Rajeev Kumar Agarwal v. ACIT

149 ITD 363Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2014#1052 most cited

What is Rajeev Kumar Agarwal v. ACIT authority for?

Curative amendments, such as a proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) introduced to remove undue hardship, apply retrospectively even without specific legislative declaration, rectifying shortcomings and obviating unintended difficulties.

104

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Rajeev Kumar Agarwal v. ACIT · retrospective effect · curative amendment · Section 40(a)(ia) · proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) · undue hardship · legislative amendment · prospective application · ITAT Agra · disallowance of expenditure · TDS default · 149 ITD 363

Also reported as

34 ITR (Trib) 479

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 250Section 43CASection 50CSection 56(2)(vii)

Issues it is cited on

section 50(1)section 23(5)safe harboursection 50c(1)waiver of loansection 50c(2)section 211annual letting valuesection 43csection 43cacircle ratefull value of consideration

Judgments citing Rajeev Kumar Agarwal v. ACIT

Deluxe Recycling India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Circle 4(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2046/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21 Assistant Commissioner Of Deluxe Recycling India Income Tax-4(1)(1), Private Limited Mumbai 13 17 Dady Sheth Agiary Vs. Lane, Kalbadevi Road, Kalbadevi, Mumbai-400002 (Pan: Aaacd8909N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2020-21 Deluxe Recycling India Private Assistant Commissioner Of Limited Income Tax-4(1)(1), 13 17 Dady Sheth Agiary Lane, Mumbai Vs. Kalbadevi Road, Kalbadevi, Mumbai-400002 (Pan: Aaacd8909N) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Hakani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 40A(2)(b)Section 56Section 56(2)(x)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2020-21 Assistant Commissioner of Deluxe Recycling India Income Tax-4(1)(1), Private Limited Mumbai 13 17 Dady Sheth Agiary Vs. Lane, Kalbadevi Road, Kalbadevi, Mumbai-400002 (PAN: AAACD8909N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2020-21 Deluxe Recycling India Private Assistant Commissioner of Limited Income Tax-4(1)(1), 13 17 Dady Sheth Agiary Lane, Mumbai Vs. Kalbadevi Road, Kalbadevi, Mumbai-400002 (PAN: AAACD8909N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Presen…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-4(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Deluxe Recycling India Private Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 1969/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21 Assistant Commissioner Of Deluxe Recycling India Income Tax-4(1)(1), Private Limited Mumbai 13 17 Dady Sheth Agiary Vs. Lane, Kalbadevi Road, Kalbadevi, Mumbai-400002 (Pan: Aaacd8909N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2020-21 Deluxe Recycling India Private Assistant Commissioner Of Limited Income Tax-4(1)(1), 13 17 Dady Sheth Agiary Lane, Mumbai Vs. Kalbadevi Road, Kalbadevi, Mumbai-400002 (Pan: Aaacd8909N) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Hakani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 40A(2)(b)Section 56Section 56(2)(x)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2020-21 Assistant Commissioner of Deluxe Recycling India Income Tax-4(1)(1), Private Limited Mumbai 13 17 Dady Sheth Agiary Vs. Lane, Kalbadevi Road, Kalbadevi, Mumbai-400002 (PAN: AAACD8909N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2020-21 Deluxe Recycling India Private Assistant Commissioner of Limited Income Tax-4(1)(1), 13 17 Dady Sheth Agiary Lane, Mumbai Vs. Kalbadevi Road, Kalbadevi, Mumbai-400002 (PAN: AAACD8909N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Presen…

Aaeshka Riddhi Realty, Mumbai vs. CIT(A)-NFAC - ITO-19(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3970/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Amarjit Singh & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishna Kedia (Sr. DR)
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 43CSection 50C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI. AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA no. 3970/Mum./2024 (Assessment Year :2016–2017) Aaeshka Riddhi Realty 18, Kailash Darshan, 5th Floor, Nana Chowk, Near Kennedy Bridge, Grant Road, Mumbai – 400007. PAN-AAWFA9467B ……………. Appellant v/s CIT(A) – NFAC – ITO - 19(1)(1) Piramal Chamber, DR SS Rao Marg, Parel, ……………. Respondent Mumbai – 400012. Assessee by : Shri Bhupendra Shah Revenue by :Shri Ram Krishna Kedia (Sr. DR) Date of Hearing – 17/09/2024 Date of Order – 20/09/2024 O R D E R PER SAND…

Shri Rajdeep Singh Chimni, Chandigarh vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Chandigarh

In the result, the addition so made and sustained by the ld CIT(A) is hereby deleted and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 722/CHANDI/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 155(15)Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"ीगढ़ "ायपीठ “बी” , च"ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: PHYSICAL MODE "ी आकाश दीप जैन, उपा"" एवं "ी िव"म िसंह यादव, लेखा सद" BEFORE: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN, VP & SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO.722/Chd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Shri Rajdeep Singh Chimni The Asst. CIT बनाम C/o Shri Tejmohan Sigh, Advocate Circle-4(1), Chandigarh # 527, Setor-10D, Chandigarh "ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ABRPC9579J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Tejmohan Singh, Advocate राज" की ओर से/ Re…

Ups Jetair Express Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT - 11(1)(2), Mumbai

Appeal are dismissed, the ground no

ITA 1622/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआ.अ.सं.1622/मुं/2015 (नि.व. 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR
Section 144C(1)Section 234BSection 32Section 40

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण मुंबई पीठ “जे”, मुंबई श्री विकास अवस्थी, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री गगन गोयल, लेखक्कर सदस्य के समक्ष IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं.1622/मुं/2015 (नि.व. 2010-11) ITA No.1622/MUM/2015 (A.Y.2010-11) M/s. UPS Express P. Ltd. Plot No.6-A, Shyam Nagar Off JVLR Mejas Village, Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai - 400 060 PAN: AAACU4322N बनाम Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax- 11(1)(2), Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 021 अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रतिवादी/Respondent आ.अ.सं. 1591/मुं/2015 (नि.व. 201…

Parasmani Roadlines Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Office 7(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3040/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member), SHRI AMARJIT SINGH (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri K.J.BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Dharmvir Yadav
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई पीठ “ एस एम.सी. ”,मुंबई "ी िवकास अव"थी, "याियक सद"य एवं "ी अमरजीत "सह, लेखाकार सद"य के सम" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “ SMC ”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आअसं.3040 /मुं/2023 (िन.व. 2012-13) Parasmani Roadlines Pvt. Ltd. 306, Popatlal Chamber, 4th Cross Lane, Dana Bunder, Masjid, Mumbai – 400 009 PAN: AAACP-6097-K ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. ITO 7(3)(2), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant by : Shri K.J.Bafna "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent by : Shri…

Rajpal Mehra (HUF), Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 17 (1), Mumbai

ITA 2817/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Shri B R Baskaran, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Suni Mathews (Sr. AR)
Section 143(3)Section 48Section 50C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “D”, MUMBAI Before Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’ble President & Shri B R Baskaran, Hon’ble Accountant Member ITA No.2817/Mum/2023 for Assessment Year : 2016-17 Rajpal Mehra (HUF), ACIT Circle 25(3), 528 Jambulwadi Corner, Mumbai. Vs. Kalbadevi Road, Kalbadevi, Mumbai 400 002. PAN : AAJHR2907J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Hitesh Shah, CA Respondent By : Shri Suni Mathews (Sr. AR) Date of Hearing : 06.12.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 17.01.2024 O R D E R Per Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang : Whether “safe harbour limit of 5%” as introduced by…

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)

…ssee further contended that in many cases Tribunal has decided a similar question of prospective or ITA Nos. 467 & 480/M/2020 21 M/s. Wartsila India Pvt. Ltd. retrospective application of the provisions of the Act viz. Rajeev Kumar Agarwal v Addl. CIT (2014) 149 ITD 363 (Agra), Bellandur C.Jayaramareddy v. ACIT (2022) 136 taxmann.com 94 (Bang), Mitra Guha Builders (India) Co. v. DCIT (2016) 65 taxmam.com 243 (Kol), Punjab Educational Society v. ITO (2018) 168 ITD 109 (Amr), DCIT v. Esaote India (NS) Ltd. (2018) 172 ITD 299 (Ahm), Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT (LTU) (2019) 101 taxman.com $24 (Mum…

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)

…ssee further contended that in many cases Tribunal has decided a similar question of prospective or ITA Nos. 467 & 480/M/2020 21 M/s. Wartsila India Pvt. Ltd. retrospective application of the provisions of the Act viz. Rajeev Kumar Agarwal v Addl. CIT (2014) 149 ITD 363 (Agra), Bellandur C.Jayaramareddy v. ACIT (2022) 136 taxmann.com 94 (Bang), Mitra Guha Builders (India) Co. v. DCIT (2016) 65 taxmam.com 243 (Kol), Punjab Educational Society v. ITO (2018) 168 ITD 109 (Amr), DCIT v. Esaote India (NS) Ltd. (2018) 172 ITD 299 (Ahm), Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT (LTU) (2019) 101 taxman.com $24 (Mum…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(1) ), Raipur vs. Shri Santosh Jain, Raipur

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 44/RPR/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteिनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Dcit, Circle 3(1), Shri Santosh Jain Raipur Vs Prop. M/S. Arihant Mining Co., Raipur. Pan: Acmpj5971B Appellant Respondent Applicant By None Respondent By Shrig.N. Singh Date Of Hearing 02/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 12/12/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Isdirected Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-I, Raipur, Dated 22.11.2019For Assessment Year 2009-10 Emanating From The Assessment Order Dated 11.02.2015 Passed Under Section 143(3)R.W.S. 263Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Also Called As ‘The Act’). The Revenue Has Raised The Following Ground Of Appeal: “1. Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Not Erred In Law & In Fact Byadjudicating The Issue Of Retrospective Applicability Of The Secondproviso To Section 40(A)(Ia) Of The I. T. Act, Which Was Not Aground Of Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A)? 2. Whether The Ld.Cit(A) Not Erred In Law & In Facts By Ignoringthe Fact That The Order Of The Ao Was Erroneous & Prejudicial Tothe Interest Of Revenue In The Light Of The Fact The Ao Did Notexamine The Issue Of Non Deduction Of Tax At Source Andapplicability Of Provision U/S 40(A)(Ia) Of The I. T. Act?

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40

…section 40(a)(ia) of the Act was indeed well taken. Hon'ble Delhi High Court inthe case of CIT v. Ansal Land Mark Township (P) Ltd. (2015) 377 ITR 635 hasapproved a decision of the coordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case ofRajeev Kumar Agrawal vs. ACIT, 149 ITD 363 holding so. Their Lordshipshave held that "reasoning of the Agra Bench of ITAT (in the above case) asregards the rationale behind the insertion of the second proviso to section40(a)(ia) of the Act and its conclusion that the said proviso to be ITA No.44/RPR/2020, for A.Y. 2009-10 Shri Santosh Jain declaratoryand curative and. has retrospective e…

M/S. Shivalik Ventures P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -CC-4(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1078/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2022AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 43CSection 50CSection 50C(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘E‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s. Shivalik Ventures Vs. DCIT CC 4(2), Mumbai Private Limited Room No.1918, Air India Unit No.4,5 & 6, Gr. Floor Building, Nariman Point New Udyog Mandir Mumbai – 400 021 2, Mogul Lane Mahim West Mumbai – 400 016 PAN/GIR No.AALCS7683R (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Vijay Mehta Revenue by Shri Brajendra Kumar Date of Hearing 12/07/2022 Date of Pronouncement 14/07/2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M): This appeal in ITA No.1078/Mum/2021 for A.Y.2…

Dy CIT Dd-4(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Sheth Developers P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 12/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 23(5)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘E‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & M/s. Sheth Developers Private Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Limited Income Tax, Central Circle- Ground and 3rd Floor 4(2), Mumbai Prius Infinity Paranjape B Scheme Suhash Road, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057 PAN/GIR No.AAACS9943H (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & Deputy Commissioner of Vs. M/s. Sheth Developers Private Income Tax, Central Circle- Limited Ground and 3rd Floor 4(2), Mumbai Prius Infinity Paranjape B Scheme Suhash Road, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057 PAN/GIR No.AAAC…

Dy CIT Dd-4(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Sheth Developers P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 11/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 23(5)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘E‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & M/s. Sheth Developers Private Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Limited Income Tax, Central Circle- Ground and 3rd Floor 4(2), Mumbai Prius Infinity Paranjape B Scheme Suhash Road, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057 PAN/GIR No.AAACS9943H (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & Deputy Commissioner of Vs. M/s. Sheth Developers Private Income Tax, Central Circle- Limited Ground and 3rd Floor 4(2), Mumbai Prius Infinity Paranjape B Scheme Suhash Road, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057 PAN/GIR No.AAAC…

Sheth Developers P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT Central Ciecle-4(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1954/MUM/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 23(5)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘E‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & M/s. Sheth Developers Private Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Limited Income Tax, Central Circle- Ground and 3rd Floor 4(2), Mumbai Prius Infinity Paranjape B Scheme Suhash Road, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057 PAN/GIR No.AAACS9943H (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & Deputy Commissioner of Vs. M/s. Sheth Developers Private Income Tax, Central Circle- Limited Ground and 3rd Floor 4(2), Mumbai Prius Infinity Paranjape B Scheme Suhash Road, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057 PAN/GIR No.AAAC…

M/S Sheth Developers P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Central Circle- 4(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1953/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 23(5)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘E‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & M/s. Sheth Developers Private Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Limited Income Tax, Central Circle- Ground and 3rd Floor 4(2), Mumbai Prius Infinity Paranjape B Scheme Suhash Road, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057 PAN/GIR No.AAACS9943H (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & Deputy Commissioner of Vs. M/s. Sheth Developers Private Income Tax, Central Circle- Limited Ground and 3rd Floor 4(2), Mumbai Prius Infinity Paranjape B Scheme Suhash Road, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057 PAN/GIR No.AAAC…

Gpt Marecom (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT-2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 449/KOL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am ]

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40

…0(a)(ia) of the Act was indeed well taken. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CI`T vs. Ansal Land Mark Township (P) Limited (2015) 377 ITR 635 has approved a decision of the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Rajeev Kumar Agarwal vs. ACIT, 149 ITD 363 holding so. Their Lordships have held that “reasoning of the Agra Bench of ITAT (in the above case) as regards the rationale behind the insertion of the second proviso to section 40(a)ia) of the Act and its conclusion that the said proviso is declaratory and curative and has retrospective effect from 1st April 2005, merit acceptance”. In this vie…

The ITO, Ward-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Bajaj Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal preferred by the Revenue is, thus, allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1088/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Mohd. Usman, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 194A(1)Section 194A(3)Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD [CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL AT AHMEDABAD] BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER& Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 1088/Ahd/2016 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) ITO Vs. M/s. Bajaj Herbals Pvt. Ltd. Ward-1(1)(2), A-401, Samundra Complex, Ahmedabad Nr. Hotel Classic Gold, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380009 [PAN No. AACCB6654J] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Revenue by : Shri Mohd. Usman, CIT DR Assessee by : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & Parimalsinh Parmar, AR Date of Hearing 25.11.2021 Date of Pronouncement 30.11.2021 O R D E R PER Ms. MADHUMIT…

Poonam Haresh Budhrani, Mumbai vs. CIT(A) 39, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1040/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2021AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 50C(1)Section 54E

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘C‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ms. Poonam Haresh Budhrani Vs. CIT(A)-39, Mumbai A/402, Jhanavi CHS Ltd. St. Judes School Comp Mumbai – 400 095 PAN/GIR No.ALZPB1926E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Ramesh Jiwnani Revenue by Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi Date of Hearing 02/08/2021 Date of Pronouncement 08/10/2021 आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M): This appeal in ITA No.1040/Mum/2019 for A.Y.2014-15 arises out of the order by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-39, Mumbai in appeal…

The ACIT, 4(1), Indore vs. Shri Sanjay Lunawat, Indore

ITA 396/IND/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 201(1)Section 40Section 68

…अपील"य अ"धकरण, इ"दौर "यायपीठ, इ"दौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Virtual hearing Assessment Year 2010-11 ACIT-4(1), Indore : Appellant V/s Sanjay Lunawat, Indore : Respondent PAN – AAKPL 1062 B C.O.No.32/Ind/2018 Arising out of ITA No.396/Ind/2018 Assessment Year 2010-11 Sanjay Lunawat, Indore PAN – AAKPL 1062 B : Appellant V/s ACIT-4(1), Indore : Respondent Revenue by Shri Rajib Jain, CIT-DR Assessee by S/Shri S.N. Agrawal & Bhavesh Agrawal, CAs Date of Hearing 07.07.2021 Date of Pronouncement 1…

M/S. Ratan Conductors, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-4, Jaipur

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

ITA 1259/JPR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1259/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Ratan Conductors, Cuke A.C.I.T., Vs. H-377(B), Road No. 17, Vki Area, Circle-4, Jaipur. Jaipur. Pan No.: Aabfr 8166 P Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Ashok Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Jcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 05/08/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Jaipur Dated 21/08/2019 For The A.Y. 2012-13 Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. Disallowance Of Interest Of Rs. 17,73,769/- On Account Of Non Tds:- That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Law & Facts In Confirming Disallowance Of Interest Of Rs.17,73,769/- Paid To M/S Barelays Investment & Loan (India) Ltd. (Rs. 298826/-) & M/S Future Capital (Rs. 1474943/-) On Account Of Non Deduction Of Tds Thereon By Invoking Provisions Of Section 40(A)(Ia) Of The It Act 1961. (A) The Assessee Firm Paid, Interest Of Rs. 2,98,826/- To Nbfc. M/S Barelays Investment & Loan (India) Ltd. & Rs.14,74,943/- To M/S Future Capital Another Nbfc. The Assessee Firm Raised Loan

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kr. Gupta (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 40

…, the Coordinate Benches of ITAT Bangalore Bench in the case of Shri G. Shankar Vs ACIT in ITA No. 1832/Bang/2013 order dated 10/10/2014, DCIT Vs Ananda Marakala (2014) 150 ITD 323, Agra Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Rajeev Kumar Agarwal Vs ACIT (2010) 34 ITR (Trib) 479 and Delhi 18 ITA 1259/JP/2019_ Ratan Conductors Vs ACIT Benches in the case of ITO Vs Dr. Jaideep Kumar Sharma (2014) 34 ITR (Trib) 565 has held that the amendment was made to remove the undue hardship and it was held that the said second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act has retrospective effect. Therefore, keeping in view the settl…