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

Orient Transport Co., Mumbai vs. DCIT 12(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by both assessee and revenue are dismissed

ITA 6899/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2016AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri D.M.Shah
Section 143(3)Section 172Section 172(2)Section 194CSection 197Section 40

…einabove.” 4. We have considered rival contentions and do not find any infirmity in the direction given by the CIT(A) to verify the expenses and to delete the disallowance in respect of expenditure actually paid before the end of Merilyn Shipping & Transport, 136 ITD 23. The CIT(A) observed that freight and other expenses which had been disallowed by invoking provisions u/s.40(a)(ia), if actually paid before the end of financial year, no disallowance is warranted. We do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A). 5. The CIT(A) has upheld the addition of Rs.46,96,818/- out of interest u/s.40(b) by observing as…

ACIT Cir 12(3), Mumbai vs. Orient Transport Co., Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by both assessee and revenue are dismissed

ITA 6719/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2016AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri D.M.Shah
Section 143(3)Section 172Section 172(2)Section 194CSection 197Section 40

…einabove.” 4. We have considered rival contentions and do not find any infirmity in the direction given by the CIT(A) to verify the expenses and to delete the disallowance in respect of expenditure actually paid before the end of Merilyn Shipping & Transport, 136 ITD 23. The CIT(A) observed that freight and other expenses which had been disallowed by invoking provisions u/s.40(a)(ia), if actually paid before the end of financial year, no disallowance is warranted. We do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A). 5. The CIT(A) has upheld the addition of Rs.46,96,818/- out of interest u/s.40(b) by observing as…

DCIT 7(2), Mumbai vs. Sealord Diving & Salvage P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and the assessee’s cross objection is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 701/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 701/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Dy. Cit-7(2), Sealord Diving & Salvage Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Room No. 624, M. K. Rd., Plot No. D-222/34, Ttc Industrial Mumbai-400 020 Area, Midc Shiravane, Nerul (E), Vs. Navi Mumbai-400 026 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aakcs 0916 Q (Revenue) (Assessee) : C.O. No. 160/Mum/2015 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 701/Mum/2013) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Sealord Diving & Salvage Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit-7(2), बनाम/ Plot No. D-222/34, Ttc Industrial Room No. 624, M. K. Rd., Area, Midc Shiravane, Nerul (E), Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Navi Mumbai-400 026 (Cross Objector) : (Assessee) Revenue By : Shri Mohammed Rizwan : Shri Shailesh N. Doshi Assessee By सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 17.05.2016 Date Of Hearing : 20.05.2016 Date Of Order आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Revenue & The Cross Objection (Co) By The Assessee Agitating The Part Allowance Of The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its Assessment U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) Dated

For Respondent: Shri Mohammed Rizwan
Section 143(3)Section 201(1)Section 40

…f the Central Government. The ld. CIT(A) allowed part relief to the assessee, i.e., to the extent the amount stands actually paid during the year, following the decision by the Special Bench of the Tribunal in Merilyn Shipping & Transport vs. Addl. CIT [2012] 16 ITR (Trib) 1 (Vish)(SB), so that, aggrieved, both the parties are in appeal; the assessee per a CO. 3. Before us, the ld. Authorized Representative (AR), the assessee’s counsel, noting the several decisions by the Tribunal taking a contrary view (i.e., than that expressed in Merilyn Shipping & Transport (supra)) in view of and following the decisions in…

ITO, Chennai vs. United Capital Partners (India) P Ltd., Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and Revenue

ITA 1549/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Apr 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.B. Koli, JCIT
Section 40

…um of `52,060/- towards audit fees. The assessee has not deducted tax. According to the Ld. counsel, the assessee has already paid the amount, therefore, in view of the decision of Special Bench of this Tribunal in Merilyn Shipping and Transports v. Addl.CIT (136 ITD 23), there cannot be any disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 3 I.T.A. No.1058/Mds/14 I.T.A. No.1549/Mds/14 3. On the contrary, Sh. A.B. Koli, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the decision of the Special Bench in Merilyn Shipping and Transports (supra) was considered by the Calcutta High Court and Gujarat High Cour…

United Capital Partners (India) Private Limited, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and Revenue

ITA 1058/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Apr 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.B. Koli, JCIT
Section 40

…um of `52,060/- towards audit fees. The assessee has not deducted tax. According to the Ld. counsel, the assessee has already paid the amount, therefore, in view of the decision of Special Bench of this Tribunal in Merilyn Shipping and Transports v. Addl.CIT (136 ITD 23), there cannot be any disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 3 I.T.A. No.1058/Mds/14 I.T.A. No.1549/Mds/14 3. On the contrary, Sh. A.B. Koli, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the decision of the Special Bench in Merilyn Shipping and Transports (supra) was considered by the Calcutta High Court and Gujarat High Cour…

DCIT vs. M/S Aviators (India) Pvt. Ltd

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1796/BANG/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Apr 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Abraham P. George & Shri. Vijay Pal Raoi.T.A No.1796/Bang/2013 (Assessment Year : 2010-11) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle -11(1), Bangalore .. Appellant V. M/S. Aviators (India) P. Ltd, 1309, Brigade Towers, 135, Brigade Road, Bangalore 560 025 .. Respondent Pan : Aabca4499H Assessee By : Shri. G. Venkatesh, Advocate Revenue By : Dr. P. K. Srihari, Addl. Cit Heard On : 30.03.2015 Pronounced On : 12.04.2015 O R D E R Per Abraham P. George:

For Appellant: Shri. G. Venkatesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P. K. Srihari, Addl. CIT
Section 40

…/s. AAI, HAL and Air India Sats Aiport services could not be subjected to TDS since these were Government controlled entities. Assessee also relied on a Special Bench decision of this Tribunal in the case of Merilyn Shipping and Transports v. Addl. CIT (2012) 16 ITR (Trib) 1 Vishakapatnam, that of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. Vector Shipping Services (P) Ltd [357 ITR 642], and that of a coordinate bench decision in the case of DCIT v. Ananda Markala [ITA.1584/Bang/2012, dt.13.09.2013], for arguing that Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act could be applied only on ‘payable’ sums and not paid amounts.…

ITO WD 22(3)2, Navi Mumbai vs. Khushal R. Hefa, Vashi

ITA 7162/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Kamat and Shri Rajesh KumarFor Respondent: None
Section 143(3)Section 194C(2)Section 40

…e in question of law formulated is in the form of obiter dicta. This observation was made by the Court because the Tribunal while dealing with the said disallowance has referred to the decision of the Special Bench in M/s. Merilyn Shipping and Transport Ltd., 136 ITD 23 (SB). It is not the case where the Hon’ble High Court has categorically affirmed the reasoning and interpretation given by the Special Bench. On the contrary, we find that the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in CIT v/s Crescent Exports Syndicate, [2013] 262 CTR (Cal.) 525, has specifically examined the correctness of the majority view of Marilyn Shipp…

M/S Udbhav Constructions, Udupi vs. DCIT, Udupi

In the result, while disallowance of Rs

ITA 828/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. Abraham P. George & Shri. Vijay Pal Raoi.T.A No.828/Bang/2014 (Assessment Year : 2009-10) M/S. Udbhav Constructions, 3Rd Floor, Maithri Complex, Udupi – 576 101 .. Appellant Pan : Aabfu3330N V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle -1, Udupi .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri. S. Ramasubramanian, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sunil Kumar Agarwala, Jcit Heard On : 09.03.2016 Pronounced On : 30.03.2016 O R D E R Per Abraham P. George:

For Appellant: Shri. S. Ramasubramanian, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sunil Kumar Agarwala, JCIT
Section 119Section 120Section 120(3)Section 124Section 124(3)Section 143(2)

…ITA.828/Bang/2014 Page - 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH 'C', BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A No.828/Bang/2014 (Assessment Year : 2009-10) M/s. Udbhav Constructions, 3rd floor, Maithri Complex, Udupi – 576 101 .. Appellant PAN : AABFU3330N v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle -1, Udupi .. Respondent Assessee by : Shri. S. Ramasubramanian, CA Revenue by : Shri. Sunil Kumar Agarwala, JCIT Heard on : 09.03.2016 Pronounced on : 30.03.2016 O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This is an appeal f…

A.C.I.T Cir - 30, Kolkata vs. Pranab Chatterjee, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose as stated above

ITA 325/KOL/2013[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: : Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Md. S.M.S Tauheed, JCIT, ld.Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

…. Merilyn Shipping and Transports Vs. ACIT.” 15. The ld.DR stated before us that the reliance as placed by the ld. CIT(A) on the decision of the Hon’ble Special Bench, ITAT Vishakhapatnam in the case of M/s. Merilyn Shipping & Transports Vs. ACIT reported in 136 ITD 23 is no longer applicable in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional Calcutta High Court in the case of Crescent Exports Syndicate . In response to this, the ld.AR pleaded before us that this issue may be set aside to the file of the ld.AO to verify whether the payee(s) have considered these receipts in their respective returns in view of…

Niche International, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 15(2), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2258/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No 2258/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) A.C.It Cir 15(2) R.No 113, 1St M/S Niche International C/O Aniruddhamody & Co Floor, Matru Mandir, Nana Chowk, Chartered Accountants Mumbai-400 007. बनाम/ Flat No.1, ‘A’ Wing, Neelam Co-Op Hsg Soc Ltd, Opp. Varahi Mataji Vs. Temple, Next To Manish Building, Shanka Lane, Kandivali(W) Mumbai-400 067. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaefn 5380J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Mishra
Section 194Section 194(1)Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No 2258/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) A.C.IT CIR 15(2) R.No 113, 1st M/s Niche International C/o Aniruddhamody & Co Floor, Matru Mandir, Nana Chowk, Chartered Accountants Mumbai-400 007. बनाम/ Flat No.1, ‘A’ Wing, Neelam Co-op Hsg Soc Ltd, Opp. Varahi Mataji Vs. Temple, Next to Manish Building, Shanka Lane, Kandivali(W) Mumbai-400 067. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. AAEFN 5380J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : : Shri Nishit Gandhi अपीलाथ" क" ओर से…

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)

…he sum in question is “Payable” and not in a case where the sum in question has been “paid” by the Assessee. The Assessee placed reliance on the decision of the Special Bench of ITAT, Vishakapatnam in the case of Merilyn Shipping & Transaports Vs. ACIT (2012) 20 Taxmann.com 244 (Vishakapatnam-Trib.). The CIT(A) did not agree with the aforesaid submission of the Assessee and held that operation of the aforesaid decision had been stayed by the Hon’ble AP High Court and hence the said decision could not be followed. 22. Before us it was pointed out by the learned counsel for the Assessee that in a later decision the…

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/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). Date of hearing : 30/11/2015. Date of pronouncement: 11/12/2015. O R D E R Per VIJAY PAL RAO, JM : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 21/3/2013 of the C…

A.C.I.T. Cir - 3, Siliguri vs. Nanu Shome, Siliguri

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

ITA 1743/KOL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, A.M. & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, J.M.)

For Appellant: Ms. Varsha Jalan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kr. Das, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 44A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH ‘C’, KOLKATA (Before Shri M. Balaganesh, A.M. & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, J.M.) ITA No. 1743/Kol/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2009-2010 ACIT, Circle-3 Vs Nanu Shome, Siliguri Siliguri (PAN: AIMPS-4409-D) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Department by : Shri Sanjit Kr. Das, JCIT Assessee by : Ms. Varsha Jalan, Advocate Date of Hearing : 14.10.2015 Date of Pronouncement : 10-12-2015 ORDER Per Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, J.M. This is an appeal preferred by the Revenue against the order dated 28.09.2012 passed by the CIT(Appeals), Siliguri in Appeal No.68/CIT(A)-Sig/2011-12 f…

ITO, Meerut vs. Sh. Arun Kumar, Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 5063/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 5063/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Income Tax Officer, Vs Sh. Arun Kumar Ward-1(1), 281, Boundry Road, Meerut Meerut (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaypk1784D Assessee By : Sh. O. P. Sapra, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. K. K. Jaiswal, Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.09.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.12.2015 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. O. P. Sapra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. K. K. Jaiswal, DR
Section 194CSection 197(2)Section 40

…ACIT Vs Grandprix Fab. (P) Ltd. (2010) 128 TTJ(Delhi ‘D’- Trib) " CIT(TDS) Vs Asstt. Manager (Accounts) Food Corporation of India 326 ITR 106 (P&H) " CIT Vs Bhagwati Steels 326 ITR 108 (P&H) " Merilyn Shipping & Transports Vs ACIT, Range Visakhapatnam (2012) 136 ITD 23 (SB) 8. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee deleted the addition by observing that the payments made on account of air freight were actually reimbursement of expenses and that the assessee had filed plethora of material on record including the ledger of air freight reimbursement along with the copies of the agents bill…

Ariruz Zaman Kazi, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-49(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 366/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2015AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 194CSection 40Section 40a

…e provision of section 40a(ia) is not applicable to the expenditure that has already been paid during the year but is applicable only for the expenditure i. e. "payable" as on 31s/ March, as per verdict of special bench i) Merilyn Shipping and Transport Ltd. (136 ITD 23) (SB) (viz) ii) Verdict of Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vector Shipping Services (P) Ltd. 357 ITR 642. The Department's SLP to the Supreme Court in this regard has been unconditionally dismissed in limine upholding the verdict of Special Bench (viz.). iii) That the provisions of section 194C will not be applicable to the term "work…

ACIT 11(2), Mumbai vs. Alok K. Sharma, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 345/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 345/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10) A C I T - 11(2) Room No. 479, 4Th Floor अपीलाथ"/Appellant Àayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai 400020 बनाम/ Vs. Shri Alok K. Sharma ""यथ"/Respondent T-66, 3 Old Barracks, Sion Hospital Staff Qrs., Ltmg Hospital, Sion Mumbai 400022 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan - Aclps7196Q अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam ""यथ" क" ओर से/ Respondent By: None सुनवाई क" तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 18.11.2015 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.11.2015 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shailendra Kumar Yadav, Jm This Appeal Has Been Filed By Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A) On Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Dr. Darsi Suman RatnamFor Respondent: None
Section 40

…facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition made u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act by relying on the ITAT Special Bench decision in the case of Merilyn Shipping and Transport Vs. Addl. CIT 136 ITD 23 (SB) Vishakhapatnam without considering the fact that the operation of the said decision has been stayed by the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh.” 2. Assessing Officer’s case is that assessee being Doctor has not deducted TDS on payment of `4 lakhs paid as rent to Surana Sethia Hospital and `5,15,400/- paid as consultancy charges paid on 23.0…

Dr. Surendrakumar G. Patva, Mumbai vs. ITO 16(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 4004/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4004/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Dr. Surendrakumar G. Patva Ito-16(3)(3), बनाम/ C/O. Shind & Co., Mumbai 19/146 Anand Nagar, Vakola Bridge, Vs. Santacruz (E), Mumbai-400 055 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Ahjpp 8546 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Smt. Bharati Singh सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 03.11.2015 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 20.11.2015 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 27.02.2015, Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2009- 10 Vide Order Dated 27.12.2011. 2. We Shall Proceed Ground-Wise. The Facts In Relation To Ground 1 Are That The Assessee, A Doctor By Profession, Was During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Bharati Singh
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 68

…ase before the tribunal is that the amount stood paid during the year, so that no amount was payable as at the year-end and, therefore, section 40(a)(ia) shall not apply, relying on the decision in the case of Merilyn Shipping & Transports v. Addl. CIT [2012] 136 ITD 23 (Vish) (SB). 6. The parties have been heard, and the record perused. The default in the non- compliance of the TDS provision, i.e., in first deducting tax at source then depositing the tax, is admitted. Section 40(a)(i) only introduces a timing effect, so that on the deduction of tax and its deposit, the corresponding amount would stand to be all…

Elve Corporation, Mumbai vs. ACIT 12(3), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes, and the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6279/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 4108/Mum/2012 & 6279/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10) Elve Corporation Asst. Cit-12(3), बनाम/ Elve Chambers, Green Street, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafe 4847 R ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6229/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Asst. Cit-12(3), Elve Corporation बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Elve Chambers, Green Street, Vs. Mumbai Fort, Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafe 4847 R (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती/Assessee) : राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri M. C. Naniwadekar "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Vivek Anand Perapurna सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 21.08.2015 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 20.11.2015 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: These Are Set Of Three Appeals For Two Consecutive Years, Being Assessment Years (A.Ys.) 2008-09 & 2009-10, By The Assessee & The Revenue Respectively

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Anand PerapurnaFor Respondent: Shri M. C. Naniwadekar
Section 143(3)Section 172Section 195Section 195(2)Section 250(6)Section 40

…pra); the tribunal itself in the assessee’s case for A.Y. 2007-08 (in ITA No. 4648/Mum/2011 dated 25.4.2012) having, likewise, directed the matter to be decided in light of the decision by the Special Bench in Merilyn Shipping & Transports v. Addl. CIT [2012] 136 ITD 23 (Vish) (SB). This then forms the subject matter of the assessee’s alternate plea, raised per its Ground 5 (for A.Y. 2008-09), and the Revenue’s appeal for A.Y. 2009-10, where, again (as in A.Y. 2007-08), this contention of the assessee stands accepted. 6. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. In view of our decision qua…

ACIT Cir 12(3), Mumbai vs. Elve Corporation, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes, and the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6229/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 4108/Mum/2012 & 6279/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10) Elve Corporation Asst. Cit-12(3), बनाम/ Elve Chambers, Green Street, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafe 4847 R ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6229/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Asst. Cit-12(3), Elve Corporation बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Elve Chambers, Green Street, Vs. Mumbai Fort, Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafe 4847 R (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती/Assessee) : राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri M. C. Naniwadekar "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Vivek Anand Perapurna सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 21.08.2015 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 20.11.2015 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: These Are Set Of Three Appeals For Two Consecutive Years, Being Assessment Years (A.Ys.) 2008-09 & 2009-10, By The Assessee & The Revenue Respectively

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Anand PerapurnaFor Respondent: Shri M. C. Naniwadekar
Section 143(3)Section 172Section 195Section 195(2)Section 250(6)Section 40

…pra); the tribunal itself in the assessee’s case for A.Y. 2007-08 (in ITA No. 4648/Mum/2011 dated 25.4.2012) having, likewise, directed the matter to be decided in light of the decision by the Special Bench in Merilyn Shipping & Transports v. Addl. CIT [2012] 136 ITD 23 (Vish) (SB). This then forms the subject matter of the assessee’s alternate plea, raised per its Ground 5 (for A.Y. 2008-09), and the Revenue’s appeal for A.Y. 2009-10, where, again (as in A.Y. 2007-08), this contention of the assessee stands accepted. 6. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. In view of our decision qua…

Elve Corporation, Mumbai vs. ACIT 12(3), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes, and the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4108/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 4108/Mum/2012 & 6279/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10) Elve Corporation Asst. Cit-12(3), बनाम/ Elve Chambers, Green Street, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafe 4847 R ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6229/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Asst. Cit-12(3), Elve Corporation बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Elve Chambers, Green Street, Vs. Mumbai Fort, Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafe 4847 R (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती/Assessee) : राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri M. C. Naniwadekar "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Vivek Anand Perapurna सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 21.08.2015 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 20.11.2015 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: These Are Set Of Three Appeals For Two Consecutive Years, Being Assessment Years (A.Ys.) 2008-09 & 2009-10, By The Assessee & The Revenue Respectively

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Anand PerapurnaFor Respondent: Shri M. C. Naniwadekar
Section 143(3)Section 172Section 195Section 195(2)Section 250(6)Section 40

…pra); the tribunal itself in the assessee’s case for A.Y. 2007-08 (in ITA No. 4648/Mum/2011 dated 25.4.2012) having, likewise, directed the matter to be decided in light of the decision by the Special Bench in Merilyn Shipping & Transports v. Addl. CIT [2012] 136 ITD 23 (Vish) (SB). This then forms the subject matter of the assessee’s alternate plea, raised per its Ground 5 (for A.Y. 2008-09), and the Revenue’s appeal for A.Y. 2009-10, where, again (as in A.Y. 2007-08), this contention of the assessee stands accepted. 6. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. In view of our decision qua…