Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Tribunal rules in favor of assessee on disallowance & addition, directs consideration of additional ground for TDS expenditure

        Nitin M. Panchamiya Versus Additional Commissioner of Income-tax

        Nitin M. Panchamiya Versus Additional Commissioner of Income-tax - TMI Issues Involved:
        1. Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) r.w.s. 194J of the Income-tax Act.
        2. Addition under Section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act.
        3. Rejection of additional ground for allowance of expenditure in respect of TDS paid.
        4. Disallowance of un-recouped cost of production brought to tax in the hands of the assessee.

        Issue-wise Analysis:

        1. Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) r.w.s. 194J of the Income-tax Act:

        The assessee, engaged in the business of film production, made payments to Bhairav Films without deducting tax at source under Section 194J, arguing that the payments fell under Section 194C. The AO disallowed Rs. 3,67,28,299, treating the payments as fees for technical services under Section 194J. The CIT(A) upheld this view, stating that film production involved technical services. However, the Tribunal found that the payment should be considered under Section 194C, not Section 194J, as per the Delhi High Court's decision in Prasar Bharati's case, which held that production of programs for broadcasting falls under Section 194C. Consequently, since Section 194C was not applicable to individuals before 1.4.2007, the assessee was not obligated to deduct tax at source, and the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was not justified. Additionally, the Tribunal noted that even in cases of short deduction, Section 40(a)(ia) would not apply, as per the Kolkata Bench's decision in S.K. Tekriwal's case.

        2. Addition under Section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act:

        The AO added Rs. 20,39,066 under Section 41(1), considering certain liabilities outstanding since 1-4-2004 as no longer payable. The CIT(A) partially upheld this addition, but the Tribunal disagreed, stating that Section 41(1) requires cessation or remission of liability, which was not evidenced in this case. The liabilities were only one year old, and there was no material to show cessation or remission. Thus, the Tribunal deleted the addition.

        3. Rejection of additional ground for allowance of expenditure in respect of TDS paid:

        The assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 1,14,17,827 under the retrospective amendment to Section 40(a)(ia), which allows TDS payments made before the due date for filing returns. The CIT(A) rejected this claim, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Goetz (India) Ltd., which restricts new claims without a revised return. However, the Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have admitted the additional ground, as it arose from a retrospective amendment. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to consider the claim in accordance with the law.

        4. Disallowance of un-recouped cost of production brought to tax in the hands of the assessee:

        The AO disallowed Rs. 1,11,26,960 out of Rs. 3,01,53,195, treating certain expenses as post-production costs not covered under Rule 9A. The CIT(A) deleted this disallowance, noting that the un-recouped cost of production had been accepted in the assessment of the firm M/s. Karma Entertainment for AY 04-05. The Tribunal upheld this view, stating that the AO could not re-determine the cost of production in the assessee's assessment. Even if Rule 9A was applied, the un-recouped cost determined in the firm's assessment should be allowed. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

        Conclusion:

        The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal partly, granting relief on the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) and the addition under Section 41(1), and directed the CIT(A) to consider the additional ground for TDS expenditure. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion of the disallowance of un-recouped cost of production.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found