79 ITD 353 (Del-Trib); E) Haryana Warehousing Corporation v. DCIT

75 ITD 155Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2000#18245 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2018.

Judgments citing 79 ITD 353 (Del-Trib); E) Haryana Warehousing Corporation v. DCIT

Satish Katoch, Palampur vs. ITO, Palampur

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 298/CHANDI/2017[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Nov 2018AY 2000-01

Bench: The A.O. U/S 154 Of The Act Against

For Appellant: None(Written submission)For Respondent: Shri Manjit Singh, Sr.DR
Section 140ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 154Section 208Section 210

…e charged for the first time if the assessee could, not have anticipated the enhancement of income, even if the assessee had taken due care and diligence. This is clear from the decisions cited supra in the case reported in (2000) 69 TTJ (Del)(TM)859 : (2000) 75 ITD 155 (Del)(TM) (supra); (supra); (supra) and CIT v. Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. (Uttaranchal). If the circumstances were such that if the assessee had taken due care and diligence, assessee would not have defaulted in making advance tax under Section 206 or the payment of advance tax would not have fallen 90 per cent of the assessed tax as contem…

Hyundai Motor India Ltd., Kancheepuram vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

ITA 842/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar"नधा(रण वष( /Assessment Year: 2011-12 V. Hyundai Motor India Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of Plot No. H-1, Sipcot Industrial Park Income Tax, Irrungattukottai, 1775, Jawaharlal Nehru Inner Sriperumbudur Taluk, Ring Road, Kancheepuram District, Anna Nagar Western Tamil Nadu-602117 Extension, Chennai-600101 [Pan: Aaach2364M] (अपीलाथ+/Appellant) (,-यथ+/Respondent)

For Respondent: 13.11.2019
Section 234C

…that is why difficult has arisen for visualizing the liability and the assessee could not deduct such expenditure. In fact in almost identical circumstances in the 3rd Member decision by the Delhi Bench in the case of Haryana Warehousing Corporation v. DCIT (75 ITD 155) it was held that in such situations the legal dictum "LEX NON COGIT AD IMPOSSIBILIA" would be attracted. The simple meaning of this dictum is that "law cannot compel you to do the impossible". In the case before us also, the assessee could not have visualize till the last instalment of advance tax i.e. 15.03.2001 that he would not be entitled to…

Srf Limited, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result we also set aside the appeal of the assessee against chargeability of interest under section 234C of the income tax act back to the file of the Ld

ITA 2181/DEL/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Apr 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishisrf Limited, Vs. Dcit, Block-C, Sector-45, Gurgaon Circle-9(1), Pan: Aaacs0206P New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Srf Limited, Vs. Circle-9(1), Block-C, Sector-45, Gurgaon New Delhi Pan: Aaacs0206P (Appellant) (Respondent) Srf Limited, Vs. Addl Cit, Block-C, Sector-45, Gurgaon Circle-9(1), Cr Building, Pan: Aaacs0206P New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Sh. SS Rana, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 208Section 234C

…ssessee was that as it is not a normal business activity provision of section 234C is not attracted on income earned during the year. Before him assessee relied on the decision of coordinate bench in case of Haryana warehousing Corporation versus DCIT (2000) [75 ITD 155]. The Ld. CIT appeal rejected the contention of the assessee and stated that, as it is the income earned of the assessee during the year the case of the assessee is covered within the provisions of section 208 of the income tax act and therefore Ld. assessing officer is correct in charging interest under section 234C of the act. Assessee, aggrieve…

Asst CIT 14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Godrej Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the results, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of revenue stands dismissed

ITA 164/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Godrej Industries Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner Of Kalyaniwlla & Mistry, Income-Tax-10(2), फनधभ/ Room No.475, 4Th Floor, Army & Navi Building, 148, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, M K Marg, Mumbai-400001 Mumbai-400020 Asst. Commissioner Of Income- Godrej Industries Ltd., Tax-14(1)(2), Pirojsha Nagar, Eastern फनधभ/ Room No.460, 4Th Floor, Express Highway, Aayakar Bhavan, Vikhroli, Vs. M K Marg, Mumbai-400079 Mumbai-400020 स्थधमी रेखध सं./ Pan : Aaacg2953R (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri F V IraniFor Respondent: Ms.Vidisha Kalra
Section 37(1)

…464 (Bom) (HC); B) Emami Ltd V/s CIT reported in 337 ITR 470 (Cal) (HC); C) Grindwell Norton V/s ACIT ITA No.9178/Mum/2004 (Mum-Trib); D) Priyanka Overseas Ltd V/s DCIT reported in 79 ITD 353 (Del-Trib); E) Haryana Warehousing Corporation V/s DCIT reported in 75 ITD 155 (Del-Trib). The ld.AR pointed out that the similar issue has been decided by the first appellate authority for the assessment year 2008-09 which was not appealed before the Higher Forum by the revenue. In view of this the ld.AR prayed that the decision of the ld.CIT(A) be affirmed on this issue by dismissing the ground raised by the revenue. 42.…

Godrej Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 10(2), Mumbai

In the results, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of revenue stands dismissed

ITA 151/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Godrej Industries Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner Of Kalyaniwlla & Mistry, Income-Tax-10(2), फनधभ/ Room No.475, 4Th Floor, Army & Navi Building, 148, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, M K Marg, Mumbai-400001 Mumbai-400020 Asst. Commissioner Of Income- Godrej Industries Ltd., Tax-14(1)(2), Pirojsha Nagar, Eastern फनधभ/ Room No.460, 4Th Floor, Express Highway, Aayakar Bhavan, Vikhroli, Vs. M K Marg, Mumbai-400079 Mumbai-400020 स्थधमी रेखध सं./ Pan : Aaacg2953R (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri F V IraniFor Respondent: Ms.Vidisha Kalra
Section 37(1)

…464 (Bom) (HC); B) Emami Ltd V/s CIT reported in 337 ITR 470 (Cal) (HC); C) Grindwell Norton V/s ACIT ITA No.9178/Mum/2004 (Mum-Trib); D) Priyanka Overseas Ltd V/s DCIT reported in 79 ITD 353 (Del-Trib); E) Haryana Warehousing Corporation V/s DCIT reported in 75 ITD 155 (Del-Trib). The ld.AR pointed out that the similar issue has been decided by the first appellate authority for the assessment year 2008-09 which was not appealed before the Higher Forum by the revenue. In view of this the ld.AR prayed that the decision of the ld.CIT(A) be affirmed on this issue by dismissing the ground raised by the revenue. 42.…

79 ITD 353 (Del-Trib); E) Haryana Warehousing Corporation v. DCIT (75 ITD 155) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax