Teja Construction v. ACIT

129 TTJ 57Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2010#4941 most cited

What is Teja Construction v. ACIT authority for?

Where the Assessing Officer rejects the books of accounts and estimates the income, no further addition can be made for irregularities, as this would amount to double taxation.

24

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Also referred to as

Teja Construction v. ACIT · rejected books of accounts · estimation of income · further addition · double taxation · Section 40(a)(ia)

Also reported as

36 DTR 22033 Taxmann.com 563

Judgments citing Teja Construction v. ACIT

M/S. M.N. Modes, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result ground No. 4 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1552/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishim.N. Modes, Dcit, C/O. Gk Kedia & Co. Vs. Circle-22(1), 2044/6, Chitra Gupta Road, Chuna Civik Centre, New Delhi Mandi, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi Pan:Aaffm0837L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Sangeeta Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 145(3)Section 29Section 40Section 44A

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.N. Modes, DCIT, C/o. GK Kedia & Co. Vs. Circle-22(1), 2044/6, Chitra Gupta Road, Chuna Civik Centre, New Delhi Mandi, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi PAN:AAFFM0837L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Ms. Sangeeta Singh, Adv Revenue by: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 27/09/2016 Date of pronouncement 16/12/2016 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT (A)- 1. XXVIII, New Delhi dated 04.1…

S.P.Balasubramanyam, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and Revenue appeal is dismissed

ITA 696/CHNY/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.696 /Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri. Y. Sridhar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. A.V. Sreekanth, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 44A

…. Authorised Representative filed letter dated 05.12.2011 explaining that the tax is deductable only when amounts are payable and shown as liability as on 31st March and relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Teja Construction vs. ACIT (2010) 129 TTJ 57(Hyd) (UO) and claimed that provisions to Sec. 40(a)(ia) of the Act are not applicable. But the ld. Assessing Officer distinguished the facts of the case and is of the opinion that TDS has to be deducted when amount is credited or paid. Further, the ld. Assessing Officer made disallowance of expenditure u/sec. 40(a)(ia) of the Act under various…

ACIT, Chennai vs. S.P.Balasubramanyam, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and Revenue appeal is dismissed

ITA 1160/CHNY/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.696 /Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri. Y. Sridhar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. A.V. Sreekanth, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 44A

…. Authorised Representative filed letter dated 05.12.2011 explaining that the tax is deductable only when amounts are payable and shown as liability as on 31st March and relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Teja Construction vs. ACIT (2010) 129 TTJ 57(Hyd) (UO) and claimed that provisions to Sec. 40(a)(ia) of the Act are not applicable. But the ld. Assessing Officer distinguished the facts of the case and is of the opinion that TDS has to be deducted when amount is credited or paid. Further, the ld. Assessing Officer made disallowance of expenditure u/sec. 40(a)(ia) of the Act under various…

ACIT 25(3), Mumbai vs. Bhavarlal C. Suthar, Mumbai

ITA 7840/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Sanjay Aroraassessment Years:2007-08 Acit-25(3), Shri Bhavarlal C.Suthar C-11, R. No.308, C/4/705, Sai Krupa Chsl, Pratyaksh Kar Bhavan, Sector-7, Kandivali (West), Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400067 Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaops8548P

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 194C(1)Section 194C(2)Section 40

…not liable to deduct tax, therefore, there is no question of disallowance of the impugned amount. It is also noted that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has already relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Teja Construction vs ACIT (36 DTR 220)(Hyd. ITAT) and another decision of the Jaipur Bench of the Tribunal in Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. vs DCIT (26 DTR 79), in which the decision from Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT vs Mother India Refrigeration Pvt. Ltd. 48 CTR (SC) 176; 155 ITR 711 (SC) and CBDT Circular No.5 of 2005 dated 15/07/2005 (2005) 197 CTR (St.) 1 has been discussed. Totali…