Muradul Haque v. ITO

184 ITD 58Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2020#15151 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2023.

Issues it is cited on

section 92ca(3)fees for technical services associated enterprises disallowance under section 14a associated enterprise section 40(a)section 40 section 14a salary section 115 section 11 previous year

Judgments citing Muradul Haque v. ITO

Wartsila India Pvt Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 15(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 480/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT D.R

Section 14ASection 92CSection 92C(1)

…v. CIT (LTU) (2019) 101 taxman.com $24 (Mum), Station Headquarters (Army) v. ACIT (CPC) (2019) 178 ITD 211 (Jodh), Bharati Shipyard Ltd. v. DCIT (2011) 132 ITD 32 (Mum), A.V.V.N. Prasad Reddy v. ITO (2020] 118 taxman.com 537 (Vish), Muradul Haque v. ITO (2020)184 ITD 58 (Del). Joseph Mudaliar v. DCIT (2021) 11 ITD 719 (Mum), ARSS Infrastructure Project Ltd. v. DCIT (2021) 187 ITD 727 (Cuttack), etc. 37. However, on the other hand, the Ld. D.R. for the Revenue has vehemently opposed the contention raised by the Ld. A.R. for the assessee by contenting that since the amendment to section 40(a)(ii) is clarificatory…

Wartsila India Pvt Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 15 (3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 467/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT D.R

Section 14ASection 92CSection 92C(1)

DCIT, C-11(1), New Delhi vs. Hero Motocorp Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1982/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 40Section 40a

…including the year under consideration. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions wherein it has been held that the aforesaid amendment of reducing the amount of disallowance from 100% to 30% is retrospective: - Muradul Haque v. ITO: 2020] 184 ITD 58 (Delhi - Trib.) - Smt. Kanta Yadav vs. ITO (ITA No. 6312/Del/2016) - Shri Rajendra Yadav vs. ITO (ITA No. 895/JP/2012) - Smt. Sonu Khandelwal vs. ITO (ITA No. 597/JP/2013) In that view of the matter, without prejudice to the submissions above that there was no failure on the part of the appellant to deduct tax at source from 27 the impugned paymen…

Mesers Speed Surya Movies, Jalandhar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-II, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 417/ASR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 40

…) of the Act, the disallowance has to be restricted to the tune of 30% in respect of the expenses on which TDS was not deducted by the assessee. Such amendment was held as retrospective by the Delhi Tribunal in the case of “Muradul Haque vs. ITO”, reported in 184 ITD 58 by observing as under: We find that Finance (No.2) Act has made amendment to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act w.e.f. 1-4-2015. Various benches of the Tribunals including the Delhi Benches of the Tribunal, have held the amendment made by Finance (No 2) Act to be curative in nature. We further finds the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of…

Archit Corporation, Bhavnagar vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Bhavnagar

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

ITA 683/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Suchitra Kambleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 683/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2014-2015 Archit Corporation Llp, I.T.O., (Earlier Known As Archit Corporation) Vs. Ward-2(3), 54, Ganesh Krupa, Bhavnagar. Vijayraj Nagar, Bhavnagar.

For Appellant: Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr.D.R

Section 234ASection 271Section 36Section 40

…No.2) 2014 under the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act which restricted the disallowance to 30% only of the expenses in respect of which TDS was not deducted. Such amendment was held to be retrospective in the following orders: Muradul Haque vs. ITO –184 ITD 58 (Del.); A.Y. 2014-15 6 Electronic Instrumentation & Control Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO-ITA3055 & 3056/Ahd/2013(Annexure “A”) 14.1 In view of the above, the learned AR requested to restrict the disallowance of the impugned expenses to the tune of 30% only. The learned AR alternatively contended that the matter can be set aside to the AO to verify whether…

Draipl-Mskel(Jv), Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer (OSD)-II, Range-9, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1499/AHD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Dec 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1499/Ahd/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-10 Draipl-Mskel(Jv), Income Tax 2Nd Floor, “Msk”, Vs. Officer(Osd)-Ii, Passport Officer To Panjra Pol Road, Range-9, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Aaaad3825B

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.B. Gohil, Sr.D.R

Section 194ASection 201(1)Section 40

…(ia) of the Act, the disallowance has to be restricted to the tune of 30% in respect of the expenses on which TDS was not deducted by the assessee. Such amendment was retrospective as held by the Delhi Tribunal in the case of Muradul Haque vs. ITO reported in 184 ITD 58 wherein it was held as under: We find that Finance (No.2) Act has made amendment to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act w.e.f. 1-4-2015. Various benches of the Tribunals including the Delhi Benches of the Tribunal, have held the amendment made by Finance (No 2) Act to be curative in nature. We further finds the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the cas…