R.B. Jodha Mal Kuthiala v. CIT

82 ITR 570Supreme Court of India1971#780 most cited

What is R.B. Jodha Mal Kuthiala v. CIT authority for?

Tax laws must be interpreted reasonably and in consonance with justice, even though equitable considerations are generally irrelevant in their interpretation.

131

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2025.

Also referred to as

R.B. Jodha Mal Kuthiala v. CIT · 82 ITR 570 · Supreme Court 1971 · interpretation of tax laws · equitable considerations · reasonable interpretation · consonance with justice · statutory construction · Section 10 · Section 11 · Section 143(1)

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 10Section 10(23C)(iiiad)Section 11Section 115JAASection 115JBSection 12AASection 143(1)

Issues it is cited on

bright line testamp expenditurecomparable uncontrolled price methodsection 92(1)cost plus methodfunctional analysissection 80jjasection 80jjaasection 92c(3)section 92fmanagement feesbenchmarking analysis

Judgments citing R.B. Jodha Mal Kuthiala v. CIT

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Smt.Kamakshi Devi

WTA/2/2014HC Karnataka30 Aug 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 27

…the facts and circumstances of the case, belonged to the assessee any more. This Court had occasion to discuss section 9 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and the meaning of the expression “owner” in the case of R.B.Jodha Mal Kuthiala v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 570 (SC). There it was held that for the purpose of section 9 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the owner must be the person who can exercise the rights of the owner, not on behalf of the owner but his own right. An assessee whose property remained vested in the Custodian of Evacuee Property was not the owner of the property. This again, a…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Smt Meenakshi Devi Avaru

WTA/6/2015HC Karnataka30 Aug 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 27

…the facts and circumstances of the case, belonged to the assessee any more. This Court had occasion to discuss section 9 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and the meaning of the expression “owner” in the case of R.B.Jodha Mal Kuthiala v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 570 (SC). There it was held that for the purpose of section 9 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the owner must be the person who can exercise the rights of the owner, not on behalf of the owner but his own right. An assessee whose property remained vested in the Custodian of Evacuee Property was not the owner of the property. This again, a…

DCIT(E), Circle-2, Kolkata vs. M/S West Bengal Trade Promotion Org., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 156/KOL/2017[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jul 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 147Section 148Section 25

…t to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act held as below:- “The supreme court in the case of Allied Motors P ltd and also in the case of Alom Extrusions Ltd has already decided that the aforesaid provision has retrospective application. Again, in the case reported in 82 ITR 570, the Supreme Court held that the provision, which has inserted the remedy to make the provision workable, requires to be treated with retrospective operation so that reasonable deduction can be given to the section as well”. CIT vs Vatika Township P Ltd reported in (2014) 367 ITR 466 (SC) – Five Judges decision of the Supreme Court (page 487): “…

ITO 5(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Kranti Impex P.Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal is allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1229/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am Income Tax Officer, 5(2)(2) Kranti Impex Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 567, Aayakar 20, Om Darya Mahal, Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road 80,Nepeansea Road, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 006 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aacck3044P & Co No. 90/Mum/2014 (Arising In Ita No. 1229/Mum/2013 For A.Y. 2004-05) Kranti Impex Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, 5(2)(2), 901/A-B-E, 9Th Floor Room No. 567, Aayakar The Legend Co-Op Hsg. Soc. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Ltd, Plot No. 220, Walkeshwar Mumbai-400 020 Road, Mumbai-400 006 Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Govind Javeri, ARFor Respondent: M.C. Omi Ningshen, DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 69

…isions of section 132(4A) also have to be applied and 19 CO No. 90/Mum/2014 interpreted in very reasonable manner and in consonance with justice. We say so on the basis of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R.B. Jodha Mal Kuthiala v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 570 at p. 575. 36. Further in the case of Pioneer Publicity Corporation & Others Vs. DCIT reported in 67 TTJ 471, (Copy enclosed at pages 373-437 of Paper Book) the Delhi Tribunal held that “no addition could be made simply on the basis of a noting on a visiting card found during search directing certain payment to bearer of card when there was nothin…

M/S. M. Hanumantha Rao, Bellary vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kalaburagi

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

ITA 158/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S. M. Hanumatha Rao, H. No.37, W. No.17, Ground Floor, Main Road Near Park Patel Nagar, Ballari – 583101. … Appellant Pan:Aanfm 1777H Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 1, Ballary. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. P. Dinesha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. N. Parbat, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)

…e ratio laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court laid down in the cases of CIT vs. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. (46 ITR 144), CIT vs. Birla Gwalior (P) Ltd. (89 ITR Page 12 of 13 266) Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (57 ITR 521), R.B.Jodha Mal Kuthiala vs. CIT (82 ITR 570) and State Bank of Travancore vs. CIT (158 ITR 102). Thus, it is clear that the sale proceeds had accrued to the appellant only by virtue of the order of the Director of Department of Mines and Geology vide proceedings No.DMG/MONCOM/E-Auction/2012- 13 dated 03.01.2013. The taxability or otherwise of it can be considered only during the period endi…

DCIT, Cir-14(2), Kolkata vs. Ashamangal Portfolio Pvt. Ltd., Howrah

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1083/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Dec 2017AY 2010-2011
Section 143(3)Section 22Section 24

…ssessee has been recognized as the sub-lessee of KPT. Therefore, Respectfully following the decisions rendered by the various judicial forums that were relied on by the assessee such as by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of R.B. Jodhamal Kuthalia vs CIT 82 ITR 570 wherein it was held that ‘the owner must be the person, who can exercise, the rights of owner not on behalf of the owners but in his own right’. This Tribunals Bombay Bench as well as Hyderabad bench reported in 110 ITD 331 and 337 and 99 ITD 18 is of the same view to the effect that ‘if the assessee is not the owner of the building, income from l…

DCIT, Cir-5(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Saraf Services Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 456/KOL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Dec 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Arindam Bhattcahrjee, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate
Section 147Section 194CSection 194HSection 194JSection 200Section 40Section 9

…rly remedial/curative in nature as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Allied Motors Pvt.Ltd. (supra) and Mom Extrusions Ltd. (supra) and the same therefore would apply retrospectively w.e.f. 1st April, 2005. In the case of R.B.Jodha Mal Kuthiala 82 ITR 570, it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that a proviso which is inserted to remedy unintended consequences and to make the provision workable, requires to be treated as retrospective in operation so that a reasonable interpretation can be given to the section as a whole. In the present case, the amount of tax deducted at source from the freight…

Manager Union Bank of India Loharu Road Bhiwani, Rohtak vs. ITO (TDS), Hisar

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1940/DEL/2015[2013-14 (F.Y.- 2012-13)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2017

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 1936/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Shiv Raj Kumar Batra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Shiv Raj Singh, Sr. DR
Section 11(3)Section 139Section 194ASection 201Section 201(1)

…e payer if he satisfies the income tax authorities that such taxes have been paid by the payee. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT (2007) 293 ITR 226 (SC) " R.B. Jodha mal Kuthiala Vs VIT (1971) 82 ITR 570 (SC) 6. It was further submitted that the deductee is a registered company u/s 25 of Companies Act, registered u/s 12AA of the Act, its income is totally exempt u/s 11 of the Act and that even the AO himself passed an order u/s 143(3) of the Act for the assessment year 2010-11 wherein the income of the deductee being charitable company had been a…

Manager Union Bank of India Loharu Road Bhiwani, Rohtak vs. ITO (TDS), Hisar

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1939/DEL/2015[2012-13 (F.Y. 2011-12)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2017

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 1936/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Shiv Raj Kumar Batra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Shiv Raj Singh, Sr. DR
Section 11(3)Section 139Section 194ASection 201Section 201(1)

…e payer if he satisfies the income tax authorities that such taxes have been paid by the payee. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT (2007) 293 ITR 226 (SC) " R.B. Jodha mal Kuthiala Vs VIT (1971) 82 ITR 570 (SC) 6. It was further submitted that the deductee is a registered company u/s 25 of Companies Act, registered u/s 12AA of the Act, its income is totally exempt u/s 11 of the Act and that even the AO himself passed an order u/s 143(3) of the Act for the assessment year 2010-11 wherein the income of the deductee being charitable company had been a…

Manager Union Bank of India Loharu Road Bhiwani, Rohtak vs. ITO (TDS), Hisar

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1938/DEL/2015[2011-12 (F.Y. 2010-11)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2017

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 1936/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Shiv Raj Kumar Batra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Shiv Raj Singh, Sr. DR
Section 11(3)Section 139Section 194ASection 201Section 201(1)

…e payer if he satisfies the income tax authorities that such taxes have been paid by the payee. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT (2007) 293 ITR 226 (SC) " R.B. Jodha mal Kuthiala Vs VIT (1971) 82 ITR 570 (SC) 6. It was further submitted that the deductee is a registered company u/s 25 of Companies Act, registered u/s 12AA of the Act, its income is totally exempt u/s 11 of the Act and that even the AO himself passed an order u/s 143(3) of the Act for the assessment year 2010-11 wherein the income of the deductee being charitable company had been a…

Manager Union Bank of India Loharu Road Bhiwani, Rohtak vs. ITO (TDS), Hisar

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1937/DEL/2015[2010-11 (F.Y. 2009-10)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2017

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 1936/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Shiv Raj Kumar Batra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Shiv Raj Singh, Sr. DR
Section 11(3)Section 139Section 194ASection 201Section 201(1)

…e payer if he satisfies the income tax authorities that such taxes have been paid by the payee. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT (2007) 293 ITR 226 (SC) " R.B. Jodha mal Kuthiala Vs VIT (1971) 82 ITR 570 (SC) 6. It was further submitted that the deductee is a registered company u/s 25 of Companies Act, registered u/s 12AA of the Act, its income is totally exempt u/s 11 of the Act and that even the AO himself passed an order u/s 143(3) of the Act for the assessment year 2010-11 wherein the income of the deductee being charitable company had been a…

Manager Union Bank of India Loharu Road Bhiwani, Rohtak vs. ITO (TDS), Hisar

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1936/DEL/2015[2009-10 (F.Y. 2008-09)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2017

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 1936/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Shiv Raj Kumar Batra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Shiv Raj Singh, Sr. DR
Section 11(3)Section 139Section 194ASection 201Section 201(1)

…e payer if he satisfies the income tax authorities that such taxes have been paid by the payee. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT (2007) 293 ITR 226 (SC) " R.B. Jodha mal Kuthiala Vs VIT (1971) 82 ITR 570 (SC) 6. It was further submitted that the deductee is a registered company u/s 25 of Companies Act, registered u/s 12AA of the Act, its income is totally exempt u/s 11 of the Act and that even the AO himself passed an order u/s 143(3) of the Act for the assessment year 2010-11 wherein the income of the deductee being charitable company had been a…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ambience Hotels & Resorts Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result appeal of the Revenue in case of Ambience Hotels and Resorts Pvt Ltd in ITA No

ITA 6422/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri TR Talwar, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Aparna Karan, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 60

…same income in the hands of AHRL. 2. In not accepting the concept of beneficial ownership of the property in possession and enjoyment as held by the apex court in CIT V. Podar Cement Pvt. Ltd. (1997) 226 ITR 625 (SC) and Jodha Mai Kuthiala (RB) V. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 570 (SC). DCIT, Vs. Ambience Hotels & Resorts Pvt. Ltd ITA No. 6420, 6421,6422/Del/2015 & ITA No. 6873/Del/2014, 872/Del/2014, 6415/Del/2015 (Assessment Year: 2009-10 to 2012-13) 3. In not recognizing that section 60 is not acceptable, if the income is derived not from transfer of assets but by reason of the right to manage and carry on business. 4.…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ambience Hotels & Resorts Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result appeal of the Revenue in case of Ambience Hotels and Resorts Pvt Ltd in ITA No

ITA 6421/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri TR Talwar, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Aparna Karan, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 60

…same income in the hands of AHRL. 2. In not accepting the concept of beneficial ownership of the property in possession and enjoyment as held by the apex court in CIT V. Podar Cement Pvt. Ltd. (1997) 226 ITR 625 (SC) and Jodha Mai Kuthiala (RB) V. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 570 (SC). DCIT, Vs. Ambience Hotels & Resorts Pvt. Ltd ITA No. 6420, 6421,6422/Del/2015 & ITA No. 6873/Del/2014, 872/Del/2014, 6415/Del/2015 (Assessment Year: 2009-10 to 2012-13) 3. In not recognizing that section 60 is not acceptable, if the income is derived not from transfer of assets but by reason of the right to manage and carry on business. 4.…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Ambience Hotels & Resorts Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result appeal of the Revenue in case of Ambience Hotels and Resorts Pvt Ltd in ITA No

ITA 6420/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri TR Talwar, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Aparna Karan, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 60

…same income in the hands of AHRL. 2. In not accepting the concept of beneficial ownership of the property in possession and enjoyment as held by the apex court in CIT V. Podar Cement Pvt. Ltd. (1997) 226 ITR 625 (SC) and Jodha Mai Kuthiala (RB) V. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 570 (SC). DCIT, Vs. Ambience Hotels & Resorts Pvt. Ltd ITA No. 6420, 6421,6422/Del/2015 & ITA No. 6873/Del/2014, 872/Del/2014, 6415/Del/2015 (Assessment Year: 2009-10 to 2012-13) 3. In not recognizing that section 60 is not acceptable, if the income is derived not from transfer of assets but by reason of the right to manage and carry on business. 4.…

ACIT, Cir-35, Kolkata vs. Smt Madhu Devi Saraf, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1325/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Nov 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1325/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Acit, Circle-35, Kolkata -Vs- Smt. Madhu Devi Saraf [Pan: Alips 0989 F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Keshari, FCA
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 251

…ty and hence there could not be any charge of rental income of notional basis under the head income from house property on her. She also placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of R.B. Jodha Mal Kuthiala vs. CIT reported in [1971] 82 ITR 570; decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Divya Devi reported in [1996] 217 ITR 824 & the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.G. Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT reported in [1972] 83 ITR 700 in support of her contentions. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition by making the following observations:- “10. I have…

Shyam Apparels P.Ltd., Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

ITA 549/JPR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Nov 2017AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma, (Addl.CIT)
Section 201Section 40Section 40A(3)

…ection 40(a) of the Income tax Act, 1961. Such view has been upheld by the Hon`ble Supreme Court in the cases of Goodyear India Ltd. v/s State of Haryana and Anr. (188 ITR 402), Allied Motors Pvt. Ltd. v/s CIT (224 ITR 677) and R.B. Jodhamla Kuthiala v/s CIT (82 ITR 570). Recently, Hon’ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench (SMC) in the case of Bhupendra Pal Singh [ITA No. 757/JP/16] also concurred with this view (APB 206-209). The Ld. CIT(A) disregarded this plea of the assessee, on the ground that, no certificate as prescribed under proviso to section 201(1) r.w. rule 31ACB, certifying that the taxes in respect of interest inc…

ITO, Jaipur vs. Shyam Apparels Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

ITA 497/JPR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Nov 2017AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma, (Addl.CIT)
Section 201Section 40Section 40A(3)

…ection 40(a) of the Income tax Act, 1961. Such view has been upheld by the Hon`ble Supreme Court in the cases of Goodyear India Ltd. v/s State of Haryana and Anr. (188 ITR 402), Allied Motors Pvt. Ltd. v/s CIT (224 ITR 677) and R.B. Jodhamla Kuthiala v/s CIT (82 ITR 570). Recently, Hon’ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench (SMC) in the case of Bhupendra Pal Singh [ITA No. 757/JP/16] also concurred with this view (APB 206-209). The Ld. CIT(A) disregarded this plea of the assessee, on the ground that, no certificate as prescribed under proviso to section 201(1) r.w. rule 31ACB, certifying that the taxes in respect of interest inc…

ACIT, Circle-2(1), Cuttack vs. Pattnaik Minerals Private Ltd., Keonjhar

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 349/CTK/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack02 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2007-2008

For Appellant: Shri S.C.Bhadra, ARFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Mohapatra, CIT DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 194ASection 201(1)Section 40Section 49

…e and have given opinion that this amendment to Asse ssment Year : 20 07- 200 8 proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act made to Finance Act, 2010 should also have retrospective operation effect. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of R.B.Jodhamall Kuthiala, 82 ITR 570(SC) have held that the provisions which has been inserted as remedy to make the provision warkable, requires to be treated with retrospective operation so that reasonable deduction can be taken to the Section as well. The Supreme Court while deciding the workability of the other amended provisions have decided in the case of Allied Motors Pvt. Ltd…

ITO, WD-1(1), Kolkata vs. Sri Sudhir Jain, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 785/KOL/2015[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Oct 2017AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 785/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Ito Ward 1(1) Kolkata.............................……………………………………………Appellant Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 700069 Shri Sudhir Jain……………….......................................................................Respondent 13, B.B. Ganguly Street, Kolkata - 700012 [Pan: Aeupj6167K] Appearances By: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri Ashish Bajaj, Ar Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 11, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 13, 2017 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of Learned Cit (Appeals) -1, Dated 17.02.2015 & In The Solitary Ground Raised Therein, The Revenue Has Challenged The Action Of The Ld. Cit (A) In Deleting The Disallowance Of Rs. 2,30,70,671/- Made By The Ao Under Section 40(A)(Ia) For The Delay In Payment Of Tax Deducted At Source From Interest. 2. The Assessee In The Present Case Is An Individual Who Is Engaged In The Business Of Share Trading. The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Was Filed By It On 02.11.2007 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs. 33,32,380/-. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, It Was Noticed By The Ao That The Assessee Has Deducted Tax At Source From The Interest Of Rs. 2,30,70,671/- Paid To M/S.

Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH ‘B’, KOLKATA [Before Shri P.M. Jagtap, AM & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, JM] I.T.A. No. 785/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2007-08 ITO Ward 1(1) Kolkata.............................……………………………………………Appellant Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 700069 Shri Sudhir Jain……………….......................................................................Respondent 13, B.B. Ganguly Street, Kolkata - 700012 [PAN: AEUPJ6167K] Appearances by: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT appearing on behalf of the Revenue. Shri Ashish Bajaj, AR appearing on behalf of the Assessee. Da…