What is Thomas George Muthoot v. CIT authority for?

The second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, introduced by the Finance Act, 2012, applies prospectively and does not have retrospective effect.

How many judgments cite Thomas George Muthoot v. CIT?

44 judgments on BharatTax cite Thomas George Muthoot v. CIT (63 Taxmann.com 99), spanning 2016 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Thomas George Muthoot v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 194C, Section 195, Section 40(a)(ia), Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 197.

Thomas George Muthoot v. CIT (63 Taxmann.com 99)

MUTHOOT FINCORP LIMITED,TRIVANDRUM vs. ITO,CIRCLE CENTRAL, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 496/COCH/2025[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Aug 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 194CSection 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JM ITA Nos. 464, 465 & 496/Coch/2025 Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2013-14 & 2010-11 Muthoot Fincorp Limited .......... Appellant Miuthoot Centre, Thiruvananthapuram 695001 [PAN: AACCM1453E] vs. JCIT, Special Range, Thiruvananthapuram ......... Respondent Assessee by: Shri R. Krishnan, CA Revenue by: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 19.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 22.08.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, AM These are appeals filed by the assessee against different orders of Commissioner of…

MUTHOOT FINCORP LIMITED,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 465/COCH/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Aug 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 194CSection 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JM ITA Nos. 464, 465 & 496/Coch/2025 Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2013-14 & 2010-11 Muthoot Fincorp Limited .......... Appellant Miuthoot Centre, Thiruvananthapuram 695001 [PAN: AACCM1453E] vs. JCIT, Special Range, Thiruvananthapuram ......... Respondent Assessee by: Shri R. Krishnan, CA Revenue by: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 19.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 22.08.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, AM These are appeals filed by the assessee against different orders of Commissioner of…

MUTHOOT FINCORP LIMITED,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 464/COCH/2025[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Aug 2025AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 194CSection 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JM ITA Nos. 464, 465 & 496/Coch/2025 Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2013-14 & 2010-11 Muthoot Fincorp Limited .......... Appellant Miuthoot Centre, Thiruvananthapuram 695001 [PAN: AACCM1453E] vs. JCIT, Special Range, Thiruvananthapuram ......... Respondent Assessee by: Shri R. Krishnan, CA Revenue by: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 19.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 22.08.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, AM These are appeals filed by the assessee against different orders of Commissioner of…

THOMAS JOHN MUTHOOT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1 , THIRUVALLA, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 896/COCH/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Oct 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Thomas John Muthoot Dcit, Circle - 1 Muthoot Centre, Punnen Road Thiruvalla Vs. Thiruvananthapuram 695001 [Pan: Abnpt4694B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Srinivasan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das

Section 194ASection 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member and Shri Soundararajan K., Judicial Member Thomas John Muthoot DCIT, Circle - 1 Muthoot Centre, Punnen Road Thiruvalla vs. Thiruvananthapuram 695001 [PAN: ABNPT4694B] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Srinivasan, CA Respondent by: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das Date of Hearing: 01.10.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 21.10.2024 O R D E R Per Bench This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 20.11.2023 for Assessment Year (AY) 2008-09. 2…

AHLERS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORP CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

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

ITA 524/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 524/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Ahlers India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner No.39, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Of Income Tax,, The Trapezium, Corporate Circle 1(1), Nelson Manickam Road, Chennai. Aminjikarai, Chennai – 600 029. Pan: Aaeca 5688H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1059291012 (1) Dated 02.01.2024. The Assessment Was Framed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Company Circle 1(1), Chennai For The Assessment Year 2010-11 U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Order Dated 16.02.2016. The Impugned Giving Effect To The Order Of The Tribunal Was Framed By The Dcit, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai Vide Order Dated 22.08.2017. 2. The Only Issue In This Appeal Of Assessee Is Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Nfac Confirming The Action Of The Ao In Disallowing Expenses Paid To Various Non-Resident Parties For Non-Deduction Of Tds By Invoking The Provisions Of Section 40(A)(I) Of The Act Amounting To Rs.2,26,73,426/-. This Is The Only Limited Issue On Merits But Assessee Has Raised Various Other Issues Of Proper Opportunity Etc., Which Will Be Dealt With Later.

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT

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

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ,चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "सह, उपा"य" एवं "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 524/CHNY/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Ahlers India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner No.39, 2nd Floor, Vs. of Income Tax,, The Trapezium, Corporate Circle 1(1), Nelson Manickam Road, Chennai. Aminjikarai, Chennai – 600 029. PAN: AAECA 5688H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri Vikram Vijayarag…

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. VIZAG SEAPORT PVT. LTD., VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 383/VIZ/2017[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam12 Apr 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon‟Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon‟Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 383/Viz/2017 (धनधाारणिर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2012-13) The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Vizag Seaport Pvt Ltd., Income Tax, Administrative Block, Circle-5(1), S4 Gallery, Port Area, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam – 530035. (अपीलाथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) [Pan :Aabcv2484K] अपीलाथी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri Fenil A Bhatt, Ar प्रत्याथी की ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुनिाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15/02/2024 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of : /04/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Pers. Balakrishnan:

For Appellant: Sri Fenil A Bhatt, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 194JSection 36(1)(iii)Section 40

…आयकर अपीलीय अधधकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री दुव्िूरु आर एल रेड्डी, न्याधयक सदस्य एिं श्री एस बालाकृष्णन, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, HON‟BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON‟BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 383/Viz/2017 (धनधाारणिर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2012-13) The Assistant Commissioner of Vs. M/s. Vizag Seaport Pvt Ltd., Income Tax, Administrative Block, Circle-5(1), S4 Gallery, Port Area, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam – 530035. (अपीलाथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Res…

HI-LITE BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOZHIKODE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 620/COCH/2022[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Jan 2023AY 2009-2010

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Mr. Shameem Ahamed, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH : COCHIN BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S., ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2009-10 Hi-Lite Builders Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner G-1003, Hi-lite Business Park, of Income Tax, Hi-lite City, G.A. College P.O., Central Circle 1, Thondayad Bypass, Kozhikode. Kozhikode – 673 014. PAN : AABCH 3734L APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Mr. Shameem Ahamed, Advocate Revenue by : Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR Date of hearing : 11.01.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 20.01.2023 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, Accountant Member: This appeal is ag…

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER िनधा"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 th…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(1) ), RAIPUR vs. SHRI SANTOSH JAIN, RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is Dismissed

ITA 43/RPR/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. Ita No.43/Rpr/2020 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Dcit, Circle 3(1), Shri Santosh Jain Raipur Vs Prop. M/S. Arihant Mining Co., Raipur. Pan: Acmpj 5971 B Appellant/Revenue Respondent /Assessee Applicant By None Respondent By Shri G.N. Singh Date Of Hearing 02/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 12/12/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-I, Raipur, Dated 22.11.2019For Assessment Year 2008-09Emanating From The Assessment Order Dated 29.09.2015 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of 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 By Adjudicating The Issue Of Retrospective Applicability Of The Second Proviso 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 Ignoring The Fact That The Order Of The Ao Was Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue In The Light Of The Fact The Ao Did Not Examine The Issue Of Non Deduction Of Tax At Source & Applicability Of Provision U/S 40(A)(Ia) Of The I. T. Act?

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 194ASection 263Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. ITA No.43/RPR/2020 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 DCIT, Circle 3(1), Shri Santosh Jain Raipur Vs Prop. M/s. Arihant Mining Co., Raipur. PAN: ACMPJ 5971 B Appellant/Revenue Respondent /Assessee Applicant by None Respondent by Shri G.N. Singh Date of hearing 02/11/2022 Date of pronouncement 12/12/2022 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-I, Raipur, dated 22.11.…

M/S.US TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 136/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, J.M & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, A.M

For Appellant: Shri Rajakannan (Advocate)- Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajasekhar (CIT) – Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…apply to such payments. The alternative plea seeking benefit of second proviso to Sec.40(a)(ia) was dismsised by Ld. CIT(A) on the ground that the proviso would be prospective in nature as held by Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in Thomas George Muthoot vs. CIT (63 Taxmann.com 99). Therefore, the benefit of the same would not be available in AY 2010-11. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 3.3 We find that the findings of Ld. CIT(A) remain uncontroverted before us. The Tribunal, in its order for AYs 2011-12 & 2012-13 held that the assessee was obligated to deduct TDS on such payments. The alternat…

ACIT, CC - 1 (2),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. STUDIO GREEN,, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross

ITA 2427/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2427/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 & C.O. No. 99/Chny/2019 [In I.T.A. No. 2427/Chny/2019] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Studio Green, Income Tax, Central Circle 1(2), Vs. Old No. 13, New No. 6, Ii Floor, Investigation Wing, Room No. 311, 6, Thanikachalam Road, No. 46, Mg Road, Chennai. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan: Absfs6433Q] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri S. Bharath, Cit : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri V. Vivek Rajan, C.A. : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 18.08.2021 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 18, Chennai, Dated 26.06.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Only Issue Involved In The Appeal Of The Revenue Is Relating To Whether The Second Proviso Section 40(A)(Ia) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Applies Retrospectively Or Only Prospective From The Date Of 2

Section 194CSection 194JSection 201Section 40

…ld. CIT(A) has held that the applicability of second proviso introduced through Finance Act, 2012 is only prospective in nature and has no retrospective effect by following the judgement of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Thomas George Muthoot v. CIT 287 CTR 101. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has relied on the judgement in the case of CIT v. Calcutta Export Company [2018] 93 taxmann.com 51 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2010 to provisions of section 40(a)(ia) is curative in nature and it should be given retrospective operation from date of…

MANIMEGALAI GANESAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORP RANGE 10, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in I

ITA 1331/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1328, 1329, 1330 & 1331/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Smt. Manimegalai Ganesan, The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 1, Millers Road, Kilpauk, Vs. Income Tax, Chennai 600 010. Non Corporate Range 10, [Pan: Aaepm4356K] Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri C. Subramanian, C.A. : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Ms. R. Anita, Jcit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 15.07.2021 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 12, Chennai, All Dated 21.03.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised Following Common Grounds For Adjudication: 1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12 In Confirming The Additions Is Against The Weight Of Evidence & Probabilities Of The Case. 2. Ground 1-Disallowance Of Commission Paid To Dr.S.P.Ganesan

Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40aSection 69C

…ld. CIT(A) has held that the applicability of second proviso introduced through Finance Act, 2012 is only prospective in nature and has no retrospective effect by following the judgement of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Thomas George Muthoot v. CIT 287 CTR 101. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has relied on the judgement in the case of CIT v. Calcutta Export Company [2018] 93 taxmann.com 51 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2010 to provisions of section 40(a)(ia) is curative in nature and it should be given retrospective operation from date of…

MANIMEGALAI GANESAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORP RANGE 10, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in I

ITA 1330/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1328, 1329, 1330 & 1331/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Smt. Manimegalai Ganesan, The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 1, Millers Road, Kilpauk, Vs. Income Tax, Chennai 600 010. Non Corporate Range 10, [Pan: Aaepm4356K] Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri C. Subramanian, C.A. : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Ms. R. Anita, Jcit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 15.07.2021 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 12, Chennai, All Dated 21.03.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised Following Common Grounds For Adjudication: 1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12 In Confirming The Additions Is Against The Weight Of Evidence & Probabilities Of The Case. 2. Ground 1-Disallowance Of Commission Paid To Dr.S.P.Ganesan

Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40aSection 69C

…ld. CIT(A) has held that the applicability of second proviso introduced through Finance Act, 2012 is only prospective in nature and has no retrospective effect by following the judgement of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Thomas George Muthoot v. CIT 287 CTR 101. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has relied on the judgement in the case of CIT v. Calcutta Export Company [2018] 93 taxmann.com 51 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2010 to provisions of section 40(a)(ia) is curative in nature and it should be given retrospective operation from date of…

MANIMEGALAI GANESAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORP RANGE 10, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in I

ITA 1329/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1328, 1329, 1330 & 1331/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Smt. Manimegalai Ganesan, The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 1, Millers Road, Kilpauk, Vs. Income Tax, Chennai 600 010. Non Corporate Range 10, [Pan: Aaepm4356K] Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri C. Subramanian, C.A. : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Ms. R. Anita, Jcit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 15.07.2021 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 12, Chennai, All Dated 21.03.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised Following Common Grounds For Adjudication: 1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12 In Confirming The Additions Is Against The Weight Of Evidence & Probabilities Of The Case. 2. Ground 1-Disallowance Of Commission Paid To Dr.S.P.Ganesan

Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40aSection 69C

…ld. CIT(A) has held that the applicability of second proviso introduced through Finance Act, 2012 is only prospective in nature and has no retrospective effect by following the judgement of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Thomas George Muthoot v. CIT 287 CTR 101. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has relied on the judgement in the case of CIT v. Calcutta Export Company [2018] 93 taxmann.com 51 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2010 to provisions of section 40(a)(ia) is curative in nature and it should be given retrospective operation from date of…

MANIMEGALAI GANESAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORP RANGE 10, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in I

ITA 1328/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1328, 1329, 1330 & 1331/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Smt. Manimegalai Ganesan, The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 1, Millers Road, Kilpauk, Vs. Income Tax, Chennai 600 010. Non Corporate Range 10, [Pan: Aaepm4356K] Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri C. Subramanian, C.A. : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Ms. R. Anita, Jcit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 15.07.2021 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 12, Chennai, All Dated 21.03.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised Following Common Grounds For Adjudication: 1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12 In Confirming The Additions Is Against The Weight Of Evidence & Probabilities Of The Case. 2. Ground 1-Disallowance Of Commission Paid To Dr.S.P.Ganesan

Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40aSection 69C

…ld. CIT(A) has held that the applicability of second proviso introduced through Finance Act, 2012 is only prospective in nature and has no retrospective effect by following the judgement of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Thomas George Muthoot v. CIT 287 CTR 101. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has relied on the judgement in the case of CIT v. Calcutta Export Company [2018] 93 taxmann.com 51 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2010 to provisions of section 40(a)(ia) is curative in nature and it should be given retrospective operation from date of…

ITO, WARD-3(2), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. R.K. INFRA & ENGINEERING (INDIA) PVT.LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue and the CO of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1227/HYD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Nilanjan DeyFor Respondent: Shri Pawan Kumar

Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX A PPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH ‘B', HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1227/Hyd/2016 and CO No. 74/Hyd/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income-tax Officer, vs. R.K. Infra & Engg. (India) Ward – 3(2), Hyderabad. P. Ltd., Hyderabad. PAN – AADCR 9570Q Appellant Respondent/Cross Objector Assessee by: Shri Nilanjan Dey Revenue by: Shri Pawan Kumar Chakrapani Date of hearing: 19/08/2019 Date of pronouncement: 05/09/2019 O R D E R PER SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M. This is an appeal of the assessee for the AY 2012-13 against the or…

A.SENTHIL KUMAR,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 776/CHNY/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.776/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Arjunraj, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Hari Govind, JCIT

Section 153CSection 40

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’सी’ / एस एम सी "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ SMC BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य केसम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.776/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 Shri A. Senthil Kumar, The Deputy Commissioner of 107-A, Sengupta Street, v. Income Tax, Ramnagar, Coimbatore – 641 009. Corporate Circle – 2, Coimbatore. PAN : ATRPS 9670 A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri Arjunraj, CA For Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Shri K. Hari Govind, J…

M/S.MAGNUM BUILDTECH,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE DCIT, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 317/COCH/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 May 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 40

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE S/SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, AM & GEORGE GEORGE K., JM I.T.A. No. 317/Coch/2018 Assessment Year : 2006-07 Magnum Buildtech, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of XII/358, Ezhupunna, Income-tax, Circle-1, Alappuzha. Alleppey-688 548. [PAN: AAMFM 1609H] (Assessee-Appellant) (Revenue-Respondent) Assessee by Shri Raja Kannan, Adv. Revenue by Smt. A.S. Bindhu, Sr. DR Date of hearing 14/05/2019 Date of pronouncement 15/05/2019 O R D E R Per CHANDRA POOJARI, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A), Kotta…

IFC UNIVERSAL EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-8(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 4661/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4661/Mum/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2011-12) बनधम/ M/S. Ifc Universal Ito 8(2)(1) Room No. 477, Aayakar Express Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, 11, Adeshwar Arcade, Mumbai-400020. Andheri-Kurla Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabci8524P (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri Abirama Kartikiyen (Dr) Assessee By: Shri M. Subramanian (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05.03.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/04/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 03.03.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-17, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2011- 12. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Commissioner Of Income Lax (Appeals) Erred In Not Deleting Disallowance Of Expenses On Payments Of Freight Made To Jet Airways (India)Ltd Rs.7.15.765/- & To Kingfisher Airlines Ltd Rs.50,38,699/- U/S 40(A)(Ia) Of The Income Tax Act. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Not Appreciating The Submissions Tiled By The Appellant, That The Introduction To Proviso To Section 201(I)Is Explanatory/Clarificatory & Therefore Should Apply Retrospectively & Therefore Payments Of Freight Without Tds

For Appellant: Shri M. Subramanian (AR)For Respondent: Shri Abirama Kartikiyen (DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 201Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4661/Mum/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2011-12) बनधम/ M/s. IFC Universal ITO 8(2)(1) Room No. 477, Aayakar Express Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, 11, Adeshwar Arcade, Mumbai-400020. Andheri-Kurla Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AABCI8524P (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue by: Shri Abirama Kartikiyen (DR) Assessee by: Shri M. Subramanian (AR) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing: 05.03.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /…

ANJALI PUSHKAR HINGANE,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(3),, NASHIK

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

ITA 2837/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.2837/Pun/2017 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 Anjali Pushkar Hingane, Prop. M/S Areen Petroleum Services, Saikheda Phata, At Post Chandori, Taluka- Niphad, Dist. Nashik. अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan : Abiph8603F …. Vs. Ito, Ward- 1(3), …. ""यथ"/ Respondent Nashik.

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawli

Section 194A

…आयकरअपील"यअ"धकरण, पुणे"यायपीठ “एक-सद"यमामला” पुणेम" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE "ीडी. क"णाकराराव, लेखासद"यकेसम" BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA No.2837/PUN/2017 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 Anjali Pushkar Hingane, Prop. M/s Areen Petroleum Services, Saikheda Phata, At Post Chandori, Taluka- Niphad, Dist. Nashik. अपीलाथ"/Appellant PAN : ABIPH8603F …. Vs. ITO, Ward- 1(3), …. ""यथ"/ Respondent Nashik. अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri Sanket Joshi ""यथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent by : Shri Rajesh Gawli सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ घोषणाक"तार"ख/ घोषणाक"तार"ख/ Da…

Thomas George Muthoot v. CIT

What is Thomas George Muthoot v. CIT authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Thomas George Muthoot v. CIT

MUTHOOT FINCORP LIMITED,TRIVANDRUM vs. ITO,CIRCLE CENTRAL, TRIVANDRUM

MUTHOOT FINCORP LIMITED,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

MUTHOOT FINCORP LIMITED,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

THOMAS JOHN MUTHOOT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1 , THIRUVALLA, TRIVANDRUM

AHLERS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORP CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. VIZAG SEAPORT PVT. LTD., VISAKHAPATNAM

HI-LITE BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOZHIKODE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(1) ), RAIPUR vs. SHRI SANTOSH JAIN, RAIPUR

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(1) ), RAIPUR vs. SHRI SANTOSH JAIN, RAIPUR

M/S.US TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

ACIT, CC - 1 (2),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. STUDIO GREEN,, CHENNAI

MANIMEGALAI GANESAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORP RANGE 10, CHENNAI

MANIMEGALAI GANESAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORP RANGE 10, CHENNAI

MANIMEGALAI GANESAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORP RANGE 10, CHENNAI

MANIMEGALAI GANESAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORP RANGE 10, CHENNAI

ITO, WARD-3(2), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. R.K. INFRA & ENGINEERING (INDIA) PVT.LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

A.SENTHIL KUMAR,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

M/S.MAGNUM BUILDTECH,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE DCIT, ALAPPUZHA

IFC UNIVERSAL EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-8(2)(1), MUMBAI

ANJALI PUSHKAR HINGANE,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(3),, NASHIK