236 ITR 832 (Guj) (para 21) Snowcem India Ltd. v. Deputy CIT

313 ITR 170High Court2009#5511 most cited

What is 236 ITR 832 (Guj) (para 21) Snowcem India Ltd. v. Deputy CIT authority for?

A taxpayer is not required under the law to perform what is impossible. This principle is supported by the maxim 'Lex Non Cogit ad impossibilia'.

21

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Snowchem India Ltd v DCIT · 313 ITR 170 · Lex Non Cogit ad impossibilia · impossible to perform · legal maxim · natural justice · UltraTech Nathdwara Cement Ltd

Sections most often in play

Section 115JBSection 234BSection 234CSection 14Section 148Section 154Section 178(6)Section 238

Issues it is cited on

section 178(6)section 31(1)section 238section 60section 32(1)(iia)statutory duessection 31specified domestic transactioncorporate guaranteeadditional depreciationsection 234cmistake apparent on record

Judgments citing 236 ITR 832 (Guj) (para 21) Snowcem India Ltd. v. Deputy CIT

M/S. BODAL CHEMICALS LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals being IT(SS)A No

ITA 318/AHD/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Nagar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT-DR and Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR
Section 115JSection 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 153A(1)(b)

…ecisions, prevailing at that point of time, wherein it has been held that no interest u/s 234B or 234C is leviable, if tax is determined under section 115JB of the Act:- i. Kwality Biscuits Ltd (284 ITR 434) (Date of Order -26-04-2006) ii. Snowchem India Ltd (313 ITR 170) (Bom) iii. Natural Gems Ltd (327 ITR 269) (Bom) Subsequently the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Rolta India Ltd (330 ITR 470) (SC) dated 7 January 2011 contrary to the above decisions, has held that interest is leviable even if income tax is payable under MAT provisions. Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT -vs.- Mangalore Refinery & Petroch…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ULTRATECH NATHDWARA CEMENT LTD. (KNOWN AS M/S. BINANI CEMENT LTD.), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 470/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 154Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 801ASection 92C

…os.: 611/KOL/2015 & 470/KOL/2018 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2013-14 M/s. UltraTech Nathdwara Cement Ltd. (Earlier known as M/s. Binani Cement Ltd.) Now UltraTech Cement Limited. b. Decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Snowchem India Ltd vs. DCIT (313 ITR 170) c. Decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Natural Gems Ltd. (327 ITR 269) d. Decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Binani Industries Ltd vs. CIT (329 ITR 323) 2.2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in not considering the legal submission of the appellant relying on the maxim known…

M/S. ULTRATECH NATHDWARA CEMENT LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S. BINANI CEMENT LTD.,),KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 152/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 154Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 801ASection 92C

…os.: 611/KOL/2015 & 470/KOL/2018 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2013-14 M/s. UltraTech Nathdwara Cement Ltd. (Earlier known as M/s. Binani Cement Ltd.) Now UltraTech Cement Limited. b. Decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Snowchem India Ltd vs. DCIT (313 ITR 170) c. Decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Natural Gems Ltd. (327 ITR 269) d. Decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Binani Industries Ltd vs. CIT (329 ITR 323) 2.2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in not considering the legal submission of the appellant relying on the maxim known…

ACIT, CIR-14(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ULTRATECH NATHDWARA CEMENT LTD.(KNOWN AS M/S BINANI CEMENT LTD.), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 611/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 May 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 154Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 801ASection 92C

…os.: 611/KOL/2015 & 470/KOL/2018 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2013-14 M/s. UltraTech Nathdwara Cement Ltd. (Earlier known as M/s. Binani Cement Ltd.) Now UltraTech Cement Limited. b. Decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Snowchem India Ltd vs. DCIT (313 ITR 170) c. Decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Natural Gems Ltd. (327 ITR 269) d. Decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Binani Industries Ltd vs. CIT (329 ITR 323) 2.2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in not considering the legal submission of the appellant relying on the maxim known…

BINANI CEMENT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-XXVIII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1726/KOL/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 May 2025AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 154Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 801ASection 92C

…os.: 611/KOL/2015 & 470/KOL/2018 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2013-14 M/s. UltraTech Nathdwara Cement Ltd. (Earlier known as M/s. Binani Cement Ltd.) Now UltraTech Cement Limited. b. Decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Snowchem India Ltd vs. DCIT (313 ITR 170) c. Decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Natural Gems Ltd. (327 ITR 269) d. Decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Binani Industries Ltd vs. CIT (329 ITR 323) 2.2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in not considering the legal submission of the appellant relying on the maxim known…

M/S. FDC LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDLL. CIT- 8 (1), MUMBAI

Appeal stand dismissed

ITA 6901/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.6901/Mum/2018 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.6840/Mum/2018 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S Fdc Limited Acit Circle– 8(1) बिाम/ 142-48, S. V. Road {Now Acit Circle 9(3)(1)} Jogeshwari (West) R. No. 215, Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Mumbai – 400 102 Mumbai-400 020 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaacf-0253-H (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & 3. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.7016/Mum/2018 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Acit Circle– 8(1) M/S Fdc Limited बिाम/ {Now Acit Circle 9(3)(1)} 142-48, S. V. Road R. No. 215, Aayakar Bhavan Jogeshwari (West) Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai – 400 102 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaacf-0253-H (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri S. S. Nagar, Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Sunil Deshpande, Ld. Cit-Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 20/07/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 08/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Nagar, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Deshpande, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 92C

…34C for Rs.20.64 Lacs. However, no interest is leviable in such a case as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT V/s Kwality Biscuits Ltd. (284 ITR 434; 26/04/2006) as well as the decisions of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Snowcem India Ltd V/s DCIT (313 ITR 170; 05/01/2009) and CIT V/s Natural Gems Ltd (327 ITR 269; 24/03/2009) which were holding the field at that point of time. However, in the subsequent 43 M/s FDC Limited Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 decision, Hon’ble Supreme Court in JCIT V/s Rolta India Limited (330 ITR 470; 07/01/2011) has held that interest is leviable even if the tax was…

GREAVES COTTON LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 6(3), MUMBAI

In the result this ground of appeal

ITA 7424/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singhgreaves Cotton Ltd. Acit Circle-6(3), Industry Manor, Appasaheb Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400025. Pan: Aaacg2062M Appellant Respondent Greaves Cotton Ltd. Acit Circle-6(3), Industry Manor, Appasaheb Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400025. Pan: Aaacg2062M Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Smt. Arati Vissanji (Advocate) Respondent By : Shri Abbi Rama Karthikey (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.06.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act

For Appellant: Smt. Arati Vissanji (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri Abbi Rama Karthikey (DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 253Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(9)

…he time limit prescribed u/s 139(5) i.e. on 31.3.2008 and hence the Appellant could not make their claim in revised return. Ground H INTEREST U/S 234C - Rs.l,13,850/- 15. As decided by the Bombay High Court in the case of Snocem India Ltd., Vs. Dy. CIT (2009) 313 ITR 170, the Assessing Officer should not have levied interest u/s 234C in respect of shall fall of advance tax payable as per working u/s 115JB of the Income tax Act, 1961. Ground I 4 ITA No. 7424 Mum 2010 & 8533 Mum 2011-Greaves Cotton Ltd. General 16. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 6(3), Mumbai's order, in pursuance of directions…

ACIT 2(1), MUMBAI vs. TATA MOTORS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee as well as Revenue are allowed for the statistical purposes in the light of directions contained hereinabove

ITA 4824/MUM/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm M/S Tata Motors Vs. Acit, Cir-2(1), Mumbai-20 Limited(Formerly Known As Tata Engineering & Locomotive Company Ltd), Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Street, Hutatma Chowk, Mumbai-400001 Pan/Gir No.Aaact 2727 Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & Acit, 2(1), Mumbai-20 Vs. M/S Tata Motors Limited(Formerly Known As Tata Engineering & Locomotive Company Ltd), Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Street, Hutatma Chowk, Mumbai- 400001 Pan/Gir No.Aaact 2727 Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By Shri J.D.Mistri & Nikhil Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri R.Manjunatha Swamy, Citdr Date Of Hearing 01/05/2019 Date Of Pronouncement 03/05/2019

For Appellant: i) Adjustment to book profit computation u/s.115JB In respect of provision for d
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234Section 234B

…on the following decisions, prevailing at that point of time, wherein it has been held that no interest under section 234B or 234C is leviable if tax is determined under section 115JB of the Act:- • Kwality Biscuits Ltd (284 ITR 434) (SC) • Snowcem India Ltd (313 ITR 170) (Bom) • Natural Gems Ltd (327 ITR 269) (Bom) Subsequently the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Rolta India Ltd (330 ITR 470) (SC) dated 7 January 2011, contrary to the above decisions, has held that interest is leviable even if income tax is payable under MAT provisions. The Hon'ble Tribunal in following cases held that in the assessment made by…

TATA MOTERS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS TATA ENGINEERING & LOCOMOTIVE COMPANY LTD.),MUMBAI vs. A CIT, CIR..-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee as well as Revenue are allowed for the statistical purposes in the light of directions contained hereinabove

ITA 3334/MUM/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm M/S Tata Motors Vs. Acit, Cir-2(1), Mumbai-20 Limited(Formerly Known As Tata Engineering & Locomotive Company Ltd), Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Street, Hutatma Chowk, Mumbai-400001 Pan/Gir No.Aaact 2727 Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & Acit, 2(1), Mumbai-20 Vs. M/S Tata Motors Limited(Formerly Known As Tata Engineering & Locomotive Company Ltd), Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Street, Hutatma Chowk, Mumbai- 400001 Pan/Gir No.Aaact 2727 Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By Shri J.D.Mistri & Nikhil Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri R.Manjunatha Swamy, Citdr Date Of Hearing 01/05/2019 Date Of Pronouncement 03/05/2019

For Appellant: i) Adjustment to book profit computation u/s.115JB In respect of provision for d
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234Section 234B

…on the following decisions, prevailing at that point of time, wherein it has been held that no interest under section 234B or 234C is leviable if tax is determined under section 115JB of the Act:- • Kwality Biscuits Ltd (284 ITR 434) (SC) • Snowcem India Ltd (313 ITR 170) (Bom) • Natural Gems Ltd (327 ITR 269) (Bom) Subsequently the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Rolta India Ltd (330 ITR 470) (SC) dated 7 January 2011, contrary to the above decisions, has held that interest is leviable even if income tax is payable under MAT provisions. The Hon'ble Tribunal in following cases held that in the assessment made by…

LANDMARK EDUCATION INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E) II (1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4871/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year 2008-09 Landmark Education India, Income Tax Officer B-206, Bhaveshwar Plaza, (Exemption)-Ii(1), बनाम/ Lbs Marg, Ghatkopar (W), Piramal Chambers, Vs. Mumbai 400086 Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400012 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaatl0059L

Section 11Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ra 34) Muthukrishna Reddiar v. CIT [1973] 90 ITR 503 (Ker) (para 9) New Light Trading Co. v. CIT [2002] 256 ITR 391 (Delhi) (para 18) Praful Chunilal Patel v. Makwana (M. J.)/Asst. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 832 (Guj) (para 21) Snowcem India Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [2009] 313 ITR 170 (Bom) (para 31) Sri Krishna P. Ltd. v. ITO [1996] 221 ITR 538 (SC) (paras 56, 58) Suresh Budharmal Kalani v. State of Maharashtra [1998] 7 SCC 337 (para 29) Union of India v. Suresh C. Baskey [1996] AIR 1996 SC 849 (para 20) United Mercantile Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1967] 64 ITR 218 (Ker) (para 9) "(i) What is meant by the term 'change of opinion' ? (…

CHARBHUJA INDUSTRIES P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2514/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Charbhuja Industries Pvt. Dcit-(2)(1) 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Ltd. C/O D. C. Jain & Co. 75, Bombay Mutual Building, Vs. Mumbai-400020. 293, Dr. D.N. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400001. Pan: Aabcc7512P Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri D.C. Jain (Ar) Respondent By : Shri R. A. Dhyoni (Dr)

For Appellant: Shri D.C. Jain (AR)For Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyoni (DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234Section 234BSection 234CSection 253Section 254(1)Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s Charbhuja Industries Pvt. DCIT-(2)(1) 5th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Ltd. C/o D. C. JAIN & Co. 75, Bombay Mutual Building, Vs. Mumbai-400020. 293, Dr. D.N. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400001. PAN: AABCC7512P Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Shri D.C. Jain (AR) Respondent by : Shri R. A. Dhyoni (DR) Date of Hearing : 11.09.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 26.09.2018 ORDERUNDER SECTION 254(1)OF INCOME TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. This appeal by assessee under Section…

ACIT (E) 20(3), MUMBAI vs. SEEMA DILIP VORA, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 582/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year:2007-08 Acit-20(3), Ms. Seema Dilip Vora, Room No.622, 71/72, Rajkamal Apartment बनाम/ Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Rajkamal Marg, Rajkamal Vs. Mumbai Studio, Near Gandhi Hospital, Parel, Mumbai-400012 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aabpv0816C

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ra 34) Muthukrishna Reddiar v. CIT [1973] 90 ITR 503 (Ker) (para 9) New Light Trading Co. v. CIT [2002] 256 ITR 391 (Delhi) (para 18) Praful Chunilal Patel v. Makwana (M. J.)/Asst. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 832 (Guj) (para 21) Snowcem India Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [2009] 313 ITR 170 (Bom) (para 31) Sri Krishna P. Ltd. v. ITO [1996] 221 ITR 538 (SC) (paras 56, 58) Suresh Budharmal Kalani v. State of Maharashtra [1998] 7 SCC 337 (para 29) Union of India v. Suresh C. Baskey [1996] AIR 1996 SC 849 (para 20) United Mercantile Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1967] 64 ITR 218 (Ker) (para 9) "(i) What is meant by the term 'change of opinion' ? (…

M/S. VHCPL ADCC PINGLAI INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,,NAGPUR vs. THE ITO, WARD- 1(4),, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 92/NAG/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri K.P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Baral
Section 11Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234B

…A no.6595/ Mum./2014, order dated 01.01.2016; iii) CIT v/s Kwality Biscuits Ltd., [2006] 284 ITR 434 (Bom.); iv) CIT v/s JSW Energy Ltd., [2015] 379 ITR 36 (Bom.); v) CIT v/s Natural Gems Ltd., [2010] 327 ITR 269 (Bom.); Snowcem India Ltd. v/s CIT, [2009] 313 ITR 170 vi) (Bom.). 4. Per–contra, the learned Departmental Representative relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 5. Upon careful consideration, we note that the Co–ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Charbhuja Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT, [2014] 31 ITR (Trib.) 89 (Mum.) has taken note of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Rolta Indi…

ITO 22(3)(1), NAVI MUMBAI vs. CRESCENT CONSTRUCTION, NAVI MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 865/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06

Section 14Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154

…CIT [1973] 90 ITR 503 (Ker) (para 9) New Light Trading Co. v. CIT [2002] 256 ITR 391 (Delhi) (para 18) M/s Crescent Construction Co. Praful Chunilal Patel v. Makwana (M. J.)/Asst. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 832 (Guj) (para 21) Snowcem India Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [2009] 313 ITR 170 (Bom) (para 31) Sri Krishna P. Ltd. v. ITO [1996] 221 ITR 538 (SC) (paras 56, 58) Suresh Budharmal Kalani v. State of Maharashtra [1998] 7 SCC 337 (para 29) Union of India v. Suresh C. Baskey [1996] AIR 1996 SC 849 (para 20) United Mercantile Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1967] 64 ITR 218 (Ker) (para 9) 2.13. For reopening an assessment made under section 14…

CRESCENT CONSTRUCTION CO.,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 22(3), NAVI MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 658/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06

Section 14Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154

…CIT [1973] 90 ITR 503 (Ker) (para 9) New Light Trading Co. v. CIT [2002] 256 ITR 391 (Delhi) (para 18) M/s Crescent Construction Co. Praful Chunilal Patel v. Makwana (M. J.)/Asst. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 832 (Guj) (para 21) Snowcem India Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [2009] 313 ITR 170 (Bom) (para 31) Sri Krishna P. Ltd. v. ITO [1996] 221 ITR 538 (SC) (paras 56, 58) Suresh Budharmal Kalani v. State of Maharashtra [1998] 7 SCC 337 (para 29) Union of India v. Suresh C. Baskey [1996] AIR 1996 SC 849 (para 20) United Mercantile Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1967] 64 ITR 218 (Ker) (para 9) 2.13. For reopening an assessment made under section 14…

DCIT CIR 3(3), MUMBAI vs. SICOM LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed whereas appeal of the assessee is allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 1685/MUM/2009[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm M/S. Sicom Ltd., Vs. Dcit – 3(3) – Mumbai-20 Nirmal, 1St Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacs5524J Appellant) .. Respondent) & Dcit – 3(3) – Mumbai- Vs. M/S. Sicom Ltd., Nirmal, 1St Floor, Nariman Point, 20 Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacs5524J Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 41

…he settled law on the point was the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs Kwality Biscuits Ltd. 284 ITR 434 as well as a number of other decisions including decisions of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of Snowcem India Ltd. Vs DCIT 313 ITR 170 and in case of CIT Vs Natural Gems Ltd. 327 ITR 269 wherein it has been held that no advance MAT was payable by the company. Therefore, the assessee had no reason to belief or foresee a subsequent decision fastening the liability of payment of advance tax. Even otherwise the decision in case of JCIT Vs Rolta India Ltd. (supra) is a subsequent dec…

SICOM LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed whereas appeal of the assessee is allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 1522/MUM/2009[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm M/S. Sicom Ltd., Vs. Dcit – 3(3) – Mumbai-20 Nirmal, 1St Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacs5524J Appellant) .. Respondent) & Dcit – 3(3) – Mumbai- Vs. M/S. Sicom Ltd., Nirmal, 1St Floor, Nariman Point, 20 Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacs5524J Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 41

…he settled law on the point was the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs Kwality Biscuits Ltd. 284 ITR 434 as well as a number of other decisions including decisions of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of Snowcem India Ltd. Vs DCIT 313 ITR 170 and in case of CIT Vs Natural Gems Ltd. 327 ITR 269 wherein it has been held that no advance MAT was payable by the company. Therefore, the assessee had no reason to belief or foresee a subsequent decision fastening the liability of payment of advance tax. Even otherwise the decision in case of JCIT Vs Rolta India Ltd. (supra) is a subsequent dec…

DCIT 1(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. INTELNET GLOBAL SERVICES P. LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7428/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit-1(2)(1), M/S Intelnet Global Services R. No.535, 5Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Intelnet Towers, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Mindspace, Malad West, Vs. M. K. Road, Mumbai-400064 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aaaci7387P C.O. No.99/Mum/2016 (Arising Out Of Ita No.7428/Mum/2014) Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Intelnet Global Services Dcit-1(2)(1), Pvt. Ltd. Intelnet Towers, R. No.535, 5Th Floor, बनाम/ Mindspace, Malad West, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400064 M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaaci7387P

Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147

…ra 34) Muthukrishna Reddiar v. CIT [1973] 90 ITR 503 (Ker) (para 9) New Light Trading Co. v. CIT [2002] 256 ITR 391 (Delhi) (para 18) Praful Chunilal Patel v. Makwana (M. J.)/Asst. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 832 (Guj) (para 21) Snowcem India Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [2009] 313 ITR 170 (Bom) (para 31) Sri Krishna P. Ltd. v. ITO [1996] 221 ITR 538 (SC) (paras 56, 58) Suresh Budharmal Kalani v. State of Maharashtra [1998] 7 SCC 337 (para 29) Union of India v. Suresh C. Baskey [1996] AIR 1996 SC 849 (para 20) United Mercantile Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1967] 64 ITR 218 (Ker) (para 9) "(i) What is meant by the term 'change of opinion' ? (…

ASST CIT 4(3), MUMBAI vs. MUIMBAI STOCK BROKERS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed”

ITA 6369/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2006-07 Acit-4(3), M/S Mumbai Stock 6Th Floor, R. No.649, बनाम/ Brokers Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, R No.10A, 1St Floor, 7/10, Vs. M.K. Road, Botwala Building, Mumbai-4020 Horniman Circle, Fort, Mumbai-400023 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aabcm4133A

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 88E

…(para 9) 9 M/s Mumbai Stock Broker Pvt. Ltd. C.O. No.39/Mum/2016 New Light Trading Co. v. CIT [2002] 256 ITR 391 (Delhi) (para 18) Praful Chunilal Patel v. Makwana (M. J.)/Asst. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 832 (Guj) (para 21) Snowcem India Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [2009] 313 ITR 170 (Bom) (para 31) Sri Krishna P. Ltd. v. ITO [1996] 221 ITR 538 (SC) (paras 56, 58) Suresh Budharmal Kalani v. State of Maharashtra [1998] 7 SCC 337 (para 29) Union of India v. Suresh C. Baskey [1996] AIR 1996 SC 849 (para 20) United Mercantile Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1967] 64 ITR 218 (Ker) (para 9) "(i) What is meant by the term 'change of opinion' ? (…

JAYANT MANILAL GANDHY,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 16(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4504/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2005-06 Jayant Manilal Gandhy, Acit, Delux Apartment, Circle-16(2), बनाम/ Altamount Road, Matru Mandir Bldg. Vs. Mumbai-400026 Nana Chowk, Mumbai-400007 Pan No. Afupg3313H ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 53ESection 54ESection 56

…4) Muthukrishna Reddiar v. CIT [1973] 90 ITR 503 (Ker) (para 9) New Light Trading Co. v. CIT [2002] 256 ITR 391 (Delhi) (para 18) Praful Chunilal Patel v. Makwana (M. J.)/Asst. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 832 (Guj) (para 21) Snowcem India Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [2009] 313 ITR 170 (Bom) (para 31) Sri Krishna P. Ltd. v. ITO [1996] 221 ITR 538 (SC) (paras 56, 58) Suresh Budharmal Kalani v. State of Maharashtra [1998] 7 SCC 337 (para 29) Union of India v. Suresh C. Baskey [1996] AIR 1996 SC 849 (para 20) United Mercantile Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1967] 64 ITR 218 (Ker) (para 9) 22 Jayant Manilal Gandhy 2.14. For reopening an as…

Showing 1–20 of 21 · Page 1 of 2

236 ITR 832 (Guj) (para 21) Snowcem India Ltd. v. Deputy CIT (313 ITR 170) — Cited in 21 Judgments | BharatTax