proceedings, the ld. Commissioner of 4. Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the disallowance by following the order of Special Bench in the case of Merilyn Shipping and Transports vs. Addl. CIT (136 ITD 23) (Vizag) (SB) whereas it was held that provisions of Sec. 40(a)(ia) of the Act are only applicable to the amount shown as payable on date of the Balance sheet and it cannot be applied to the expenditure already paid by the assessee and also ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) considered that provisions of Sec. 40(a)(ia) of the Act cannot be…

ACIT, Tambaram vs. Enrec Engineers, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 1910/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: None
Section 194CSection 40

…al before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). In the appellate proceedings, the ld. Commissioner of 4. Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the disallowance by following the order of Special Bench in the case of Merilyn Shipping and Transports vs. Addl. CIT (136 ITD 23) (Vizag) (SB) whereas it was held that provisions of Sec. 40(a)(ia) of the Act are only applicable to the amount shown as payable on date of the Balance sheet and it cannot be applied to the expenditure already paid by the assessee and also ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) considered that provisions of Sec. 40(a)(ia) of the Act cannot be…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Olympic Cards Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 1212/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Shiva Srinivasas, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. R. Venkatesh, C.A
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 40

…ficer, in ITA No. 618/Mds/2015, dated 29.04.2015 wherein it was held as under:- 3. We have heard both the sides and perused the material on record. We find that the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Merilyn Shipping and Transports vs. ACIT (2012) 136 ITD 23 (Visakhapatnam) and judgment of Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s. Vector Shipping Services (P) Ltd in ITA No.122 of 2013 dated 09.7.2013 held that sec 40(a)(ia) is not applicable when there is no outstanding balance at the end of the close of the year relevant to the assessment yea in respect of these payment. However, the assessee…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Olympic Cards Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 1211/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Shiva Srinivasas, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. R. Venkatesh, C.A
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 40

…ficer, in ITA No. 618/Mds/2015, dated 29.04.2015 wherein it was held as under:- 3. We have heard both the sides and perused the material on record. We find that the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Merilyn Shipping and Transports vs. ACIT (2012) 136 ITD 23 (Visakhapatnam) and judgment of Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s. Vector Shipping Services (P) Ltd in ITA No.122 of 2013 dated 09.7.2013 held that sec 40(a)(ia) is not applicable when there is no outstanding balance at the end of the close of the year relevant to the assessment yea in respect of these payment. However, the assessee…

Janak Holdings P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Ncir 36, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2413/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Aug 2016AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri K.Mohandas
Section 40

…such interest the AO disallowed the same u/s.40(a)(ia). 4. The contention of assessee was that the interest has already been paid during the year and it is not outstanding, in view of the decision of Special Bench in the case of Merilyn Shipping & Transport, 136 ITD 23, no disallowance should be made. However, the CIT(A) did not agree with the assessee’s contention and confirmed the same, against which assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal. 5. I have considered rival contentions and found that the assessee has obtained secured loan of Rs.6 cr from SREI Infrastructure Finance Limited which is a NBFC c…

M/S Bellad & Company, Hubli vs. DCIT, Hubli

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

ITA 1002/BANG/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Bellad & Co., Vidyanagar, Hubli. … Appellant Pa No: Aabfb 6457 D Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 1(1), Hubli. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri C.R.Nulvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri C.N.Bipin, JCIT(DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40a

…vious year relevant to assessment year under consideration, no amounts are outstanding as at the end of the accounting year. According to him, the issue is covered by the Special Bench of Tribunal in the case of Merilyn Shipping and Transport Ltd. reported in 136 ITD 23, Hon’ble Allahabad High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Vector Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd. (2013) 357 ITR 642). However, we find that this ground was not raised before the CIT(A) and no application was filed for admission of the additional ground of appeal. Moreover, the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ryatar Sahakari Sakkare Karkha…