How many judgments cite Palam Gas Service v. CIT?

110 judgments on BharatTax cite Palam Gas Service v. CIT (394 ITR 300), spanning 2017 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Palam Gas Service v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 132, Section 143(3), Section 153A, Section 254, Section 40(a)(ia), Section 40A(3).

Palam Gas Service v. CIT

394 ITR 300Supreme Court of India2017#980 most cited

What is Palam Gas Service v. CIT authority for?

Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS is mandatory, applying even to amounts already paid and not merely 'payable', based on a purposive construction of the provision, irrespective of the timing of payment or liability.

110

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,735 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Palam Gas Service v. CIT · Section 40(a)(ia) · TDS non-deduction · mandatory disallowance · paid or payable · purposive construction · PAN verification · commission payment · Supreme Court · 394 ITR 300

Also reported as

81 Taxmann.com 43

Sections most often in play

Section 132 Section 143(3)Section 153A Section 254 Section 40(a)(ia)Section 40A(3)Section 69C

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

tds on commission interest under section 201(1a)section 194h permanent account number section 194j section 192 section 194c section 17 section 201(1a)section 201(1)section 40(a)section 40(a)(ia)

Judgments citing Palam Gas Service v. CIT

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad vs. Neueon Towers Limited (Formerly Known As Sujana Towers Limited ), Medak

ITA 1794/HYD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 May 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohana Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.Dipak, DR

Section 143(3)Section 201(1)Section 251(1)Section 251(1)(a)Section 40

…T(A) erred in directing the AO to verify and allow as per the Delhi High Court decision in the case of M/s. Ansal Land Mark Township 377 ITR 635(Delhi) (2015) ignoring the Hon'ble Apex Court decision in case of Palam Gas Service. vs Commissioner of Income Tax 394 ITR 300 (2017). 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law by ignoring the fact that the assessee failed to satisfy the first proviso (inserted by the Finance Act,2012 w.e.f. 01-07-2012) to sec. 201(1)of the Income Tax Act. 5. Any other ground that may be, raised at the time of hearing”. 3. Learned CIT-DR reiterated the Revenue’s pleadings and vehemently argued tha…

DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Hyd, Hyderabad vs. R.R.Movie Makers, Hyd, Hyderabad

ITA 211/HYD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Apr 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Ranka, DR

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40A(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A” : HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 211/HYD/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dy.Commissioner of M/s.R.R. Movie Makers, Income Tax, Vs HYDERABAD Central Circle-2(1), [PAN: AAIFR0164J] HYDERABAD (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue : Shri Rajeev Ranka, DR For Assessee : NONE Date of Hearing : 25-02-2021 Date of Pronouncement : 21-04-2021 O R D E R PER S.S.GODARA, J.M. : This Revenue’s appeal for AY.2012-13 arises from the CIT(A)-12, Hyderabad’s order dat…

ACIT, Circle, Bharatpur vs. M/S. Jagdambe Stone Company, Bharatpur

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1171/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Mar 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Gupta (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 143(2)Section 194C(6)Section 194C(7)Section 40

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “B”, JAIPUR Jh lanhi x®lkÃa] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1171/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2015-16 A.C.I.T., cuke M/s Jagdambe Stone Company, Vs. Circle, Village- BIjasana, Tehsil Pahari, Bharatpur. Bharatpur (Rajasthan) LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAIFJ 7275 L vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ A…

Knr Contractors Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Hyderabad

ITA 2253/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S.Godara

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey, DR

Section 143(3)

…g and Transport Ltd., Vs. ACIT [136 ITD 23] (SB) [16 ITR 1] (SB)(Visakha.)(Trib.) dealing with ‘paid/payable’ issue. The Revenue fails to dispute that this issue is no more res integra in view of the hon'ble apex court’s judgment of Palam Gas Service Vs. CIT [394 ITR 300] (SC) that the impugned statutory provision applies in case of paid as well as expenses remaining payable during the year. The legislature has also inserted Section 40(a)(ia) 2nd proviso in the Act; vide Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f.01-04-2013, stipulating that the impugned statutory provision would not apply in case the assessee/deductor is not the a…

Knr Contractors Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Hyderabad

ITA 2252/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S.Godara

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey, DR

Section 143(3)

M/S. Balasore Co-Operative Urban Bank Ltd., Balasore vs. ACIT, Balasore Circle, Balasore

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

ITA 467/CTK/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack07 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.467/Ctk/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) M/S Balasore Cooperative Bank Vs. Acit, Balasore Circle, Limited, Balasore Bibekananda Marg, Balasore-756001 Pan No. : Aaccb 7823 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.N.Sahu/Somnath Sahoo,Advs राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 13/08/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12/10/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A), Cuttack, Dated 04.08.2017, For The Assessment Year 2012-2013, On The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- 1) That The Order Of The Id. Cit(Appeals) Confirming The Additions & Disallowances Made By The A.O. Is Illegal, Arbitrary, Unjustified & Not In Accordance With Law. 2) That The Addition Of Rs. 36,79,148/- U/S. 40(A)(Ia) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Confirmed By Cit(Appeals) To The Extent Of Rs. 36,30,998/- Is Illegal, Arbitrary, Uncalled For & Not In Accordance With Law & The Same Should Have Been Deleted By The Learned Cit(Appeals). 3) That The Disallowance U/S 40(A)(Ia) Of Rs. 36,79,148/- As Detailed Below Is Illegal, Arbitrary & Unjustified & Hence Should Have Been Deleted By The Learned Cit(A) As The Genuineness Is Not In Doubt. Non-Deduction Of Tds Is A Separate Issue. A) Commission Payment To Dlds Collection Agents Rs. 33,45,248/- B) Legal Expenses Rs. 2,52,000/- C) Audit Fees Rs. 81,900/-

For Appellant: Shri S.N.Sahu/Somnath Sahoo,AdvsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 36Section 40Section 43B

…e present case? 2. As to whether disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is confined/limited to the amount "payable" and not to the amount "already paid"; and whether the decision of this Court in Palam Gas Service v. Commissioner of Income-Tax [2017] 394 ITR 300 requires reconsideration? 3. As to whether sub-clause (ia) of Section 40(a) of the Act, as inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004 with effect from 1-4- 10 2005, is applicable only from the financial year 2005-2006 and, hence, is not applicable to the present case relating to the financial year 2004-2005; and, at any rate, whole of the rigour…

25 Frames Media House, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 983/HYD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Oct 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Sh. S. Rama Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Solgy Jose T Kottaram, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 40

…for estimation of income @ 8% as done by the CIT(A). With regard to disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia), he fairly accepted that the issue is covered against the assessee by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Palam Gas Service (2017) (SC) reported in 394 ITR 300, and since the CIT(A) has not decided the appeal on merits he prayed that the issue may be remitted to the CIT(A). 5. Ld.DR, on the other hand supported the orders of the AO and submitted that both the issues may be remitted to the file of AO. 6. Having regard to rival contentions and material placed on record, we find that the CIT(A) has follo…

ITO, Ward-6(4), Hyderabad vs. 25 Frames Media House, Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 855/HYD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Oct 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Sh. S. Rama Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Solgy Jose T Kottaram, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 40

The Director of Income Tax vs. M/S Texas Instruments Incorporated

In the result, we do not find any merit in these

ITA/171/2011HC Karnataka14 Sept 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 234BSection 234bSection 260Section 260A

…’ and has submitted that the expression ‘person’ includes a company and there is no distinction between domestic company or foreign company with reference to the decision of the Supreme Court in ‘PALAM GAS SERVICE VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX’, (2017) 394 ITR 300 (SC), wherein the Supreme 8 Court dealt with the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, it is argued that the word ‘payable’ was read in the aforesaid decision by the Supreme Court as ‘paid’ and on same analogy the expression ‘deductible’ used in Section 209(1) of the Act needs to be read as ‘deducted’. It is also pointed o…

The Director of Income-Tax vs. M/S Texas Instruments Incorporated

In the result, we do not find any merit in these

ITA/34/2012HC Karnataka14 Sept 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 234BSection 234bSection 260Section 260A

Shree Choudhary Transport Co vs. Income Tax Officer

C.A. No.-007865-007865 - 2009Supreme Court29 Jul 2020

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

Section 40

…the amount already “paid”. However, being aware of the position that the substratum of such contentions does not stand in conformity with the view already taken by this Court in the case of Palam Gas Service v. Commissioner of Income-Tax : (2017) 394 ITR 300, the learned counsel has made elaborate submissions that the said decision in Palam Gas Service requires reconsideration. According to the learned counsel, such reconsideration is necessitated because of the factors that: (a) the taxing provision for disallowance has to be strictly construed as per the language used and there is no scope…

ITO 21 (1) (5), Mumbai vs. Janseva Majoor Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Mumbai

In the result, ground 1 of assessee’s appeal is allowed and

ITA 5881/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh (Jm) & Shri S Rifaur Rahman (Am) Ito 21(1)(5), Room No. Vs M/S Janseva Majoor Sahakari 120, 1Stfloor, Piramal Sanstha Maryadit, Chambers, Parel, 1, Dev Darshan, Ground Floor, Mumbai-400016 In Front Of Wakade House T.H. Kataria Marg, Mahim, Mumbai-400 016 Pan : Aadfj0626J Appellant Respondednt M/S Janseva Majoor Sahakari Vs Ito 21(1)(5), Room No. 120, 1Stfloor, Piramal Sanstha Maryadit, 1, Dev Darshan, Ground Floor, Chambers, Parel, In Front Of Wakade House Mumbai-400016 T.H. Kataria Marg, Mahim, Mumbai-400 016 Pan : Aadfj0626J Appellant Respondednt

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 40Section 80PSection 80P(2)(vi)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH (JM) & SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) ITO 21(1)(5), Room No. Vs M/s Janseva Majoor Sahakari 120, 1stFloor, Piramal Sanstha Maryadit, Chambers, Parel, 1, Dev Darshan, Ground Floor, Mumbai-400016 In front of Wakade House T.H. Kataria Marg, Mahim, Mumbai-400 016 PAN : AADFJ0626J APPELLANT RESPONDEDNT M/s Janseva Majoor Sahakari Vs ITO 21(1)(5), Room No. 120, 1stFloor, Piramal Sanstha Maryadit, 1, Dev Darshan, Ground Floor, Chambers, Parel, In front of Wakade House Mumbai-400016 T.H. Kataria Marg, Mahim, Mumbai-400 016 PAN : AADFJ0626J…

I.T.O. Ward -3(4), Nagpur vs. M/S Deepak Construction, Nagpur

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

ITA 187/NAG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.187/Nag/2015 ननिाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4), Nagpur. .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Deepak Construction New Bhanegaon, Khaparkheda, Saoner, Nagpur- 441102. Pan: Aadfd4092L ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri U.U. Kesar

Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43B

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण न्यायपीठ, नागपुर में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH, NAGPUR (At e-Court, PUNE) BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.187/NAG/2015 ननिाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4), Nagpur. .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/s. M/s. Deepak Construction New Bhanegaon, Khaparkheda, Saoner, Nagpur- 441102. PAN: AADFD4092L ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri U.U. Kesar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 16.01.2020 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 16.01.2020 आदेश / OR…

Shankar Engineering & Fabricators, Hyderabad vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-11(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 442/HYD/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Dec 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Mookambikeyan S. DR

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 234BSection 234CSection 40

…t may be urged at the time of hearing”. 2.1. At the time of hearing, the Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee does not wish to press Ground No.3 in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Palam Gas Service Vs. CIT [394 ITR 300] (SC) [Civil Appeal No. 5512 of 2017 dt. 03-05-2017]. Accordingly, the said Ground is rejected, as not pressed. 2.2. As regards the other Grounds of Appeal, the brief facts are that the assessee-company, engaged in the business of fabrication, filed its return of income for the AY.2007-08 on 24-10-2007, admitting total income of Rs.3,45,550/-.…

Empee Sugars and Chemicals Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

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

ITA 1504/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Nov 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1504/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2008-09

For Appellant: Shri M. Kaushik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, JCIT

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 40

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘‘डी’’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी धु"ु" आर.एल रे"ी, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी एस जयरामन, लेखा सद" के सम" Before Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member & Shri S. Jayaraman, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1504/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2008-09 M/s. Empee Sugars and Chemicals The Assistant Commissioner of Ltd., Empee Towers, No. 59, Harris Vs. Income Tax, Road, Pudupet, Chennai 600 002. Central Circle I(2), [PAN- AABCE5658G] Chennai. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri M. Kaushik, Advocate ""थ" की…

DCIT CC-4(2), Central Range-4, Mumbai vs. Vakrangee Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 2215/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Bledy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. M/S. Vakrangee Limited Central Circle – 4(2) Vakrangee Corporate House Central Range – 4 Plot No. 93, Road No. 16 R.No. 1918, 19Th Floor Midc, Marol, Andheri (E) Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 093 Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaacv9920D

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Harkamal Sohi Sandhu

Section 115JSection 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40Section 43B

…al No.10, the assessee is claiming that if the assessee has not been treated as an “assessee in default” u/s 201(1), no disallowance u/s 40a(ia) can be made. 9. We find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Palam Gas Service vs. CIT reported in (2017) 81 Taxmann.com 43 (S.C) has held that irrespective of the amount being paid, the same is disallowable u/s 40a(ia) if no TDS has been made. Therefore, the decision of the CIT (A) on this point has to be set aside. In such circumstances, the alternate plea of the assessee assumes importance. 10. The learned Counsel for the assessee has placed reliance upon the…

Conference Call Services India Private Ltd., Bangalore vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 1(3), Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2655/CHNY/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri Pradhan Dass, ACAFor Respondent: Dr.S. Pandian, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन,"याियक सद"य एवं "ी एस जयरामन, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.2655/CHNY/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income M/s. Conference Call Services India Pvt. Ltd., Tax, RMZ Titanium, No.135, 1st Floor, Corporate Circle – 1(3), Old Airport Road, Chennai Bangalore – 560017. PAN: AACCC6574A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri Pra…

The ACIT, Guntur vs. Gude Venkata Krishna Rao, Guntur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 211/VIZ/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.211/Viz/2015 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2010-11) Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Sri Gude Venkata Krishna Rao Circle-2(1) D.No.4-2-17/8, 18Th Lane Guntur Chandramouli Nagar Guntur [ Pan :Ahepg4373K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Smt Suman Malik, Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri D.L.Narasimha Rao, Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04 .10.2019 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Smt Suman Malik, DRFor Respondent: Shri D.L.Narasimha Rao, AR

Section 194ASection 40

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री िी. दुगाा राि,न्याधयक सदस्य एिं श्री धड.एस. सुन्दर धसंह, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.211/Viz/2015 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2010-11) Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sri Gude Venkata Krishna Rao Circle-2(1) D.No.4-2-17/8, 18th Lane Guntur Chandramouli Nagar Guntur [ PAN :AHEPG4373K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant by : Smt Suman Malik, DR…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore vs. M/S Infosys Bpo Ltd, Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1333/BANG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Sept 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt.Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Miss. Neera Malhotra, CIT, DR

Section 10ASection 14ASection 40

…on issue of paid vs payable in context of disallowance under section 40(a) (ia). At the outset Ld.AR concedes that, the issue stands squarely covered against assessee by decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Palam Gas Services vs CIT reported in (2017) 394 ITR 300, Accordingly we allow these grounds raised by revenue. 7.Ground No.4-5 is in respect of direction to reduce telecommunication charges from both export turnover as well as total turnover by Ld.CIT (A) for purposes of computation of deduction under section 10A. At the outset Ld.CIT DR concedes that, issue stands settled in favour of assessee by dec…

The George Town Co-Operative Bank Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 4(1), Chennai

ITA 1813/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. A. Sundara Rajan, JCIT

Section 194Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40

…relied on the Special Bench decision in the case of Merlin Shipping and Transport vs ACIT 16 ITR (Trib) 1. 5. We heard the rival submissions. We find that the issue is settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Palam Gas Services vs CIT reported in 394 ITR 300 (SC), wherein, the Supreme Court held that “payable” includes not only sums payable but also sums paid to contractors. Therefore, the corresponding grounds of the assessee fail. 6. With regard to the disallowance made u/s. 36(1)(viia), the Ld. AR submitted that the provision for bad and doubtful debts in the books has to be for an equal and ma…