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 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 250 Section 194A Section 194H Section 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 40 section 36 section 37 previous year transfer prescribed business india interest

Judgments citing Merilyn Shipping & Transports v. Addl. CIT

ITO, Chennai vs. Globe Transport Corporation Pvt Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 1783/CHNY/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Nov 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. P. Radhakrishnan, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. V.S. Jayakumar, Advocate

Section 143(1)Section 40

…payments to truck owners have already been paid before 31.03.2006 and hence provisions of sec. 40(a)(ia) of the Act are not applicable and relied on the decisions of Special Bench of Vizag Bench in the case of Merilyn Shipping and Transports vs. Addl. CIT (136 ITD 23) Vizag(SB) and also judgment of Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vector Shipping Services P. Ltd 357 ITR 642 (All). The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) after perusing Form No.15I and 15J filed before the Income Tax Officer, TDS ward, Chennai on 04.04.2006 and also list of truck drivers to whom truck charges was paid has held…

Sri. Satish Rajapur, Hospet vs. DCIT, Bellary

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

ITA 425/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Sept 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Jason P. Boaz, Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Gurunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, Jt.CIT(DR)

Section 2Section 32(1)(iia)Section 40a

…mitted Page 8 of 18 that payment was not outstanding and already paid before the end of financial year as on 31.3.2008 and therefore in view of the decision of the Vishakapatnam Special Bench in the case of Merilyn Shipping Corporation & Transports vs. ACIT, 136 ITD 23, no disallowance can be made u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act, when the amount has already been paid and it is not payable. He has also relied on the decision of coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of CIT v. Ananda Marakala, 48 taxman.com 402 and submitted that by following the decision of the Special Bench in the case of Merilyn Shipping Corpo…

ITO, Ward-38(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Jagdish Narayan Inder Bahadur Singh, Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the revenue is allowed

ITA 1097/KOL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Sept 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ] Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri M.K.Biswas,JCIT.Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri I.Chatrath

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH ‘B’ KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri Mahavir Singh, JM & Shri Waseem Ahmed, AM ] Assessment Year : 2007-08 I.T.O., Ward-38(1) -versus- M/s. Jagdish Narayan Inder Kolkata Bahadur Singh, Kolkata (PAN:AACFJ 1438 K) (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant : Shri M.K.Biswas,JCIT.Sr.DR For the Respondent : Shri I.Chatrath Date of Hearing : 31/08/2015. Date of Pronouncement : 16/09/2015. ORDER Per Shri Waseem Ahmed, AM This appeal of the revenue arises out of the order of ld.CIT(A)-XXIV, Kolkata in Appeal No.721/CIT(A)-XXIV/38(1)/09-10 dated 28.05.2012 for A.Y.2007-08. Asses…

Conferencecall Services India Pvt Ltd., Bangalore vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA

ITA 484/CHNY/2014[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jul 2015AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri V. Durga Raoआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.484 & 1057/Mds/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri. T. Banusekar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. A.V. Sreekanth, IRS, JCIT

Section 195Section 195(2)Section 40Section 9

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी चं" पूजार", लेखा सद"य एवं "ी वी. दुगा" राव, "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.484 & 1057/Mds/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2009-10) Conference Call Services India The Asst. Commissioner of Pvt. Ltd, Vs Income Tax, No.135, Ist floor, RMZ Titanium, Company Circle I(3), Old Airport Road, Chennai. Bangalore 560 017. [PAN: AACCC 6574A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant…

Conferencecall Services India Pvt Ltd., Bangalore vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1057/CHNY/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jul 2015AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri V. Durga Raoआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.484 & 1057/Mds/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri. T. Banusekar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. A.V. Sreekanth, IRS, JCIT

Section 195Section 195(2)Section 40Section 9

Sri. Anil Kumar Joseph, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed, while the cross objection by the assessee is allowed

ITA 845/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri N. Balakrishnan, JCIT (D.R)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH “ C ” BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JASON P. BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.845/Bang/2014 (Assessment Year : 2008-09) Shri Anil Kumar Joseph, Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, No.3/3, 59th Cross, V Block, Circle 9(1), Bangalore. Rajajinagar, Bangalore-560 010 PAN ACQPJ 6856K Appellant Respondent. I.T.A. No.1036/Bang/2014 (Assessment Year : 2008-09) Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Vs. Shri Anil Kumar Joseph, No.3/3, 59th Cross, V Block, Circle 9(1), Bangalore. Rajajinagar, Bangalore-560 010 Appellant Respondent. Appellant By : Shri…

Shriram Capital Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 513/CHNY/2015[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jun 2015AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.512 &513 /Mds/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 & 2011- 2012)

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. N. Rengaraj, IRS, CIT

Section 14A

…d on difference of opinion and by reviewing the issue which was already decided by the Ld. Assessing Officer. Moreover, it is pertinent to mention at this juncture that the decision rendered in the case of Merilyn Shipping and Transports Vs. Additional CIT in 16 ITR (Trib) 1 is also in favour of the case of the assessee. In the aforesaid case the order of the learned Judicial Member was upheld by the Hon’ble Vice President sitting as the Third Member wherein it was held that:- “the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) are applicable only to the amounts of expenditure which are payable as on the dated 31st March of eve…

Shriram Capital Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 512/CHNY/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jun 2015AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.512 &513 /Mds/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 & 2011- 2012)

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. N. Rengaraj, IRS, CIT

Section 14A

Dcs Bpo (P) Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 3114/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jun 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.3114/Mds/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-2009)

For Appellant: Ms. K. Hemalatha, C.A ""For Respondent: Shri. N. Madhavan, IRS, JCIT

Section 194JSection 40

…gainst this, the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. A similar issue is considered by the Special Bench of the Tribunal (Vizag) in the case of Merilyn Shipping and Transports vs. ACIT (2012) 136 ITD 23 (Visakhapatnam) wherein it was held that the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) are applicable only to the expenses that are “payable” and outstanding at the end of the close of the year relevant to the assessment year and not to the amount already paid. 6. The same view was taken by the High Court of Allahabad in the case of CIT vs. M/s. Vector Sh…

A.Mohamed Ayub Alias Salim, Ootacamund vs. ACIT, Ooty

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1464/CHNY/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jun 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri V. Durga Raoआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.1463 & 1464/Mds/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-2010)

For Appellant: Shri. J. Murali, C.A ""For Respondent: Shri. A.V. Sreekanth, IRS, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 254Section 254(2)

…was outstanding during the end of the close of the financial year. In our opinion, the issue raised by the assessee is squarely covered by the order of the Special Bench of the Tribunal (Vizag) in the case of Merilyn Shipping and Transports vs. ACIT (2012) 136 ITD 23 (Visakhapatnam) wherein it was held that the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) are applicable only to the expenses that are “payable” and outstanding at the end of the close of the year relevant to the assessment year and not to the amount already paid. The same view was taken by the High Court of Allahabad in the case of CIT vs. M/s. Vector Shi…

A.Mohamed Ayub Alias Salim, Ootacamund vs. ACIT, Ooty

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1463/CHNY/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jun 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri V. Durga Raoआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.1463 & 1464/Mds/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-2010)

For Appellant: Shri. J. Murali, C.A ""For Respondent: Shri. A.V. Sreekanth, IRS, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 254Section 254(2)

DCIT, Chennai vs. V.V.D.Murali, Chettur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 84/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 May 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri V. Durga Raoआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.84/Mds/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-2011)

For Appellant: Shri. S. Das Gupta, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Ms. S. Vidya, C.A

Section 40Section 44ASection 68

…I.T.A.No.84/Mds/2015 :- 3 -: close of the Financial year. Hence, in our opinion, the issue raised by the Department is squarely covered by the order of the Special Bench of the Tribunal (Vizag) in the case of Merilyn Shipping and Transports vs. ACIT (2012) 136 ITD 23 (Visakhapatnam) wherein it was held that the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) are applicable only to the expenses that are “payable” and outstanding at the end of the close of the year relevant to the assessment year and not to the amount already paid. 4. The same view was taken by the High Court of Allahabad in the case of CIT vs. M/s. Vector S…

Sri. E. Krishnappa vs. ACIT, Bangalore

ITA 325/BANG/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 May 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Mrs. Prathibha & Mrs. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Dr. P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT (D.R)

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH “ B ” BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JASON P. BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.325/Bang/2013 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) Shri E. Krishnappa, Vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Prop. E.K. Entertainers, Circle 7(2), Bangalore. Adakamaranahalli, Makali Post, Tumkur Road, Banglaore-560 123 Appellant Respondent. Appellant By : Mrs. Prathibha & Mrs. Sheetal Borkar, Advocates. Respondent By : Dr. P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT (D.R) Date of Hearing : 16.03.2015. Date of Pronouncement : 14.05.2015. O R D E R Per Shri Jason P. Boaz, A.M. : This a…

DCIT, Chennai vs. R.R.Constructions and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2667/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri V. Durga Raoआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2667/Mds/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-2011)

For Appellant: Shri. S. Dasgupta, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: None

Section 194CSection 40Section 40A(3)

…see’s case, it was not outstanding as on the last day of previous year. Being so, provisions u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act are not applicable and placing reliance on the order of the Special Bench in the case of Merilyn Shipping & Transports Vs. Addl. CIT (2012) 136 ITD 23(Visakhapatnam), the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the addition. Against this, the Revenue is in appeal before us. I.T.A.No.2667/Mds/2014. :- 3 -: 4. We have heard the ld. Departmental Representative and perused the material on record. In this case, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the addition made u/s.40(a)(ia)…

N.Palanivelu, Chennai vs. ITO, Salem

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 618/CHNY/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Apr 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri V. Durga Raoआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.618/Mds/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-2010)

For Appellant: Shri. A.S. Sriraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A.V.Sreekanth, IRS, JCIT

Section 194CSection 40

…er of the Assessing Officer. Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us. 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…

Ace Engineers, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 56/CHNY/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Apr 2015AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri V. Durga Raoआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos. 55 & 56 /Mds/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-2012 & 2012-2013)

For Appellant: Shri. A.S. Sriraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. S. Dasgupta, IRS, JCIT

Section 194CSection 40a

…claim made by the assessee. Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us. 4. 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 I.T.A.Nos. 55 & 56/Mds/2015 :- 3 -: no outstanding balance at the end of the close of the year relevant to the assessment yea in respect of…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Red Brick Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1372/CHNY/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Feb 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Mr. V.Chandrasekar, Advocate

Section 40

…g Officer disallowed the said amount under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. On appeal, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) following the decision of Special Bench of the Tribunal (Visakhapatnam Bench) in the case of Merilyn Shipping & Transports Vs. Addl. CIT (136 ITD 23) (SB), deleted the disallowance as these amounts were already paid before the end of the year, therefore provisions of section 40(a)(ia) are not attracted. 3. Counsel for the assessee places reliance on the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and also the order of this Tribunal in the case of ITO Vs.Theekathir Press in ITA No.2076/…

M/S Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank vs. CIT

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 662/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Feb 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P.Boazkarnataka Vikas Grameena Bank, Head Office, Cts No.52/B1/A1/D.H.No.133A, H.O.Building, Belgaum Road, D.N.Koppa Dharwad-580 008. … Appellant Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Hubli. … Respondent Appellant By: Shri Narendra Sharma, Advocate & Srihari Kutsa Respondent By: Shri Farhat Hussain Qureshi, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 03/02/2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 13/02/2015 O R D E R Per Smt.P.Madhavi Devi, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, Advocate and Srihari KutsaFor Respondent: Shri Farhat Hussain Qureshi, CIT(DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 194ASection 263Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40

…ar and not of the amount already paid. He submitted that in the case before us, interest has been paid before the end of the relevant financial year and therefore, as held by the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Merilyn Shipping reported in (2012) 136 ITD 23 (Vishakapatnam)(SB), this amount cannot be disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia). He also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vector Shipping Services (P) Ltd., reported in (2013) 357 ITR 642(All.) which has referred to the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal for coming to the above conclusion…

M/S Times Vpl Ltd vs. Addl.C.I.T

In the result, the assessee's appeal for both assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1193/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Feb 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, C.AFor Respondent: Shri C.H. Sundar Rao, C.I.T (D.R)

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH “ A ” BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JASON P. BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. Nos.1193 & 1194/Bang/2013 (Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10) M/s. Metropolitan Media Company Ltd., Du Parc Trinity, 9th Floor, 17, M.G. Road, Bangalore-560 001. …. Appellant PAN AABCV 6912C Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 12(1), Bangalore. ….. Respondent. Appellant By : Shri Rajan Vora, C.A. Respondent By : Shri C.H. Sundar Rao, C.I.T (D.R) Date of Hearing : 19.11.2014. Date of Pronouncement : 6.2.2015. O R D E R Per Shri Jason P. Boaz : These appe…