(CIT v. Baby Marine Exports

290 ITR 323Supreme Court of India2007#1678 most cited

What is (CIT v. Baby Marine Exports authority for?

For supporting manufacturers claiming deduction under Section 80HHC(3A), the reduction of export incentives specified in Explanation (baa) of Section 80HHC, which refers to amounts under Section 28(iiia) to (iiie), does not apply.

68

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Baby Marine Exports · Section 80HHC · 80HHC(3A) · Explanation (baa) 80HHC · Section 28(iiia) to (iiie) · export incentives deduction · supporting manufacturer · deduction computation

Also reported as

160 Taxmann 160

Sections most often in play

Section 80HHCSection 80IBSection 143(3)Section 28 (iiia)Section 28 (iiib)Section 28 (iiic)Section 28 (iiid)Section 28 (iiie)

Issues it is cited on

section 234e(1)section 200a(1)(c)section 254(2)section 200a(1)section 200(3)section 200asection 234esection 254(1)section 200tax deducted at sourcesection 20section 234

Judgments citing (CIT v. Baby Marine Exports

ACIT CIRCLE vs. SHEENA EXPORTS,

Appeals stand disposed of

ITA 970/DEL/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2026AY 2003-2004

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Naveen Chandraita No. 1229/Del/2006 : Asstt. Year: 1999-00 Ita No. 1228/Del/2006 : Asstt. Year: 2002-03 Acit, Vs Sheena Industries, Circle, Ujha Road, Panipat, Panipat, Haryana Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 80HSection 80I

…Tax Act, 1961, while computing deduction admissible to such supporting manufacturer under Section 80HHC (3A) of the Act?" 4. This question has been answered in favour of the assessee and against the Department in the case of CIT v. Baby Marine Exports [2007] 290 ITR 323/160 Taxman 160. 5. The civil appeals filed by the Department are, accordingly, dismissed." Broadly speaking, we are of the view that both these cases are not identical and cannot be related with the deduction of export incentives by the supporting manufacturer under Section 80HHC of the IT Act. (18) However, we are not in the agreement with these…

ACIT, CIRCLE vs. SHEENA INDUSTRIES,,

Appeals stand disposed of

ITA 1229/DEL/2006[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2026AY 1999-2000

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Naveen Chandraita No. 1229/Del/2006 : Asstt. Year: 1999-00 Ita No. 1228/Del/2006 : Asstt. Year: 2002-03 Acit, Vs Sheena Industries, Circle, Ujha Road, Panipat, Panipat, Haryana Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 80HSection 80I

…Tax Act, 1961, while computing deduction admissible to such supporting manufacturer under Section 80HHC (3A) of the Act?" 4. This question has been answered in favour of the assessee and against the Department in the case of CIT v. Baby Marine Exports [2007] 290 ITR 323/160 Taxman 160. 5. The civil appeals filed by the Department are, accordingly, dismissed." Broadly speaking, we are of the view that both these cases are not identical and cannot be related with the deduction of export incentives by the supporting manufacturer under Section 80HHC of the IT Act. (18) However, we are not in the agreement with these…

ACIT, CIRCLE,, KARNAL vs. SHEENA INDUSTRIES,, PANIPAT

Appeals stand disposed of

ITA 1228/DEL/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2026AY 2002-2003

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Naveen Chandraita No. 1229/Del/2006 : Asstt. Year: 1999-00 Ita No. 1228/Del/2006 : Asstt. Year: 2002-03 Acit, Vs Sheena Industries, Circle, Ujha Road, Panipat, Panipat, Haryana Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 80HSection 80I

…Tax Act, 1961, while computing deduction admissible to such supporting manufacturer under Section 80HHC (3A) of the Act?" 4. This question has been answered in favour of the assessee and against the Department in the case of CIT v. Baby Marine Exports [2007] 290 ITR 323/160 Taxman 160. 5. The civil appeals filed by the Department are, accordingly, dismissed." Broadly speaking, we are of the view that both these cases are not identical and cannot be related with the deduction of export incentives by the supporting manufacturer under Section 80HHC of the IT Act. (18) However, we are not in the agreement with these…

DIADORA SHOES PVT LTD,CALICUT vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2(1), CALICUT

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 92/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Anil Kumar Dugar, Jm

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr.DR
Section 250Section 32(1)(iia)

…being explanatory or declaratory of what the law always was. The sole premise of interpretation is to decipher the legislative intent consistent with it’s object [Catholic Syrian Bank v. CIT [2012] 343 ITR 270 (SC)(also see: CIT v. Baby Marine Exports [2007] 290 ITR 323 (SC); CIT v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. [1983] 144 ITR 225 (SC)). The legislative intent per s. 32(1)(iia) is to provide additional depreciation (of 20%) qua the eligible plant and machinery, with a view to provide a fillip to the industry, where put to use for the purpose. The condition of acquire and put to use, stated in s. 32(1)(iia), is basic…

SRI.PARAYARUKANDY VETTATH GANGADHARAN,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT CIRCLE-1(1), CALICUT

In the result, the instant appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 157/COCH/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Apr 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasparayarukandy Vettath Gangadharan Dy. Cit, Circle - 1(1) Kerala Transport Company (Decd., Calicut Vs. Represented By Lrs.) K.T.C. Building, Ymca Calicut 673001 [Pan: Adhpg8318B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar C., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 150(1)Section 153Section 2(22)(e)Section 268A

…e read meaningfully and purposively. The entire exercise of interpretation is to give effect to the legislative intent; the statute being an edict of the Legislature [Britannia Industries Ltd. v. CIT [2005] 278 ITR 546 (SC); CIT vs. Baby Marine Exports [2007] 290 ITR 323 (SC)]. As explained in Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. v. CIT [2012] 343 ITR 270 (SC), the court shall give an interpretation which shall serve the legislative object and intention, rather than subvert it. In Prakash Nath Khanna v. CIT [2004] 266 ITR 1 (SC), the Hon’ble Court reminded that statutes should not be construed as theorems of Euclid, but by…

DIADORA SHOES PVT LTD,CALICUT vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2(1), CALICUT

In the result, the assessee’sappeal is allowed

ITA 213/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasdiadora Shoes Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Cit, Circle - 2 Vkc Tower, Kolathra P.O Calicut 673001 Vs. Calicut 673655 [Pan:Aabcd9692D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Venugopal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)

…being explanatory or declaratory of what the law always was. The sole premise of interpretation is to decipher the legislative intent consistent with it’s object [Catholic Syrian Bank v. CIT [2012] 343 ITR 270 (SC)(also see: CIT v. Baby Marine Exports [2007] 290 ITR 323 (SC); CIT v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. [1983] 144 ITR 225 (SC)). The legislative intent per s. 32(1)(iia) is to provide additional depreciation (of 20%) qua the eligible plant and machinery, with a view to provide a fillip to the industry, where put to use for the purpose. The condition of acquire and put to use, stated in s. 32(1)(iia), is basic…

DCIT,C-7, JAIPUR vs. BHARAT MOHAN RATURI, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed and that of the C

ITA 413/JPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 413/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2013-14 The DCIT Circle-7 Jaipur cuke Vs. Shri Bharat Mohan Raturi 161, Indira Colony, Bani Park Jaipur 302 015 (Raj) LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AANPR 7066G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent CO No. 2/JP/2023 (Arising out of vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 413/JP/2022 ) fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2013-14 Shri Bharat Mohan Raturi 161, Indira

For Appellant: Shri Anil Goya, CA &For Respondent: Mrs. Runi Pal, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 148Section 54Section 54F

…s to advance the objective of the section and not to frustrate it.’ In this matter kindly also see the judgements in the case of CIT v. Krishna Copper & Steel Rolling Mills [1992] 60 Taxman 93/193 ITR 281 (SC), CIT v. Baby Marine Exports [2007] 160 Taxman 160/290 ITR 323 (SC) and followed in Arvind Gupta v. ITO [2008] 116 TTJ 92 (JP). Therefore, the benefit of liberal interpretation of law should be given to the assessee. 19. Therefore, the learned CIT(A) has correctly allowed deduction u/s 54 of Income tax act and his order should be upheld. Submissions of the assessee on Ground No. 2 of the department. ‘The ass…

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, UDIYANKULANGARA BRANCH,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. THE ITO WARD TDS, TRIVANDRUM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 835/COCH/2022[2013-2014(24Q,Q3)]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Mar 2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

For Appellant: Written Submissions (through S/Sh. Pratik Sadrani, HardikFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234ESection 234E(1)

…g the (machinery) provision, the rule is that a construction which makes the machinery workable should be preferred (Gursahai Saigal v. CIT [1963] 48 ITR 1 (SC)). Legislative intention is the foundation of any interpretation (CIT v. Baby Marine Exports [2007] 290 ITR 323 (SC)). Why, the Board Circular 19 of 2015, dated 27/11/2015, relied upon by the Hon’ble Court, reproducing the relevant para (47.3) thereof, itself states of non-provision for determination of fee payable u/s. 234E at the time of processing of TDS statements. As such, the levy of fee u/s. 234E vide Intimation u/s. 200A(1) would be valid where the…

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, OMALLOOR BRANCH,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ITO WARD TDS, TRIVANDRUM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 834/COCH/2022[2013-2014(24Q,Q1)]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Mar 2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

For Appellant: Written Submissions (through S/Sh. Pratik Sadrani, HardikFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234ESection 234E(1)

…g the (machinery) provision, the rule is that a construction which makes the machinery workable should be preferred (Gursahai Saigal v. CIT [1963] 48 ITR 1 (SC)). Legislative intention is the foundation of any interpretation (CIT v. Baby Marine Exports [2007] 290 ITR 323 (SC)). Why, the Board Circular 19 of 2015, dated 27/11/2015, relied upon by the Hon’ble Court, reproducing the relevant para (47.3) thereof, itself states of non-provision for determination of fee payable u/s. 234E at the time of processing of TDS statements. As such, the levy of fee u/s. 234E vide Intimation u/s. 200A(1) would be valid where the…

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, OMALLOOR BRANCH,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ITO WARD TDS, TRIVANDRUM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 833/COCH/2022[2013-2014(24Q,Q3)]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Mar 2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

For Appellant: Written Submissions (through S/Sh. Pratik Sadrani, HardikFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234ESection 234E(1)

…g the (machinery) provision, the rule is that a construction which makes the machinery workable should be preferred (Gursahai Saigal v. CIT [1963] 48 ITR 1 (SC)). Legislative intention is the foundation of any interpretation (CIT v. Baby Marine Exports [2007] 290 ITR 323 (SC)). Why, the Board Circular 19 of 2015, dated 27/11/2015, relied upon by the Hon’ble Court, reproducing the relevant para (47.3) thereof, itself states of non-provision for determination of fee payable u/s. 234E at the time of processing of TDS statements. As such, the levy of fee u/s. 234E vide Intimation u/s. 200A(1) would be valid where the…

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, IRULAM BRANCH,WAYANAD vs. THE ITO WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 832/COCH/2022[2013-2014(26Q,Q4)]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Mar 2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

For Appellant: Written Submissions (through S/Sh. Pratik Sadrani, HardikFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234ESection 234E(1)

…g the (machinery) provision, the rule is that a construction which makes the machinery workable should be preferred (Gursahai Saigal v. CIT [1963] 48 ITR 1 (SC)). Legislative intention is the foundation of any interpretation (CIT v. Baby Marine Exports [2007] 290 ITR 323 (SC)). Why, the Board Circular 19 of 2015, dated 27/11/2015, relied upon by the Hon’ble Court, reproducing the relevant para (47.3) thereof, itself states of non-provision for determination of fee payable u/s. 234E at the time of processing of TDS statements. As such, the levy of fee u/s. 234E vide Intimation u/s. 200A(1) would be valid where the…

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, IRULAM BRANCH,WAYANAD vs. THE ITO WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 831/COCH/2022[2013-2014(24Q,Q4)]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Mar 2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

For Appellant: Written Submissions (through S/Sh. Pratik Sadrani, HardikFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234ESection 234E(1)

…g the (machinery) provision, the rule is that a construction which makes the machinery workable should be preferred (Gursahai Saigal v. CIT [1963] 48 ITR 1 (SC)). Legislative intention is the foundation of any interpretation (CIT v. Baby Marine Exports [2007] 290 ITR 323 (SC)). Why, the Board Circular 19 of 2015, dated 27/11/2015, relied upon by the Hon’ble Court, reproducing the relevant para (47.3) thereof, itself states of non-provision for determination of fee payable u/s. 234E at the time of processing of TDS statements. As such, the levy of fee u/s. 234E vide Intimation u/s. 200A(1) would be valid where the…

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, IRULAM BRANCH,WAYANAD vs. THE ITO WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 830/COCH/2022[2013-2014(24Q,Q3)]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Mar 2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

For Appellant: Written Submissions (through S/Sh. Pratik Sadrani, HardikFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234ESection 234E(1)

…g the (machinery) provision, the rule is that a construction which makes the machinery workable should be preferred (Gursahai Saigal v. CIT [1963] 48 ITR 1 (SC)). Legislative intention is the foundation of any interpretation (CIT v. Baby Marine Exports [2007] 290 ITR 323 (SC)). Why, the Board Circular 19 of 2015, dated 27/11/2015, relied upon by the Hon’ble Court, reproducing the relevant para (47.3) thereof, itself states of non-provision for determination of fee payable u/s. 234E at the time of processing of TDS statements. As such, the levy of fee u/s. 234E vide Intimation u/s. 200A(1) would be valid where the…

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, IRULAM BRANCH,WAYANAD vs. THE ITO WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 829/COCH/2022[2013-2014(26Q, Q2)]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Mar 2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

For Appellant: Written Submissions (through S/Sh. Pratik Sadrani, HardikFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234ESection 234E(1)

…g the (machinery) provision, the rule is that a construction which makes the machinery workable should be preferred (Gursahai Saigal v. CIT [1963] 48 ITR 1 (SC)). Legislative intention is the foundation of any interpretation (CIT v. Baby Marine Exports [2007] 290 ITR 323 (SC)). Why, the Board Circular 19 of 2015, dated 27/11/2015, relied upon by the Hon’ble Court, reproducing the relevant para (47.3) thereof, itself states of non-provision for determination of fee payable u/s. 234E at the time of processing of TDS statements. As such, the levy of fee u/s. 234E vide Intimation u/s. 200A(1) would be valid where the…

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, ULLIYERI BRANCH,KOZHIKODE vs. THE ITO WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 828/COCH/2022[2013-2014(27Q,Q4)]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Mar 2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

For Appellant: Written Submissions (through S/Sh. Pratik Sadrani, HardikFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234ESection 234E(1)

…g the (machinery) provision, the rule is that a construction which makes the machinery workable should be preferred (Gursahai Saigal v. CIT [1963] 48 ITR 1 (SC)). Legislative intention is the foundation of any interpretation (CIT v. Baby Marine Exports [2007] 290 ITR 323 (SC)). Why, the Board Circular 19 of 2015, dated 27/11/2015, relied upon by the Hon’ble Court, reproducing the relevant para (47.3) thereof, itself states of non-provision for determination of fee payable u/s. 234E at the time of processing of TDS statements. As such, the levy of fee u/s. 234E vide Intimation u/s. 200A(1) would be valid where the…

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, ULLIYERI BRANCH,KOZHIKODE vs. THE ITO WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 826/COCH/2022[2013-2014 (24Q, Q4)]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Mar 2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

For Appellant: Written Submissions (through S/Sh. Pratik Sadrani, HardikFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234ESection 234E(1)

…g the (machinery) provision, the rule is that a construction which makes the machinery workable should be preferred (Gursahai Saigal v. CIT [1963] 48 ITR 1 (SC)). Legislative intention is the foundation of any interpretation (CIT v. Baby Marine Exports [2007] 290 ITR 323 (SC)). Why, the Board Circular 19 of 2015, dated 27/11/2015, relied upon by the Hon’ble Court, reproducing the relevant para (47.3) thereof, itself states of non-provision for determination of fee payable u/s. 234E at the time of processing of TDS statements. As such, the levy of fee u/s. 234E vide Intimation u/s. 200A(1) would be valid where the…

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, ULLIYERI BRANCH,KOZHIKODE vs. THE ITO WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 825/COCH/2022[2013-2014(26Q,Q3)]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Mar 2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

For Appellant: Written Submissions (through S/Sh. Pratik Sadrani, HardikFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234ESection 234E(1)

…g the (machinery) provision, the rule is that a construction which makes the machinery workable should be preferred (Gursahai Saigal v. CIT [1963] 48 ITR 1 (SC)). Legislative intention is the foundation of any interpretation (CIT v. Baby Marine Exports [2007] 290 ITR 323 (SC)). Why, the Board Circular 19 of 2015, dated 27/11/2015, relied upon by the Hon’ble Court, reproducing the relevant para (47.3) thereof, itself states of non-provision for determination of fee payable u/s. 234E at the time of processing of TDS statements. As such, the levy of fee u/s. 234E vide Intimation u/s. 200A(1) would be valid where the…

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, ULLIYERI BRANCH,KOZHIKODE vs. THE ITO WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 824/COCH/2022[2013-2014(24Q,Q3)]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Mar 2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

For Appellant: Written Submissions (through S/Sh. Pratik Sadrani, HardikFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234ESection 234E(1)

…g the (machinery) provision, the rule is that a construction which makes the machinery workable should be preferred (Gursahai Saigal v. CIT [1963] 48 ITR 1 (SC)). Legislative intention is the foundation of any interpretation (CIT v. Baby Marine Exports [2007] 290 ITR 323 (SC)). Why, the Board Circular 19 of 2015, dated 27/11/2015, relied upon by the Hon’ble Court, reproducing the relevant para (47.3) thereof, itself states of non-provision for determination of fee payable u/s. 234E at the time of processing of TDS statements. As such, the levy of fee u/s. 234E vide Intimation u/s. 200A(1) would be valid where the…

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, ULLIYERI BRANCH,KOZHIKODE vs. THE ITO WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 823/COCH/2022[2013-2014(26Q,Q2)]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Mar 2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

For Appellant: Written Submissions (through S/Sh. Pratik Sadrani, HardikFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234ESection 234E(1)

…g the (machinery) provision, the rule is that a construction which makes the machinery workable should be preferred (Gursahai Saigal v. CIT [1963] 48 ITR 1 (SC)). Legislative intention is the foundation of any interpretation (CIT v. Baby Marine Exports [2007] 290 ITR 323 (SC)). Why, the Board Circular 19 of 2015, dated 27/11/2015, relied upon by the Hon’ble Court, reproducing the relevant para (47.3) thereof, itself states of non-provision for determination of fee payable u/s. 234E at the time of processing of TDS statements. As such, the levy of fee u/s. 234E vide Intimation u/s. 200A(1) would be valid where the…

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, ULLIYERI BRANCH,KOZHIKODE vs. THE ITO WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 822/COCH/2022[2013-2014(24Q,Q2)]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Mar 2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

For Appellant: Written Submissions (through S/Sh. Pratik Sadrani, HardikFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234ESection 234E(1)

…g the (machinery) provision, the rule is that a construction which makes the machinery workable should be preferred (Gursahai Saigal v. CIT [1963] 48 ITR 1 (SC)). Legislative intention is the foundation of any interpretation (CIT v. Baby Marine Exports [2007] 290 ITR 323 (SC)). Why, the Board Circular 19 of 2015, dated 27/11/2015, relied upon by the Hon’ble Court, reproducing the relevant para (47.3) thereof, itself states of non-provision for determination of fee payable u/s. 234E at the time of processing of TDS statements. As such, the levy of fee u/s. 234E vide Intimation u/s. 200A(1) would be valid where the…

Showing 1–20 of 68 · Page 1 of 4