Union of India v. Tata Tea Co Ltd.

398 ITR 260Supreme Court of India2017#3138 most cited

What is Union of India v. Tata Tea Co Ltd. authority for?

Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) is a tax on the profits of the domestic company, not on the shareholder. The Supreme Court's decision in Tata Tea Co. Ltd. did not address the precise nature of DDT as a tax on the company versus the shareholder.

38

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Tata Tea Co Ltd · Union of India v. Tata Tea Co Ltd · 398 ITR 260 · 85 Taxmann.com 346 · SC · Dividend Distribution Tax · DDT · domestic company · tax on profits · shareholder · section 115-O · section 10(34)

Also reported as

85 Taxmann.com 346

Sections most often in play

Section 115-OSection 237Section 139Section 239Section 250Section 154Section 244ASection 10(34)

Issues it is cited on

section 239section 237section 115wasection 115osection 2(43)section 57(i)section 115bbdddtdividend distribution taxdomestic companysection 116section 4(1)

Judgments citing Union of India v. Tata Tea Co Ltd.

Piaggio Vehicles Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. ACIT, Circle 4, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 611/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Siddhesh ChauguleFor Respondent: Smt. Deepa Sanjay Hiray
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “सी” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHREE DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.611/PUN/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Piaggio Vehicles Private Limited, Assistant Commissioner of Sky One Corporate Park, Ground Income Tax, Floor, Survey Number 239/02, Vs. Circle – 4, Pune Near Pune Airport, Pune-411032 PAN : AABCP1225G अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Siddhesh Chaugule Department by : Smt. Deepa Sanjay Hiray Date of hearing : 26-06-2024…

Philips India Ltd, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 341/KOL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jul 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyi.T.A. Nos.338 To 341/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2016-17 To 2019-20 Philips India Ltd ………. Appellant (Pan: Aabcp9487A) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-12(2), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Vishal Jain Ar Appeared For Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 08.07.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: All These Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years (In Short “Ay”) 2016-17 To 2019-20 Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 10.02.2023 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order U/S 237 Of The Act By Acit, Circle-12(2), Kolkata Dated 26.06.2019 (For Ays 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2019-20), 28.06.2019 (For Ay 2018-19) Respectively. Since Grounds Are Common & Facts Are Identical, Except Variance In Amount, We Dispose Of All The Appeals By This Consolidated Order

Section 115Section 237Section 244ASection 250

…ed 8 May 2017 and that the reliance on the aforesaid decision by the Ld. CIT(A) is wholly misplaced. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Tata Tea Co. Ltd 398 ITR 260 (SC) which held that dividend distributed by a company is not impressed with the character of its own income implying that it is an income in the hands of shareholder and thus the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the DOT rate ought to be equal to the rate as applicable in the hands of shareholder. 5. That on the facts of the case and in…

Philips India Ltd, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 340/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyi.T.A. Nos.338 To 341/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2016-17 To 2019-20 Philips India Ltd ………. Appellant (Pan: Aabcp9487A) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-12(2), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Vishal Jain Ar Appeared For Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 08.07.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: All These Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years (In Short “Ay”) 2016-17 To 2019-20 Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 10.02.2023 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order U/S 237 Of The Act By Acit, Circle-12(2), Kolkata Dated 26.06.2019 (For Ays 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2019-20), 28.06.2019 (For Ay 2018-19) Respectively. Since Grounds Are Common & Facts Are Identical, Except Variance In Amount, We Dispose Of All The Appeals By This Consolidated Order

Section 115Section 237Section 244ASection 250

…ed 8 May 2017 and that the reliance on the aforesaid decision by the Ld. CIT(A) is wholly misplaced. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Tata Tea Co. Ltd 398 ITR 260 (SC) which held that dividend distributed by a company is not impressed with the character of its own income implying that it is an income in the hands of shareholder and thus the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the DOT rate ought to be equal to the rate as applicable in the hands of shareholder. 5. That on the facts of the case and in…

Philips India Ltd, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 339/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyi.T.A. Nos.338 To 341/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2016-17 To 2019-20 Philips India Ltd ………. Appellant (Pan: Aabcp9487A) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-12(2), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Vishal Jain Ar Appeared For Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 08.07.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: All These Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years (In Short “Ay”) 2016-17 To 2019-20 Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 10.02.2023 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order U/S 237 Of The Act By Acit, Circle-12(2), Kolkata Dated 26.06.2019 (For Ays 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2019-20), 28.06.2019 (For Ay 2018-19) Respectively. Since Grounds Are Common & Facts Are Identical, Except Variance In Amount, We Dispose Of All The Appeals By This Consolidated Order

Section 115Section 237Section 244ASection 250

…ed 8 May 2017 and that the reliance on the aforesaid decision by the Ld. CIT(A) is wholly misplaced. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Tata Tea Co. Ltd 398 ITR 260 (SC) which held that dividend distributed by a company is not impressed with the character of its own income implying that it is an income in the hands of shareholder and thus the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the DOT rate ought to be equal to the rate as applicable in the hands of shareholder. 5. That on the facts of the case and in…

Philips India Ltd, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 338/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyi.T.A. Nos.338 To 341/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2016-17 To 2019-20 Philips India Ltd ………. Appellant (Pan: Aabcp9487A) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-12(2), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Vishal Jain Ar Appeared For Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 08.07.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: All These Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years (In Short “Ay”) 2016-17 To 2019-20 Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 10.02.2023 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order U/S 237 Of The Act By Acit, Circle-12(2), Kolkata Dated 26.06.2019 (For Ays 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2019-20), 28.06.2019 (For Ay 2018-19) Respectively. Since Grounds Are Common & Facts Are Identical, Except Variance In Amount, We Dispose Of All The Appeals By This Consolidated Order

Section 115Section 237Section 244ASection 250

…ed 8 May 2017 and that the reliance on the aforesaid decision by the Ld. CIT(A) is wholly misplaced. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Tata Tea Co. Ltd 398 ITR 260 (SC) which held that dividend distributed by a company is not impressed with the character of its own income implying that it is an income in the hands of shareholder and thus the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the DOT rate ought to be equal to the rate as applicable in the hands of shareholder. 5. That on the facts of the case and in…

Van Ooord India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 5(3) (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1686/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Van Oord India Pvt Ltd Acit Circle 5(3)(2) 201, 2Nd Floor, Central Aaykar Bhavan, Mk Road, Vs. Plaza, 166 Cst Road, Mumbai- 400020 Kalina, Mumbai- 400098

For Appellant: Shri. Divesh ChawlaFor Respondent: Shri. Ajay Kumar Sharma & Anil Sant
Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “I” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Van Oord India Pvt Ltd ACIT Circle 5(3)(2) 201, 2nd Floor, Central Aaykar Bhavan, MK Road, Vs. Plaza, 166 CST Road, Mumbai- 400020 Kalina, Mumbai- 400098 PAN No. AAACH 5430 J Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri. Divesh Chawla Revenue by : Shri. Ajay Kumar Sharma & Anil Sant Date of Hearing : 16/10/2023 : Date of pronouncement 09/11/2023 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 1608…

DCIT 1(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Blue Dart Express Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 1370/MUM/2022[1370]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2023

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 10(34)Section 143(2)Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “I” BENCH MUMBAI. BEFORE SHRI B R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1370,1371 & 1372/MUM/2022 (AY:2015-16, 2016-17,2017-18) DCIT 1(2) (1) Mumbai, Vs. Blue Dart Express Ltd. Room No. 535, Blue Dart Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, Sahar Airport Road, M.K.Road, Andheri(E), Mumbai- 400020. Mumbai- 400099. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं.PAN/GIR No.AAACB0446L (अपीलाथ"/Applicant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Applicant by Mr.SumenduKumarDash.DR Respondent by None. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 18.05.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement 15.06.2023 ORDER…

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-16(1), New Delhi

ITA 1953/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: FixedITAT Delhi20 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसुं.6997/म ुं/2019(धन.व. 2016-17) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai ...... अपीलाथी/Appellant बनाम Vs. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. 3Rd Floor, The Leela Galleria, Andheri ( East), Mumbai 400 059 ..... प्रधिवादी/Respondent Pan: Aaace-2175-M C.O. No.57/Mum/2019 Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai – 400 059 ...... Cross Objector बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax ...... प्रधिवादी/Respondent Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai.

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, CIT-DR
Section 115

…ision bench did not have any occasion to deal with this judicial precedent from Hon’ble Supreme Court. (b) The stand of the assessee that in the light of the subsequent judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs Tata Tea Co Ltd [(2017) 398 ITR 260 (SC)], one has to proceed on the basis that dividends received by the shareholders are taxed as income in the hands of the shareholders, is simply incorrect. The question which fell for consideration before Hon’ble Supreme Court was whether levy of tax under section 115 O was constitutionally valid or not, and Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that…

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-16(1), New Delhi

ITA 1952/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: FixedITAT Delhi20 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसुं.6997/म ुं/2019(धन.व. 2016-17) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai ...... अपीलाथी/Appellant बनाम Vs. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. 3Rd Floor, The Leela Galleria, Andheri ( East), Mumbai 400 059 ..... प्रधिवादी/Respondent Pan: Aaace-2175-M C.O. No.57/Mum/2019 Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai – 400 059 ...... Cross Objector बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax ...... प्रधिवादी/Respondent Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai.

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, CIT-DR
Section 115

…ision bench did not have any occasion to deal with this judicial precedent from Hon’ble Supreme Court. (b) The stand of the assessee that in the light of the subsequent judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs Tata Tea Co Ltd [(2017) 398 ITR 260 (SC)], one has to proceed on the basis that dividends received by the shareholders are taxed as income in the hands of the shareholders, is simply incorrect. The question which fell for consideration before Hon’ble Supreme Court was whether levy of tax under section 115 O was constitutionally valid or not, and Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that…

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-16(1), New Delhi

ITA 521/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: FixedITAT Delhi20 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसुं.6997/म ुं/2019(धन.व. 2016-17) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai ...... अपीलाथी/Appellant बनाम Vs. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. 3Rd Floor, The Leela Galleria, Andheri ( East), Mumbai 400 059 ..... प्रधिवादी/Respondent Pan: Aaace-2175-M C.O. No.57/Mum/2019 Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai – 400 059 ...... Cross Objector बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax ...... प्रधिवादी/Respondent Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai.

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, CIT-DR
Section 115

…ision bench did not have any occasion to deal with this judicial precedent from Hon’ble Supreme Court. (b) The stand of the assessee that in the light of the subsequent judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs Tata Tea Co Ltd [(2017) 398 ITR 260 (SC)], one has to proceed on the basis that dividends received by the shareholders are taxed as income in the hands of the shareholders, is simply incorrect. The question which fell for consideration before Hon’ble Supreme Court was whether levy of tax under section 115 O was constitutionally valid or not, and Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that…

Maruti Suzuki India Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Spl. Range-6, New Delhi

ITA 8968/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Delhi20 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसुं.6997/म ुं/2019(धन.व. 2016-17) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai ...... अपीलाथी/Appellant बनाम Vs. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. 3Rd Floor, The Leela Galleria, Andheri ( East), Mumbai 400 059 ..... प्रधिवादी/Respondent Pan: Aaace-2175-M C.O. No.57/Mum/2019 Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai – 400 059 ...... Cross Objector बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax ...... प्रधिवादी/Respondent Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai.

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, CIT-DR
Section 115

…ision bench did not have any occasion to deal with this judicial precedent from Hon’ble Supreme Court. (b) The stand of the assessee that in the light of the subsequent judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs Tata Tea Co Ltd [(2017) 398 ITR 260 (SC)], one has to proceed on the basis that dividends received by the shareholders are taxed as income in the hands of the shareholders, is simply incorrect. The question which fell for consideration before Hon’ble Supreme Court was whether levy of tax under section 115 O was constitutionally valid or not, and Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that…

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-16(1), New Delhi

ITA 8009/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Delhi20 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसुं.6997/म ुं/2019(धन.व. 2016-17) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai ...... अपीलाथी/Appellant बनाम Vs. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. 3Rd Floor, The Leela Galleria, Andheri ( East), Mumbai 400 059 ..... प्रधिवादी/Respondent Pan: Aaace-2175-M C.O. No.57/Mum/2019 Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai – 400 059 ...... Cross Objector बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax ...... प्रधिवादी/Respondent Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai.

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, CIT-DR
Section 115

…ision bench did not have any occasion to deal with this judicial precedent from Hon’ble Supreme Court. (b) The stand of the assessee that in the light of the subsequent judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs Tata Tea Co Ltd [(2017) 398 ITR 260 (SC)], one has to proceed on the basis that dividends received by the shareholders are taxed as income in the hands of the shareholders, is simply incorrect. The question which fell for consideration before Hon’ble Supreme Court was whether levy of tax under section 115 O was constitutionally valid or not, and Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that…

A.C.Paul Agricultural Co. Pvt. Ltd., Siliguri vs. D.C.I.T., Cir-1, Kolkata, Siliguri

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2469/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 2469/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 A.C. Paul Agricultural Co. Pvt. D.C.I.T., Cir-I, Siliguri Ltd. Vs ‘Arjun Bhawan’ 177, Hill Cart Road Siliguri Darjeeling - 734001 [Pan : Aacca5650M] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19/01/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/02/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Rajpal Yadav: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - Siliguri, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 19/09/2019, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’), For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Before Taking Cognizance Of The Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee In Seriatim, We Deem It Proper To Take Note Of The Brief Background. The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In Tea Plantation & Manufacturing Of Tea. It Has Filed Its Return Of Income On 28/09/2013 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.96,04,272/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Assessment & A Notice U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Was Issued & Served Upon The Assessee. The Ld. Assessing Officer Has Passed Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 18/03/2016. The Assessing Officer Has Made Certain

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 250Section 37Section 40Section 40a

…e appellant and the Hon'ble High Court had held that only 40% of those incomes/receipts were liable to income tax. Remaining 60% was agricultural income. Same view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI vs. Tata Tea Co. Ltd. (2017) 398 ITR 260(SC). Hence the Ld. AO had erred in treating the entire addition of Rs. 7,59,815/- as the income chargeable to income tax instead of considering only 40% of the same. When the addition is made, that becomes the income of the assessee. As the entire additions were resulted to composite income your honour is requested to restrict only the additions…

DCIT, Circle-10(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Indian Oil Petronas (P) Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1885/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey)

Section 250Section 32(1)(iiia)Section 80

…al to the assessee, would be applicable over the rate specified in section 115-O of the Act. 8.7. We now consider the principles emanating from Supreme Court ruling in the case of Tata Tea Limited. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tata Tea reported in 398 ITR 260 (SC) has overruled the relevant decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court and held that DDT is leviable on the entire amount of dividend, even if it is distributed partly out of agricultural income. Following points emerge on an analysis of the Supreme Court ruling. The Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to its earlier decision in the case of Bacha…

D.C.I.T., Circle-10(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Indian Oil Petronas Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1884/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey)

Section 250Section 32(1)(iiia)Section 80

…al to the assessee, would be applicable over the rate specified in section 115-O of the Act. 8.7. We now consider the principles emanating from Supreme Court ruling in the case of Tata Tea Limited. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tata Tea reported in 398 ITR 260 (SC) has overruled the relevant decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court and held that DDT is leviable on the entire amount of dividend, even if it is distributed partly out of agricultural income. Following points emerge on an analysis of the Supreme Court ruling. The Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to its earlier decision in the case of Bacha…

Itd Cementation India Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT- 14(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 5869/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Us For Which Necessary Endorsement Was Made By Him In Our Files. Accordingly, The Ground No.4 Is Dismissed As Not Pressed For Both The Years.

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ndeed admitted the said additional ground by understanding the justification given by the assessee that the additional ground was raised in the light of decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Tata Tea Company Ltd., reported in 85 Taxmann.com 346 on 20/09/2017 wherein it was decided that the tax u/s.115 O of the Act is a tax on dividend. The operative portion of the said decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in IT(TP)A No.720/Mum/2012 dated 11/11/2019 is reproduced hereunder:- “27. Now, turning to the additional ground, for admission thereof, it has been contended by…

Van Oord India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 5(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 720/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: S/Shri Nishant Thakkar, RishiFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit, D.R
Section 115VSection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 28Section 43CSection 92Section 92(1)Section 92CSection 92C(4)Section 92E

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI. A. D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No.720/MUM/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Van Oord India Private Limited v. Dy. CIT 201, 2nd Floor, Central Plaza Range 5(3) 166, C.S.T. Road Mumbai Mumbai TAN/PAN:AAACH5430J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: S/Shri Nishant Thakkar, Rishi Kapadia, Hiten Chande, Jairajesh Nadar and Bhakti Maru, A.Rs Revenue by: Shri Rajeev Harit, D.R. Date of hearing: 26 09 2019 Date of pronouncement: 11 11 2019 O R D E R PER A. D. JAIN, V.P.: This is assessee’s appeal agains…

ACIT 1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Deegee Orchards P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4618/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 143(3)

…ting the order of the AO submitted that sales-tax subsidy received from state government is revenue in nature and was taxable as profits. The Ld.DR relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Bhushan Sales & Strips Ltd (2012) 398 ITR 260. 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We find that the ITAT, Bench in assessee’s own case for earlier years has held that the sales-tax subsidy received from state government is capital in nature and not exigible to tax. The relevant portion of the order is extracted below:- “3. On identical facts an…