2007) 5 SCC 447; Union of India v. Mohindra Supply Co.: AIR 1962 SC 256; Bank of England v. Vagliano Bros 39 LR

Q: How many judgments cite 2007) 5 SCC 447; Union of India v. Mohindra Supply Co.: AIR 1962 SC 256; Bank of England v. Vagliano Bros 39 LR?

12 judgments on BharatTax cite 2007) 5 SCC 447; Union of India v. Mohindra Supply Co.: AIR 1962 SC 256; Bank of England v. Vagliano Bros 39 LR (1 SCC 633), spanning 2016 to 2026.

Q: Which sections of the Income Tax Act does 2007) 5 SCC 447; Union of India v. Mohindra Supply Co.: AIR 1962 SC 256; Bank of England v. Vagliano Bros 39 LR come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 2(47), Section 260A, Section 28, Section 28(iv), Section 45.

1 SCC 633Reported decision2002#8653 most cited

What is 2007) 5 SCC 447; Union of India v. Mohindra Supply Co.: AIR 1962 SC 256; Bank of England v. Vagliano Bros 39 LR authority for?

The levy of interest under Section 234-A of the Income Tax Act is statutory, mandatory, and automatic, meaning it cannot be a question of law that can be raised in appeal. The High Court's jurisdiction under Section 260A is limited to questions of law, and thus, observations on the levy of interest are generally outside its scope.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala · 2002 · Section 234A · interest · mandatory interest · statutory interest · automatic interest · Section 260A · High Court jurisdiction · question of law

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 260A Section 28 Section 28(iv)Section 45 Section 47(vii)Section 49(1)(iii)(e)

Judgments citing 2007) 5 SCC 447; Union of India v. Mohindra Supply Co.: AIR 1962 SC 256; Bank of England v. Vagliano Bros 39 LR

M/S Jindal Equipment Leasing Consultancy Services Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Appeals stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms

C.A. No.-000152-000152 - 2026Supreme Court09 Jan 2026

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

Section 143(3)Section 28Section 47

…d that both the parties made submissions on levy of interest elaborately which have been dealt with and considered by the High Court in light of the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Anjum M.H. Ghaswala [CIT v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala, (2002) 1 SCC 633] . Even otherwise, the said issue can be said to be incidental or collateral. Even otherwise, in view of the decision of this Court in Anjum M.H. Ghaswala [CIT v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala, (2002) 1 SCC 633] holding that the levy of interest under Section 234-A is statutory interest and mandatory and automatic, thereafter the said issue cannot be sa…

Shri Subash Chander Gupta & Sons, Jammu vs. Principal Commissiner of Income Tax, Srinagar

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

ITA 37/ASR/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Vinamar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Hitendra Bhauraoji Ninawe, CIT DR

Section 164Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 37/Asr/2021 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Subash Chander Gupta & Sons Vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bari Brahmana, Jammu 181 133, Srinagar Jammu and Kashmir [PAN: AAFFS2030M] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant by : Sh. Vinamar Gupta, CA Respondent by : Sh. Hitendra Bhauraoji Ninawe, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 31.08.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 13.09.2023 ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM: The captioned appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the…

Mansarovar Commercial Pvt. Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi

C.A. No.-005769-005769 - 2022Supreme Court10 Apr 2023

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

Section 26Section 6(3)

…at the High Court, while upsetting the finding recorded by the ITAT on levy of interest, has erred in relying upon the decisions of this Court in the cases of Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai v. Anjum M.H. CA 5769/2022 Etc. Page 21 of 67 Ghaswala, (2002) 1 SCC 633 and Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi v. Bhagat Construction Company Private Limited, (2016) 15 SCC 738. 3.19 Shri Datar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee companies contended that as such there was no notice served upon the proper person and the notice served upon Rattan Gupta cannot be said to be a valid service of…

Principal Commnr. of Income Tax, Sambalpur vs. Binay Kumar Jindal, HUF

ITA/7/2023HC Orissa02 Mar 2023

Bench: DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR (CJ),MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

Mr. Jitendra Virwani vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax

WP/17813/2021HC Karnataka22 Jul 2022

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice B. M. Shyam Prasad

Section 10Section 10(1)

…come. The BM Act refers to a ‘Beneficial Owner’ but does not define this expression. 8.2 The provisions of Section 59 of the BM Act enable a person to file [within the permissible time limit] 4 [1973] 1 SCC 633 13 a declaration of any Undisclosed Asset located outside India and acquired from income chargeable to tax under the IT Act but is not charged [for reasons mentioned in Section 59 of the BM Act which are in pari materia with the Explanation 4 of Section 139 of the IT Act], and such declaration would be chargeable to tax as provided under…

K.R.Raseena vs. Commissioner of Incometax

ITA/85/2018HC Kerala14 Mar 2022

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

Section 119Section 119(2)(a)Section 158BSection 245D

…ion and not with the CBDT. The reasoning in Ext.P11 order, according to the appellant was incorrect in as much as it was evident from the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala and Others [(2002) 1 SCC 633] that the Settlement Commission did not have the power to grant relief of waiver of interest under Section 119(2)(a) and the said power to grant waiver of interest lay only with the CBDT. As regards the demand of interest under Section 245D(6A), the appellant had erroneously assumed that the interest under this provision was levied in terms of Sec…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Guwahati vs. Fortune Vanijya Private Limited, Guwahati

In the result both the appeal of the Revenue and the cross objections of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 21/GTY/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati10 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble V.P (Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 68

…were not so, the right to apply to the Court would be illusory."[See also Rex v. Shoredich Assessment Committee; (1910) 2 KB 859 : 80 LJ KB 185]. A question under the Income Tax Act, 1922 arose in Raza Textiles Ltd. v. 17. Income Tax Officer, Rampur, (1973) 1 SCC 633 : AIR 1973 SC 1362. In that case, the ITO directed X to pay certain amount of tax rejecting the contention of X that it was not a non-resident firm. The Tribunal confirmed the order. A single Judge of the High Court of Allahabad held X as non-resident firm and not liable to deduct tax at source. The Division Bench, however, set aside the order obse…

Religare Capital Markets Ltd., Noida vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 1763/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr AdvoateFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

…the statute. (Southern Petrochemical Industries Co. Ltd. v. Electricity Inspector 6B ETIO37: (2007) 5 SCC 447; Union of India v. Mohindra Supply Co.: AIR 1962 SC 256; Bank of England v. Vagliano Bros 39 LR (1891) AC 107; CIT v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala 40: (2002) 1 SCC 633; J. Srinivasa Rao v. Govt. of A.P.: (2006) 12 SCC 607. Statutory language must always be given presumptively the most natural and ordinary meaning which is appropriate in the circumstances, (Chertsey Urban District Council v. Mixnam's Properties Ltd. (1964) 2 All ER 627, and must be construed according to the rules of grammer. When the language is…

M/S Religare Capital Markets Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 1881/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: PendingITAT Delhi10 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr AdvoateFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

Devas Multimedia Private Limited vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax

WP/11618/2016HC Karnataka27 Sept 2019

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice P.B. Bajanthri Writ Petition No.11618 Of 2016 (T-It) Between:

Section 142(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144CSection 263Section 92C

…er part of this judgment. 25. Supreme Court in the case of Captain Sube Singh and Others vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi and others, reported in (2004) 6 SCC, 440 in para no. 29 held as under:- 29. In Anjum M.H. Ghaswala [CIT v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala, (2002) 1 SCC 633] a Constitution Bench of this Court reaffirmed the general rule that when a statute vests certain power in an authority to be exercised in a particular manner then the said authority has to exercise it only in the manner provided in the statute itself. (See also in this connection Dhanajaya Reddy v. State of Karnataka [(2001) 4 SCC 9 :…

Kakadia Builders Pvt Ltd vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(3)

C.A. No.-002491-002492 - 2019Supreme Court05 Mar 2019

Bench: The High Court Out Of Which These Appeals Arise. 5. The Appellant In S.L.P. No.21139/2017 Is A Private Limited Company & The Appellant In Slp No.21140/2017 Is The Promoter Director Of The Said Company. On 19.01.1994, A Search & Seizure Operation Was Carried Out In The Premises Of The Appellants (Assessee) Under The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act” ). 6. During Pendency Of The Assessment Proceedings, Which Were Initiated For Determination Of The Tax Liability As A Result Of Search & Seizure Operation, The Appellants On 12.03.1996 & 03.09.1996 Filed The Settlement Applications Before 2

Section 154Section 245D(4)

…REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL Nos.24912492 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos.2113921140 of 2017) Kakadia Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ….Appellant(s) VERSUS Income Tax Officer Ward 1(3) & Anr. ….Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. These appeals are directed against the final judgment and order dated 28.07.2016 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in SCA Nos.7814 & 7820 of 2014 whereby the High Court disposed of the petitions(SCAs) filed by the r…

The Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. Aster Infratek Pvt.Ltd

ITTA/576/2016HC Telangana28 Nov 2016

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

For Appellant: Mr. Manish Mishra, G.P V

…ized as a statutory principle of administrative law.” Reference to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court also needs to be made in the case of 29 Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala & Ors., reported in (2002) 1 SCC 633, wherein it has been held at paragraph 27 as under: “..... it is a normal rule of consideration that when a statute vests certain power in an authority to be exercised in a particular manner then the said authority has to exercise it only in the manner provided in the statute itself....” Reference has also made to the judgment rendered…