Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

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 / NCLT & Others
  • 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
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
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
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 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
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    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
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      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

        whatsappJoin Channel
        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        2016 (6) TMI 796 - AT - Income Tax

        📋
        Contents
        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, Stressing Uniform Tax Rate The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, deleting the addition of Rs. 16,19,80,000 to the income. The Tribunal emphasized the uniform tax rate and ...
                        Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
                          Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.

                              Tribunal Rules in Favor of Assessee, Stressing Uniform Tax Rate

                              The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, deleting the addition of Rs. 16,19,80,000 to the income. The Tribunal emphasized the uniform tax rate and ruled that the year of accrual of income versus the year of taxability makes no difference when the tax rate remains the same, citing relevant case law.




                              Issues Involved:
                              1. Addition of Rs. 16,19,80,000/- to the income of the assessee company by treating the amount as rent receivable from the Railways for use of STM 4 Bandwidth on an accrual basis.

                              Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

                              1. Addition of Rs. 16,19,80,000/- to the Income of the Assessee:
                              The Assessing Officer (AO) made the impugned addition based on the auditor's comments in the audit report, which stated that no income had been booked for Rs. 1619.80 lacs for the year and Rs. 3630.07 lacs for earlier years on account of lease rent payable by/claimed by Railways for the use of STM 4 Bandwidth. The AO refused to accept the assessee's contention that the approval of the Railways for the payment was received only on 19.12.2008 and therefore the revenue was to be recognized only in the financial year 2008-09. The AO also noted that the agreement between the assessee company and the Railways was dated 21.09.2006, thus the effective date for accounting on an accrual basis commenced on 21.09.2006.

                              2. Confirmation of Addition by the First Appellate Authority:
                              The CIT (A) confirmed the addition, referencing the auditor's note in the audit report and the letter dated 23.05.2008 from the Director/NPM of the appellant company, which listed the approximate dates of handing over of STM 4 bandwidth to Railways. The CIT (A) concluded that the auditor had rightly placed reliance on the letter and its annexure, and computed the lease rent based on the date of handing over mentioned in the letter. Since the appellant company maintained its books of account on a mercantile basis, the income should have been accounted for in the year under consideration.

                              3. Assessee's Appeal and Arguments:
                              The assessee argued that the income had not accrued during the year under appeal but in subsequent years upon the satisfaction of certain conditions. The assessee emphasized that the right to receive the income was subject to the satisfaction of the Zonal Railway authorities, which did not happen until the conclusion of the year under appeal. The assessee also highlighted that the tax rates applicable to the company in both assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10 were the same, making the adjustment revenue neutral.

                              4. Revenue's Argument:
                              The Revenue argued that since the basis of accounting was mercantile, the receipts should be taxable on an accrual basis, supporting the action of the AO.

                              5. Tribunal's Decision:
                              The Tribunal, referencing several judgments, including those of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts, concluded that the year of accrual of income vis-a-vis the year of taxability of the income would make no difference due to the uniform tax rate applicable to companies. The Tribunal cited the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Excel Industries Limited (2013) 358 ITR 295 (SC), which emphasized that the real question is the year in which the assessee is required to pay tax, and if the rate of tax remains the same, the dispute is academic. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the impugned addition and allowed the appeal of the assessee.

                              Conclusion:
                              The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the addition of Rs. 16,19,80,000/- was deleted, with the Tribunal emphasizing the uniform tax rate and the academic nature of the dispute regarding the year of accrual of income.
                              Full Summary is available for active users!
                              Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                              Topics

                              ActsIncome Tax
                              No Records Found