Tube Investments of India Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax (TDS)

325 ITR 610High Court2010#6461 most cited
18

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2023.

Judgments citing Tube Investments of India Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax (TDS)

ALSTOM T & D INDIA LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2094/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2093 & 2094/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 Alstom T&D India Limited, The Dcit / Ito (Tds), (Previously Areva T&D India V. Ltu, Limited) Chennai. 19/1, I.O.C, Gst Road, Pallavaram, Chennai – 600 062. [Pan: Aaacg-2115-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Tushar Jarwal, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri. P. Divahar, CIT
Section 143(3)

…disallowance u/s. 40(a)(i) of the Act, in the order u/s. 143(3) of the Act stands on different coatings. He further submitted the ld. CIT(A) ought to have relied on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Tube Investments of India Ltd vs ACIT 325 ITR 610, wherein, it was held that provisions of Chapter XVIIB are forms of recovery of tax by way of TDS at the point where the payment is made or credited to a third party in the event of failure to deduct tax at source, section 201 automatically comes into play. The ld. DR, further submitted that the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the demand without app…

ALSTOM T & D INDIA LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2093/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2093 & 2094/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 Alstom T&D India Limited, The Dcit / Ito (Tds), (Previously Areva T&D India V. Ltu, Limited) Chennai. 19/1, I.O.C, Gst Road, Pallavaram, Chennai – 600 062. [Pan: Aaacg-2115-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Tushar Jarwal, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri. P. Divahar, CIT
Section 143(3)

…disallowance u/s. 40(a)(i) of the Act, in the order u/s. 143(3) of the Act stands on different coatings. He further submitted the ld. CIT(A) ought to have relied on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Tube Investments of India Ltd vs ACIT 325 ITR 610, wherein, it was held that provisions of Chapter XVIIB are forms of recovery of tax by way of TDS at the point where the payment is made or credited to a third party in the event of failure to deduct tax at source, section 201 automatically comes into play. The ld. DR, further submitted that the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the demand without app…

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. AREVA T & D INDIA LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2082/CHNY/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Nov 2023AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2093 & 2094/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 Alstom T&D India Limited, The Dcit / Ito (Tds), (Previously Areva T&D India V. Ltu, Limited) Chennai. 19/1, I.O.C, Gst Road, Pallavaram, Chennai – 600 062. [Pan: Aaacg-2115-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Tushar Jarwal, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri. P. Divahar, CIT
Section 143(3)

…disallowance u/s. 40(a)(i) of the Act, in the order u/s. 143(3) of the Act stands on different coatings. He further submitted the ld. CIT(A) ought to have relied on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Tube Investments of India Ltd vs ACIT 325 ITR 610, wherein, it was held that provisions of Chapter XVIIB are forms of recovery of tax by way of TDS at the point where the payment is made or credited to a third party in the event of failure to deduct tax at source, section 201 automatically comes into play. The ld. DR, further submitted that the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the demand without app…

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. AREVA T & D INDIA LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2081/CHNY/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Nov 2023AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2093 & 2094/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 Alstom T&D India Limited, The Dcit / Ito (Tds), (Previously Areva T&D India V. Ltu, Limited) Chennai. 19/1, I.O.C, Gst Road, Pallavaram, Chennai – 600 062. [Pan: Aaacg-2115-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Tushar Jarwal, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri. P. Divahar, CIT
Section 143(3)

…disallowance u/s. 40(a)(i) of the Act, in the order u/s. 143(3) of the Act stands on different coatings. He further submitted the ld. CIT(A) ought to have relied on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Tube Investments of India Ltd vs ACIT 325 ITR 610, wherein, it was held that provisions of Chapter XVIIB are forms of recovery of tax by way of TDS at the point where the payment is made or credited to a third party in the event of failure to deduct tax at source, section 201 automatically comes into play. The ld. DR, further submitted that the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the demand without app…

SHRI KAALI TEXTILE,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 12(4), CHENNAI

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

ITA 993/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.993/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr.G.Johnson, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 200Section 40

…ed in [2015] 374 ITR 562 (P&H), the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT v. Crescent Export Syndicate reported in [2013] 1 ITR-OL 1 (Cal), the Hon’ble High Madras Court in the case of Tube Investments of India Ltd. v. ACIT reported in (TDS) [2010] 325 ITR 610 (Mad) and also by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s.Palam Gas Service v.CIT reported in (2017) 394 ITR 300, wherein, it has been held in Para Nos.10-17 as under: 10. As per Section 194C, it is the statutory obligation of a person, who is making payment to the sub-contractor, to deduct tax at source at the rates specif…

M/S. BALASORE CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD.,BALASORE vs. ACIT, BALASORE CIRCLE, BALASORE

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

ITA 467/CTK/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack07 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.467/Ctk/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) M/S Balasore Cooperative Bank Vs. Acit, Balasore Circle, Limited, Balasore Bibekananda Marg, Balasore-756001 Pan No. : Aaccb 7823 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.N.Sahu/Somnath Sahoo,Advs राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 13/08/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12/10/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A), Cuttack, Dated 04.08.2017, For The Assessment Year 2012-2013, On The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- 1) That The Order Of The Id. Cit(Appeals) Confirming The Additions & Disallowances Made By The A.O. Is Illegal, Arbitrary, Unjustified & Not In Accordance With Law. 2) That The Addition Of Rs. 36,79,148/- U/S. 40(A)(Ia) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Confirmed By Cit(Appeals) To The Extent Of Rs. 36,30,998/- Is Illegal, Arbitrary, Uncalled For & Not In Accordance With Law & The Same Should Have Been Deleted By The Learned Cit(Appeals). 3) That The Disallowance U/S 40(A)(Ia) Of Rs. 36,79,148/- As Detailed Below Is Illegal, Arbitrary & Unjustified & Hence Should Have Been Deleted By The Learned Cit(A) As The Genuineness Is Not In Doubt. Non-Deduction Of Tds Is A Separate Issue. A) Commission Payment To Dlds Collection Agents Rs. 33,45,248/- B) Legal Expenses Rs. 2,52,000/- C) Audit Fees Rs. 81,900/-

For Appellant: Shri S.N.Sahu/Somnath Sahoo,AdvsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 36Section 40Section 43B

…at the time of credit in the account of payee or at the time of payment to payee, whichever is earlier.' Ms. Dhugga invited our attention to a judgment of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Tube Investments of India Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (TDS) [2010] 325 ITR 610 (Mad). The Division Bench referred to the statistics placed before it by the Department which disclosed that TDS collection had augmented the revenue. The gross collection of advance tax, surcharge, etc. was Rs. 2,75,857.70 crores in the financial year 2008-09 of which the TDS component alone constituted Rs. 1,30,470.80 crores. The Division Bench…

SHREE CHOUDHARY TRANSPORT CO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

C.A. No.-007865-007865 - 2009Supreme Court29 Jul 2020

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

Section 40

…the time of credit in the account of payee or at the time of payment to payee, whichever is earlier.’ Ms. Dhugga invited our attention to a judgment of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Tube Investments of India Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (TDS) [2010] 325 ITR 610 (Mad). The Division Bench referred to 37 the statistics placed before it by the Department which disclosed that TDS collection had augmented the revenue. The gross collection of advance tax, surcharge, etc. was Rs 2,75,857.70 crores in the financial year 2008-09 of which the TDS component alone constituted Rs 1,30,470.80 cror…

SH. SUDESH SABHARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1086/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri 0.P. Kantassessment Year: 2007-08 Shri Sudesh Sabharwal, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 57A, Central Avenue, Sainik Ward-22(1), New Delhi Farm, New Delhi Pan :Aatps3269A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri A.K. Srivastava, Ca Respondent By Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr.Dr

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: “G”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI 0.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2007-08 Shri Sudesh Sabharwal, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 57A, Central Avenue, Sainik Ward-22(1), New Delhi Farm, New Delhi PAN :AATPS3269A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri A.K. Srivastava, CA Respondent by Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr.DR Date of hearing 21.01.2019 Date of pronouncement 30.01.2019 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: The present appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A)-XXIII, New Delhi, dated 06.01.2012 raising the followi…

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. ESKAY DESIGNS, CHENNAI

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

ITA 247/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I T.A. No. 247/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Eskay Designs, No. 25, 1St Street, Cenotaph Road, Income Tax, Non-Corporate Circle 3, Vs. 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aaafe1480C] (Appellant) (Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Mrs. S. Vijayaprabha, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K. Ravi, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 07.02.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 4, Chennai Dated 31.10.2016 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13. The First Issue Raised In The Appeal Of The Revenue Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Directing To Assess The Rental Income Received By The Assessee On Sub-Letting Of Its Leased Out Properties Under The Head “Income From House Property” & The Second Issue Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Directing To Allow The Expenses If They Are Paid As On 2

For Appellant: Mrs. S. Vijayaprabha, JCITFor Respondent: Shri K. Ravi, Advocate
Section 27Section 40

…e account of payee or at the time of payment to payee, whichever is earlier.” 15. Ms. Dhugga invited our attention to a judgment of the Division Bench of Madras High Court in Tube Investments of India Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax (TDS), [2010] 325 ITR 610 (Mad). The Division Bench referred to the statistics placed before it by the Department which disclosed that TDS collection had augmented the revenue. The gross collection of advance tax, surcharge, etc. was Rs. 2,75,857.70 crores in the financial year 2008-09 of which the TDS component alone constituted Rs. 1,30,470.80 crores. The Division Bench…

SHYAM APPARELS P.LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

ITA 549/JPR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Nov 2017AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma, (Addl.CIT)
Section 201Section 40Section 40A(3)

…d., (2013) 262 CTR (All) 545, V.M. Salgaocar & Bros. (P) Ltd., etc. vs. CIT, etc. (2000) 243 ITR 383 (SC), ACIT vs. Merilyn Shipping & Transporters 136 ITD 23 (SB) (Vishakhapatnam), Tube Investments of India Ltd. and another vs. ACIT, (TDS) and others, (2010) 325 ITR 610 (Mad)held that: “The provisions of section 40(a) (ia) of the Income Tax Act 1961, are applicable not only to the amount which is shown as payable on the date of balance sheet but it is applicable to such expenditure, which become payable at any time during the relevant previous year and was actually paid within the previous year. In the result t…

ITO, JAIPUR vs. SHYAM APPARELS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

ITA 497/JPR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Nov 2017AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma, (Addl.CIT)
Section 201Section 40Section 40A(3)

…d., (2013) 262 CTR (All) 545, V.M. Salgaocar & Bros. (P) Ltd., etc. vs. CIT, etc. (2000) 243 ITR 383 (SC), ACIT vs. Merilyn Shipping & Transporters 136 ITD 23 (SB) (Vishakhapatnam), Tube Investments of India Ltd. and another vs. ACIT, (TDS) and others, (2010) 325 ITR 610 (Mad)held that: “The provisions of section 40(a) (ia) of the Income Tax Act 1961, are applicable not only to the amount which is shown as payable on the date of balance sheet but it is applicable to such expenditure, which become payable at any time during the relevant previous year and was actually paid within the previous year. In the result t…

KRISHNAMURTHY SRINIVASAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

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

ITA 3396/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jul 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.3396/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Shri Krishnamurthy Srinivasan, The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 1C, Vanagaram Road, Athipet, Vs. Income Tax, Ambattur Industrial Estate, Ambattur, Non Corporate Circle 7(1), Chennai 600 058. Chennai. [Pan:Bbkps4428J] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Mohamed Mustafa, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.05.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2017 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 7, Chennai, Dated 17.10.2016 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Only Effective Ground Raised By The Assessee Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of ₹.75,66,470/- Made Under Section 40(A)(Ia) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Mohamed Mustafa, JCIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194Section 201(1)Section 40Section 44A

…e account of payee or at the time of payment to payee, whichever is earlier.” 15. Ms. Dhugga invited our attention to a judgment of the Division Bench of Madras High Court in Tube Investments of India Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax (TDS), [2010] 325 ITR 610 (Mad). The Division Bench referred to the statistics placed before it by the Department which disclosed that TDS collection had augmented the revenue. The gross collection of advance tax, surcharge, etc. was Rs. 2,75,857.70 crores in the financial year 2008- 09 of which the TDS component alone constituted Rs. 1,30,470.80 crores. The Division Benc…

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. GREEN HOUSE PROMOTERS PRIVATE LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 1828/CHNY/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jun 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 1785, 1796 & 1828/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2010-11, 2011-12 & 2009-2010. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. Green House Promoters Tax Vs. Pvt. Ltd, Company Circle Ii(1) No.4,Rama Rao Street, Chennai. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan Aaccg 2333B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Supriyo Pal, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. Y. Sridhar, C.A
Section 194CSection 40Section 4U

…il Appeal No.5512 of 2017, dated 03.05.2017 wherein it was held as under:- ‘’15 Ms. Dhugga invited our attention to a judgment of the Division Bench of Madras High Court in Tube Investments of India Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax (TDS), [2010] 325 ITR 610 (Mad). The Division Bench referred to the statistics placed before it by the Department which disclosed that TDS collection had augmented the revenue. The gross collection of advance tax, surcharge, etc. was Rs. 2,75,857.70 crores in the financial year 2008-09 of which the TDS component alone constituted Rs.1,30,470.80 crores. The Division Bench…

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. GREEN HOUSE PROMOTERS PRIVATE LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 1796/CHNY/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jun 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 1785, 1796 & 1828/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2010-11, 2011-12 & 2009-2010. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. Green House Promoters Tax Vs. Pvt. Ltd, Company Circle Ii(1) No.4,Rama Rao Street, Chennai. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan Aaccg 2333B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Supriyo Pal, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. Y. Sridhar, C.A
Section 194CSection 40Section 4U

…il Appeal No.5512 of 2017, dated 03.05.2017 wherein it was held as under:- ‘’15 Ms. Dhugga invited our attention to a judgment of the Division Bench of Madras High Court in Tube Investments of India Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax (TDS), [2010] 325 ITR 610 (Mad). The Division Bench referred to the statistics placed before it by the Department which disclosed that TDS collection had augmented the revenue. The gross collection of advance tax, surcharge, etc. was Rs. 2,75,857.70 crores in the financial year 2008-09 of which the TDS component alone constituted Rs.1,30,470.80 crores. The Division Bench…

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. GREEN HOUSE PROMOTERS P. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 1785/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jun 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 1785, 1796 & 1828/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2010-11, 2011-12 & 2009-2010. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. Green House Promoters Tax Vs. Pvt. Ltd, Company Circle Ii(1) No.4,Rama Rao Street, Chennai. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan Aaccg 2333B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Supriyo Pal, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. Y. Sridhar, C.A
Section 194CSection 40Section 4U

…il Appeal No.5512 of 2017, dated 03.05.2017 wherein it was held as under:- ‘’15 Ms. Dhugga invited our attention to a judgment of the Division Bench of Madras High Court in Tube Investments of India Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax (TDS), [2010] 325 ITR 610 (Mad). The Division Bench referred to the statistics placed before it by the Department which disclosed that TDS collection had augmented the revenue. The gross collection of advance tax, surcharge, etc. was Rs. 2,75,857.70 crores in the financial year 2008-09 of which the TDS component alone constituted Rs.1,30,470.80 crores. The Division Bench…

RECAP ASSOCIATES,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

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

ITA 1359/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jun 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1359/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-2013. Recap Associates, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner No.3A, Iii Floor, 41/17. Of Income Tax, I Avenue, Indira Nagar, Non Corporate Circle 15(1) Adyar, Chennai 600 020. Chennai. [Pan Aakfr 2965H]

For Appellant: Shri. T. Banusekar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. P. Suresh Rao, JCIT
Section 10(26)Section 40

…lam Gas Services vs. CIT, dated 03.05.2017 wherein it was held as under:- ‘’15. Ms. Dhugga invited our attention to a judgment of the Division Bench of Madras High Court in Tube Investments of India Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax (TDS), [2010] 325 ITR 610 (Mad). The Division Bench referred to the statistics placed before it by the Department which disclosed that TDS collection had augmented the revenue. The gross collection of advance tax, surcharge, etc. was Rs. 2,75,857.70 crores in the financial year 2008-09 of which the TDS component alone constituted Rs.1,30,470.80 crores. The Division Bench…

DCIT, MADURAI vs. PENGUIN APPARELS (P) LTD., MADURAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1782/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Dec 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1782/Chny/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Smt. H.Kabila, Jt.CITFor Respondent: Shri R.Srinivasan, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 194Section 40

…as clarified by the tribunal in many a decision, as in the case of Asst. CIT v. Raviraj Relempaadu [2014] 29 ITR (Trib) 387 (Mum), rendered relying on the decision by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in Tube Investments of India Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2010] 325 ITR 610 (Mad). The observation with regard to ‘payable’ in Vector Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra), it stands abundantly clarified therein, does not represent the ratio of the said decision, being in fact merely by way of a passing reference without interpreting the provision, at best an obiter dicta, so that the same cannot be taken to be the view of…

DR. SURENDRAKUMAR G. PATVA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 16(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 4004/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4004/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Dr. Surendrakumar G. Patva Ito-16(3)(3), बनाम/ C/O. Shind & Co., Mumbai 19/146 Anand Nagar, Vakola Bridge, Vs. Santacruz (E), Mumbai-400 055 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Ahjpp 8546 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Smt. Bharati Singh सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 03.11.2015 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 20.11.2015 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 27.02.2015, Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2009- 10 Vide Order Dated 27.12.2011. 2. We Shall Proceed Ground-Wise. The Facts In Relation To Ground 1 Are That The Assessee, A Doctor By Profession, Was During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Bharati Singh
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 68

…)(i) only introduces a timing effect, so that on the deduction of tax and its deposit, the corresponding amount would stand to be allowed as deduction for that year, i.e., the year of deposit/payment (refer: Tube Investments of India Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT [2010] 325 ITR 610 (Mad)). The assessee’s reliance in the case of Merilyn Shipping & Transports (supra) is of little consequence in view of the decisions by the Hon’ble Courts, as in the case of CIT vs. Crescent Export Syndicate [2013] 216 Taxmann 258 (Cal) and CIT vs. Sikandarkhan N. Tunvar [2013] 357 ITR 312 (Guj), overruling Merilyn Shipping & Transports (supra)…