Aggarwal and Others v. SEBJ and Oth

8 SCC 16Reported decision1999#12963 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2022.

Issues it is cited on

assistant commissionerappeal before the tribunalprescribedpersonindiadocumentinterest

Judgments citing Aggarwal and Others v. SEBJ and Oth

ITO TDS Ward, Tirupur vs. Shanthi Fortune (India) Pvt. Ltd., Tirupur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue and the CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2557/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2385/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Shanthi Fortune (India) Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Door No. 38, Trichy Road, Tds Circle, Coimbatore. Palladam 641 664. [Pan: Aajcs4289D] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2557/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 & C.O. No. 88/Chny/2019 [In I.T.A. No.2557/Chny/2018] The Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Shanthi Fortune (India) Tds Ward, No. 121, Private Limited, Sixty Feet Road, Tirupur 641 602. Door No. 38, Trichy Road, Palladam 641 664. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) Department By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit Assessee By : Shri N Arjun Raj, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 2, Coimbatore, Dated 25.06.2018 Relevant To The Assessment

For Appellant: Shri N Arjun Raj, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 153(3)Section 254

…urance Co. Ltd. v. Shanti Misra [MANU/SC0547/1975: (1975) 2 SCC 840], Huendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra [MANU/SC/0526/1994: (1994) 4 SCC 602: 1994 SCC (Cri) 1087], Maharaja Chintamani Saran Nath Shahdeo v. State of Bihar [MANU/SC/0643/1999: (1999) 8 SCC 16] and Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar [MANU/SC/0405/2001: (2001) 8 SCC 24], has elaborately discussed the scope and ambit of an amending legislation and its retrospectivity and held that every litigant has a vested right in substantive law but no such right exists in procedural law. This Court has held that the law relating to forum and limitation is proce…

Shanthi Fortune (India) Private Limited, Tirupur vs. ACIT TDS Circle, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue and the CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2385/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2385/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Shanthi Fortune (India) Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Door No. 38, Trichy Road, Tds Circle, Coimbatore. Palladam 641 664. [Pan: Aajcs4289D] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2557/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 & C.O. No. 88/Chny/2019 [In I.T.A. No.2557/Chny/2018] The Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Shanthi Fortune (India) Tds Ward, No. 121, Private Limited, Sixty Feet Road, Tirupur 641 602. Door No. 38, Trichy Road, Palladam 641 664. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) Department By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit Assessee By : Shri N Arjun Raj, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 2, Coimbatore, Dated 25.06.2018 Relevant To The Assessment

For Appellant: Shri N Arjun Raj, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 153(3)Section 254

…urance Co. Ltd. v. Shanti Misra [MANU/SC0547/1975: (1975) 2 SCC 840], Huendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra [MANU/SC/0526/1994: (1994) 4 SCC 602: 1994 SCC (Cri) 1087], Maharaja Chintamani Saran Nath Shahdeo v. State of Bihar [MANU/SC/0643/1999: (1999) 8 SCC 16] and Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar [MANU/SC/0405/2001: (2001) 8 SCC 24], has elaborately discussed the scope and ambit of an amending legislation and its retrospectivity and held that every litigant has a vested right in substantive law but no such right exists in procedural law. This Court has held that the law relating to forum and limitation is proce…

Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S Astrazenca Pharma India Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 82/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.82/Bang/2015 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S.Astrazeneca Pharma India Limited, Ni 12Th Floor, Income-Tax, Large Tax Payers Unit V. Manyata Embassy Business, (Ltu) Rachenahalli, Outer Ring Road Bengaluru. Bangalore – 560 045. Pan : Aabca1722B. (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Tp)A No.170/Bang/2015 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 M/S.Astrazeneca Pharma India The Assistant Commissioner Limited, Ni 12Th Floor, Of Income-Tax, Large Tax V. Manyata Embassy Business, Payers Unit (Ltu) Bengaluru. Rachenahalli, Outer Ring Road Bangalore – 560 045. (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Sri.Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Sri.Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2022 Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Cross Appeals Are Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 31.12.2014 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2010- 2011. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Manufacture & Sale Of Pharmaceutical Products. It Also Undertakes Co- Ordination Of Clinical Trial Services. For The Assessment Year 2010-2011, The Return Of Income Was Filed Declaring Taxable

For Appellant: Sri.Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(11)Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “B”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, JM & Ms.Padmavathy S, AM IT(TP)A No.82/Bang/2015 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 The Assistant Commissioner of M/s.AstraZeneca Pharma India Limited, NI 12th Floor, Income-tax, Large Tax Payers Unit v. Manyata Embassy Business, (LTU) Rachenahalli, Outer Ring Road Bengaluru. Bangalore – 560 045. PAN : AABCA1722B. (Appellant) (Respondent) IT(TP)A No.170/Bang/2015 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 M/s.AstraZeneca Pharma India The Assistant Commissioner Limited, NI 12th Floor, of Income-tax, Large Tax v. Manyata Embassy Business, Payers Unit…

Astrazeneca Pharma India Limited, Bangalore vs. Asst. C.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 170/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.82/Bang/2015 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S.Astrazeneca Pharma India Limited, Ni 12Th Floor, Income-Tax, Large Tax Payers Unit V. Manyata Embassy Business, (Ltu) Rachenahalli, Outer Ring Road Bengaluru. Bangalore – 560 045. Pan : Aabca1722B. (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Tp)A No.170/Bang/2015 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 M/S.Astrazeneca Pharma India The Assistant Commissioner Limited, Ni 12Th Floor, Of Income-Tax, Large Tax V. Manyata Embassy Business, Payers Unit (Ltu) Bengaluru. Rachenahalli, Outer Ring Road Bangalore – 560 045. (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Sri.Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Sri.Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2022 Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Cross Appeals Are Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 31.12.2014 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2010- 2011. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Manufacture & Sale Of Pharmaceutical Products. It Also Undertakes Co- Ordination Of Clinical Trial Services. For The Assessment Year 2010-2011, The Return Of Income Was Filed Declaring Taxable

For Appellant: Sri.Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(11)Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “B”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, JM & Ms.Padmavathy S, AM IT(TP)A No.82/Bang/2015 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 The Assistant Commissioner of M/s.AstraZeneca Pharma India Limited, NI 12th Floor, Income-tax, Large Tax Payers Unit v. Manyata Embassy Business, (LTU) Rachenahalli, Outer Ring Road Bengaluru. Bangalore – 560 045. PAN : AABCA1722B. (Appellant) (Respondent) IT(TP)A No.170/Bang/2015 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 M/s.AstraZeneca Pharma India The Assistant Commissioner Limited, NI 12th Floor, of Income-tax, Large Tax v. Manyata Embassy Business, Payers Unit…

Sri K S Ashok Kumar vs. The State of Karnataka

In the result, the following:

WP/32454/2016HC Karnataka06 Apr 2017

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice A S Bopanna

…f an existing law unless the substituting Act or provision has been validly enacted with all the required formalities. . (iii) The case of Maharaja Chinthamani Saran Nath Shahdeo -vs- State of Bihar and others [(1999) 8 SCC 16] wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court after referring to its earlier decisions has reiterated the position that as per the golden rule of interpretation, the mere use of the word ‘substituted’ does not mean it is 17 retrospective unless the clear intention of retrospective effect could be gathered. (iv) The case of Prof. S…

Mr. K.C. Shankare Gowda vs. The State of Karnataka

In the result, the following:

WP/5353/2016HC Karnataka06 Apr 2017

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice A S Bopanna

…f an existing law unless the substituting Act or provision has been validly enacted with all the required formalities. . (iii) The case of Maharaja Chinthamani Saran Nath Shahdeo -vs- State of Bihar and others [(1999) 8 SCC 16] wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court after referring to its earlier decisions has reiterated the position that as per the golden rule of interpretation, the mere use of the word ‘substituted’ does not mean it is 17 retrospective unless the clear intention of retrospective effect could be gathered. (iv) The case of Prof. S…

Mr. Rithesh Saliayan vs. The State of Karnataka

In the result, the following:

WP/14186/2016HC Karnataka06 Apr 2017

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice A S Bopanna

…f an existing law unless the substituting Act or provision has been validly enacted with all the required formalities. . (iii) The case of Maharaja Chinthamani Saran Nath Shahdeo -vs- State of Bihar and others [(1999) 8 SCC 16] wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court after referring to its earlier decisions has reiterated the position that as per the golden rule of interpretation, the mere use of the word ‘substituted’ does not mean it is 17 retrospective unless the clear intention of retrospective effect could be gathered. (iv) The case of Prof. S…

Sri Shrikant Konapur vs. The State of Karnataka

In the result, the following:

WP/40052/2016HC Karnataka06 Apr 2017

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice A S Bopanna

…f an existing law unless the substituting Act or provision has been validly enacted with all the required formalities. . (iii) The case of Maharaja Chinthamani Saran Nath Shahdeo -vs- State of Bihar and others [(1999) 8 SCC 16] wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court after referring to its earlier decisions has reiterated the position that as per the golden rule of interpretation, the mere use of the word ‘substituted’ does not mean it is 17 retrospective unless the clear intention of retrospective effect could be gathered. (iv) The case of Prof. S…

Aggarwal and Others v. SEBJ and Oth (8 SCC 16) — Cited in 8 Judgments | BharatTax