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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

…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

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

…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

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

…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

Accordingly, this appeal fails and is dismissed

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

…e annual valuation of a property retrospectively beyond three years. 35. Before the learned Single Judge, learned Advocate for the writ petitioners had relied on the decision in Raza Textiles Ltd. v. Income Tax 30 Officer, Rampur reported at (1973) 1 SCC 633, in support of his argument that the Hearing Officer had clutched on to jurisdiction by deciding the jurisdictional facts erroneously. It was argued that the present case falls within the exception carved out by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Whirpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Ors reported at (1998) 8 SCC 1 an…

MR. JITENDRA VIRWANI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

…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

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

…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

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

…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…

DEVAS MULTIMEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

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

…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)

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

…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.,

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

…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…