TejaConstrcution v. ACIT

39 SOT 13Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2010#3700 most cited

What is TejaConstrcution v. ACIT authority for?

When an assessee is a sub-contractor, a net profit rate of 7% applied by the CIT(A) is justified.

32

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,418 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Teja Construction v. ACIT · 39 SOT 13 · ITAT · sub-contractor · net profit rate · civil contract works · construction PE · contractor

Issues it is cited on

penalty under section 271econstruction pepenalty under section 271dcorpus fundsection 269ton money receiptsection 53joint development agreementsection 269sjdatrcsection 271e

Judgments citing TejaConstrcution v. ACIT

Himmat Mal Doshi, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, ground taken by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 276/JPR/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Mar 2017AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri G.L. Gupta (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma (Addl. CIT)
Section 145(3)Section 40a

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh dqy Hkkjr] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ ITA No. 276/JP/2015 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2011-12 cuke Shri Himmat Mal Doshi, The ITO, G-845, Road, No.14, Ward-4(2), Vs. V.K.I. Area, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN No. ABRPD 3822 B izR;FkhZ@Respondent vihykFkhZ@Appellant fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri G.L. Gupta (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by :Shri R.A. Verma (Addl. CIT) lq…

I.T.O WD - 8(3), Kolkata vs. M/S Ruia Sons Pvt Ltd., Kolkata

In the result the appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 365/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm] I.T.A No. 365/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2009-10 I.T.O., Ward-8(3), -Vs.- M/S. Ruia Sons Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaccr 3949 Q] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Arup Kumar Sinha, Cit For The Respondent : Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate

For Appellant: Shri Arup Kumar Sinha, CITFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 194JSection 301Section 40

…0(a)(ia) is not applicable. In view of the decision of the Special Bench of the Hon'ble ITAT, Vishakhapatnam (supra) relied upon by the appellant and also in view of the ratio laid down by the Hyderabad Tribunal in the case of Teja Constructions v. CIT [2010] 39 SOT 13 (Hyd.)(URO), it is noted that going by the rule of strict interpretation, the default with reference to actual 'payment' of expenditure would not entail disallowance. 9. In the light of the above discussion and observation and perusing the facts of the case and keeping in view the emerging legal position as above and also for the following summeri…

Sh. Jagdish Prasad Sharma, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 50/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Dec 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadavassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Mehra, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jain, Sr.DR
Section 40

…ith the legal issue raised by the petitioner about the two different interpretations arising on applying the provisions contained in section 40a(ia) of the Act as dealt with by the Hon’ble Tribunal in the case of Teja Constructions Vs. ACIT reported in [2010] 39 SOT 13 [Hyd.] [URO] which was then followed in the case of Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd Vs. DCIT [2009] 123 TTJ [JP] 888.” 4. Apropos these grounds, the ld. A.R has also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Victor Shipping Services [P] Ltd reported at 262 CTR 545 [All] and submitted that Special Lea…

ITO 22(2)(4), Navi Mumbai vs. Rahul Motilal Sheth, Mumbai

ITA 1736/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2028/Mum/2011 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 28Section 40

…ment order, written submissions made as well as case laws cited by appellant. The appellant has claimed that the freight paid by him are direct expenses and hence they are covered by decision in the case of M/s. Teja Constructions - Hyderabad Bench 'A' (2010) 39 SOT 13 (Hyd)(URO). However, this plea is not supported by any documents. The Assessing Officer in the assessment order has clearly brought this fact that the appellant undertakes contract for transportation of goods from different parties and passes on the contract to third party. This was not denied also by the assessee during the assessment proceedings.…

Shri Rahul Motilal Sheth, Mumbai vs. ITO 22(2)(4), Mumbai

ITA 2028/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2028/Mum/2011 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 28Section 40

…ment order, written submissions made as well as case laws cited by appellant. The appellant has claimed that the freight paid by him are direct expenses and hence they are covered by decision in the case of M/s. Teja Constructions - Hyderabad Bench 'A' (2010) 39 SOT 13 (Hyd)(URO). However, this plea is not supported by any documents. The Assessing Officer in the assessment order has clearly brought this fact that the appellant undertakes contract for transportation of goods from different parties and passes on the contract to third party. This was not denied also by the assessee during the assessment proceedings.…

ACIT 25(2), Mumbai vs. Himanshu K Modi, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby Dismissed

ITA 6866/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Arora & Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6866/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Asst. Commissioner Of Shri Himanshu K. Modi बनाम/ Income Tax 25(2) Prop.M/S.Vitrag Vs. Room No.108, 1St Floor, Construction, C-4/406, Bldg. No.C-11, Yogi Nagar, Borivali (W) Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Mumbai - 400091 Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacpm8724B .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri S.K.Mishra
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 40Section 69C

…tention of the appellant that Section 40(a)(ia) is applicable only in respect of TDS default if amount is payable and not if it is actually paid and tax is not deducted. The appellant has relied on the following decisions: i. Teja Constructions V. CIT [2010] 39 SOT 13 (Hyd.) ii. Merilyn Shipping & Transports V. CIT [2012] 20 Taxmann.com 244 (Vishakhapatnam) iii. S.S.Warad V. CIT [2012] 19 ITR (Trib) 35 (Bang.) iv. T.T.Kuruvilla V. CIT [2012] 149 TTJ (Coch.) 533 v. Emdee Apparels V. CIT [2012] 54 SOT 600 (Bang.) 10 Assessment Year: 2010-11 vi. Bartronics India Ltd. V. CIT [2012] 32 SOT 188 (Hyd.) To substa…

ACIT vs. M/S Coastal Roaways

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed and the CO is partly allowed

ITA 1139/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoasst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 1(1), Mangalore. … Appellant Vs. M/S. Coastal Roadways, D.No.4-64/11, Bantwal Chambers, Balikampady, Mangalore. … Respondent Pan:Aaffc 5977 M Cross Objn.No.35/Bang/2013 (In Ita No.1139/Bang/2013) (Assessment Year: 2008-09) (By The Assessee) ****** Revenue By: Dr. P.K.Srihari, Addl.Cit. Assessee By: Shri R.E.Balasubramaniyan, Ca. Date Of Hearing : 05/01/2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 08/01/2016 O R D E R Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri R.E.Balasubramaniyan, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.K.Srihari, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V.VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 1(1), Mangalore. … Appellant Vs. M/s. Coastal Roadways, D.No.4-64/11, Bantwal Chambers, Balikampady, Mangalore. … Respondent PAN:AAFFC 5977 M Cross Objn.No.35/Bang/2013 (In ITA No.1139/Bang/2013) (Assessment year: 2008-09) (by the Assessee) ****** Revenue by: Dr. P.K.Srihari, Addl.CIT. Assessee by: Shri R.E.Balasubramaniyan, CA. Date of hearing : 05/01/2016 Date of pronouncement: 08/01/2016 O R D E R Per N.V.VASUDEVAN, JM: ITA…

Prb Marketing Pvt. Ltd vs. ITO

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 663/BANG/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Prb Marketing Pvt. Ltd., #192/12-2, 1St ‘C’ Cross, Revenue Layout, 5Th Block, Bsk 3Rd Stage, Bangalore-560085. … Appellant Pan:Aaecp 5655 M Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 12(1), Bangalore. … Respondent Appellant By: Shri S.Venkatesan, Ca. Respondent By: Shri Naresh Saka, Addl.Cit(Dr).

For Appellant: Shri S.Venkatesan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Naresh Saka, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 234Section 40

…ecision dated 15.01.2010 in the case of Poddar Son’s EXL. P Ltd vs. ITO in ITA No. 1418(Kol.)/09 has held that provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act are applicable to even sums paid during the year. In the case of Teja Construction vs. ACIT " reported in 39 SOT 13 the Hon’ble Hyderabad ITAT has decided the issue against the Revenue and has held that provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act are not applicable in respect of sums/amount paid during the year and which are not payable at end of the year on date of balance sheet, as it is applicable only in respect of “Payable amount” shown in balance sheet as o…

A.C.I.T. Cir - 3, Siliguri vs. Nanu Shome, Siliguri

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1743/KOL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, A.M. & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, J.M.)

For Appellant: Ms. Varsha Jalan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kr. Das, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 44A

…e proposition laid down by the Special Bench of ITAT, Visakhapatnam in the case of Merilyn Shipping & Transports –vs- ACIT reported in [2012] 20 taxmann.com 244 and also taking into consideration the case laws in the case of Teja Constructions –vs- CIT [2010] 39 SOT 13, held that the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) is confined to the amount payable as on 31st March of the year and not to the amount already paid during the year. This issue has been decided in favour of the revenue by the Jurisdictional High Court of Calcutta decision in the case of CIT vs Crescent Export Syndicate reported in (2013) 33 taxman…

Sh. Jagdish Prasad Sharma, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes in the manner as indicated above

ITA 209/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N. K. Sainishri Chandra Mohan Garg

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Mehra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Atiq Ahmed, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 40a

…ith the legal issue raised by the petitioner about the two different interpretations arising on applying the provisions contained in section 40a(ia) of the Act as dealt with by the Hon’ble Tribunal in the case of Teja Constructions Vs. ACIT reported in [2010] 39 SOT 13 [Hyd.] [URO] which was then followed in the case of Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd Vs. DCIT [2009] 123 TTJ [JP] 888.” 4. Apropos these grounds, the ld. A.R has also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Victor Shipping Services [P] Ltd reported at 262 CTR 545 [All] and submitted that Special Lea…

Sri. Satish Rajapur, Hospet vs. DCIT, Bellary

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

ITA 425/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Sept 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Jason P. Boaz, Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Gurunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, Jt.CIT(DR)
Section 2Section 32(1)(iia)Section 40a

…ecision dated 15.01.2010 in the case of Poddar Son’s EXL. P Ltd vs. ITO in ITA No. 1418(Kol.)/09 has held that provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act are applicable to even sums paid during the year. " In the case of Teja Construction vs. ACIT reported in 39 SOT 13 the Hon’ble Hyderabad ITAT has decided the issue against the Revenue and has held that provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act are not Page 15 of 18 applicable in respect of sums/amount paid during the year and which are not payable at end of the year on date of balance sheet, as it is applicable only in respect of “Payable amount” shown in bal…

Sri. Anil Kumar Joseph, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed, while the cross objection by the assessee is allowed

ITA 845/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri N. Balakrishnan, JCIT (D.R)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 40

…cision dated 15.01.2010 in the case of Poddar Son’s EXL. P Ltd vs. ITO in ITA No. 1418(Kol.)/09 has held that provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act are applicable to even sums paid during the year. " In the case of Teja Construction vs. ACIT reported in 39 SOT 13 the Hon’ble Hyderabad ITAT has decided the issue against the Revenue and has held that provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act are not applicable in respect of sums/amount paid during the year and which are not payable at end of the year on date of balance sheet, as it is applicable only in respect of “Payable amount” shown in balance sheet as o…