Rajeev Kumar Agrawal v. Add. CIT

165 TTJ 228Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2014#22981 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,487 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2020.

Judgments citing Rajeev Kumar Agrawal v. Add. CIT

Shri Vikram Singh Shekhawat, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Sikar

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 484/JPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jan 2020AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.C. Gupta, JCIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 154Section 234A

…the Assessee has deducted and paid the tax on such sum on the date of furnishing of return of income by the resident payee referred to in the sa id proviso". And after this amendment the Honble IATA Agra Bench in the case of Rajeev Kumar Agrawal V/s Add. CIT 165 TTJ 228(Agra) held that Second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia), introduced with effect from 1st April 2013, provides, that " where an Assessee fails to deduct the whole or any part of the tax in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XVII-B on any such sum but is not deemed to be an Assessee in default under the first proviso to sub-section (1) of sectio…

Shri Ram Sharan Katta, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(4), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 725/JPR/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jun 2019AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani &For Respondent: Shri B.K.Gupta (CIT)
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 40

…case of Ansal landmark Township (P) Ltd. in ITA No. 160 & 161/2015 has held that the amendment is curative in nature and has retrospective effect from 01/04/2005. In the following judicial pronouncements also this issue has been taken: i. Kumar Agarwal (2014) 165 TTJ 228 (Agra) ii. M/s Visu International Limited, ITA No. 488/Hyd/13, Hyderabad iii. Santosh Kumar Kedia, ITA No. 1905/Kol/2014, Kolkata iv. Ananda Marakala, (2014) 48 Taxmann.com 402 (Bangalore) v. Redeus Advertising (P) Ltd, (2017) 80 taxmann.com 353 (Mumbai) vi. R.K.P. Company, (2016) 71 Taxmann.com 257 (Raipur) Furthermore, the ITAT, Jaipur Bench, i…

Red Chillies Entertainment P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 29, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 5271/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Hiru RaiFor Respondent: Shri B.S. Bist

…. For such proposition, he relied upon the following decisions:– i) CIT v/s Ansal Land Mark Township P. Ltd. [2015] 377 ITR 635 (Del.); ii) DCIT v/s UPS Jetair Express Pvt. Ltd. [2015 56 Taxmann.com 387 (Mum. Trib.); iii) Rajiv Kumar Agarwal v/s ACIT, [2014] 165 TTJ 228 (Agra); iv) DCIT v/s Ananda Marakala, [2014] 150 ITD 323; v) Brijgopal Madhusudan Bhattad v/s ITO, [2015] 155 ITD 90 (Nag. Trib.); and vi) Modi Builders v/s JCIT, [2015] 69 SOT 758 (Pune Trib.). 12. The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the reasoning of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and the Assessing Officer. 13. We have cons…