CIT v. National Duncan Ltd.

260 ITR 97High Court2003#7810 most cited

14

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2022.

Judgments citing CIT v. National Duncan Ltd.

THE DY CIT-15(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. TATA PROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Appeal are allowed whereas Cross Objection No

ITA 1165/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash Singh

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43B

…redit from the amount collected from its customers before determination of the amount that it was required to actually pay to the sales tax Department. Such a stand vindicated by judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of National Standard Duncan Ltd (260 ITR 97). Nor does the Assessing officer have objection to such a stand. In his assessment order he has fairly accepted the stand of the assessee and allowed the amounts so set off to be so deducted. The dispute with regard to the amount that could not set prior to the due date filing of return. The assessee argues that the same is also liable be consider…

M/S. IFCI LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 2473/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 14Section 143Section 43B

…the appellant is not falling under that mischief of the retrospective provisions. Therefore, the addition/disallowance cannot be made. The learned CIT – A considered the judgment of Honourable Calcutta High Court in case of National standard Duncan Ltd 2003 – 260 ITR 97 and of coordinate bench in case of Pratibha syntax Ltd versus joint Commissioner of income tax (2002) 81 ITD 118 (Ahm). 18. The learned departmental representative vehemently supported the order of the learned assessing officer. 19. The learned authorised representative supported the order of the learned CIT – A and reiterated the same submissions…

IFCI LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 5381/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 14Section 143Section 43B

…the appellant is not falling under that mischief of the retrospective provisions. Therefore, the addition/disallowance cannot be made. The learned CIT – A considered the judgment of Honourable Calcutta High Court in case of National standard Duncan Ltd 2003 – 260 ITR 97 and of coordinate bench in case of Pratibha syntax Ltd versus joint Commissioner of income tax (2002) 81 ITD 118 (Ahm). 18. The learned departmental representative vehemently supported the order of the learned assessing officer. 19. The learned authorised representative supported the order of the learned CIT – A and reiterated the same submissions…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. IFCI LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 2062/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 14Section 143Section 43B

…the appellant is not falling under that mischief of the retrospective provisions. Therefore, the addition/disallowance cannot be made. The learned CIT – A considered the judgment of Honourable Calcutta High Court in case of National standard Duncan Ltd 2003 – 260 ITR 97 and of coordinate bench in case of Pratibha syntax Ltd versus joint Commissioner of income tax (2002) 81 ITD 118 (Ahm). 18. The learned departmental representative vehemently supported the order of the learned assessing officer. 19. The learned authorised representative supported the order of the learned CIT – A and reiterated the same submissions…

IFCI LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 1984/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 14Section 143Section 43B

…the appellant is not falling under that mischief of the retrospective provisions. Therefore, the addition/disallowance cannot be made. The learned CIT – A considered the judgment of Honourable Calcutta High Court in case of National standard Duncan Ltd 2003 – 260 ITR 97 and of coordinate bench in case of Pratibha syntax Ltd versus joint Commissioner of income tax (2002) 81 ITD 118 (Ahm). 18. The learned departmental representative vehemently supported the order of the learned assessing officer. 19. The learned authorised representative supported the order of the learned CIT – A and reiterated the same submissions…

IFCI LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 3443/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 14Section 143Section 43B

…the appellant is not falling under that mischief of the retrospective provisions. Therefore, the addition/disallowance cannot be made. The learned CIT – A considered the judgment of Honourable Calcutta High Court in case of National standard Duncan Ltd 2003 – 260 ITR 97 and of coordinate bench in case of Pratibha syntax Ltd versus joint Commissioner of income tax (2002) 81 ITD 118 (Ahm). 18. The learned departmental representative vehemently supported the order of the learned assessing officer. 19. The learned authorised representative supported the order of the learned CIT – A and reiterated the same submissions…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S IFCI LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 3207/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 14Section 143Section 43B

…the appellant is not falling under that mischief of the retrospective provisions. Therefore, the addition/disallowance cannot be made. The learned CIT – A considered the judgment of Honourable Calcutta High Court in case of National standard Duncan Ltd 2003 – 260 ITR 97 and of coordinate bench in case of Pratibha syntax Ltd versus joint Commissioner of income tax (2002) 81 ITD 118 (Ahm). 18. The learned departmental representative vehemently supported the order of the learned assessing officer. 19. The learned authorised representative supported the order of the learned CIT – A and reiterated the same submissions…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S IFCI LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 2199/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 14Section 143Section 43B

…the appellant is not falling under that mischief of the retrospective provisions. Therefore, the addition/disallowance cannot be made. The learned CIT – A considered the judgment of Honourable Calcutta High Court in case of National standard Duncan Ltd 2003 – 260 ITR 97 and of coordinate bench in case of Pratibha syntax Ltd versus joint Commissioner of income tax (2002) 81 ITD 118 (Ahm). 18. The learned departmental representative vehemently supported the order of the learned assessing officer. 19. The learned authorised representative supported the order of the learned CIT – A and reiterated the same submissions…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S IFCI LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 1631/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 14Section 143Section 43B

…the appellant is not falling under that mischief of the retrospective provisions. Therefore, the addition/disallowance cannot be made. The learned CIT – A considered the judgment of Honourable Calcutta High Court in case of National standard Duncan Ltd 2003 – 260 ITR 97 and of coordinate bench in case of Pratibha syntax Ltd versus joint Commissioner of income tax (2002) 81 ITD 118 (Ahm). 18. The learned departmental representative vehemently supported the order of the learned assessing officer. 19. The learned authorised representative supported the order of the learned CIT – A and reiterated the same submissions…

SHRI VIJAY KUMAR AGGARWAL,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFICER,WARD II(4), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 119/ASR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 38/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 77/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. J. S. Bhasin, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Shivani Bansal, DR

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR Before Sh. N. S. Saini, Accountant Member And Sh. N. K. Choudhry, Judicial Member ITA No. 38/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 ITA No. 77/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 ITA No. 119/Asr./2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Sh. Vijay Kumar Aggarwal, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/o S.K. Gupta & Co., Ward-II(2), Chartered Accountant, EG, 934, Jalandhar 2nd Floor, N.G. Road, Jalandhar-144001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ADHPA5106D Assessee by : Sh. J. S. Bhasin, Adv. Revenue by : Ms. Shivani Bansal, DR Date of Hearing :21.02.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 19.…

SH. VIJAY KUMAR AGGARWAL, PROP.,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 38/ASR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 38/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 77/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. J. S. Bhasin, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Shivani Bansal, DR

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR Before Sh. N. S. Saini, Accountant Member And Sh. N. K. Choudhry, Judicial Member ITA No. 38/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 ITA No. 77/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 ITA No. 119/Asr./2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Sh. Vijay Kumar Aggarwal, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/o S.K. Gupta & Co., Ward-II(2), Chartered Accountant, EG, 934, Jalandhar 2nd Floor, N.G. Road, Jalandhar-144001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ADHPA5106D Assessee by : Sh. J. S. Bhasin, Adv. Revenue by : Ms. Shivani Bansal, DR Date of Hearing :21.02.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 19.…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. SWATI MINERALS,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1024/PUN/2015[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Oct 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Prateek JhaFor Respondent: Shri Alok Singh

Section 143(3)Section 43B

…ight of the provisions of section 43B of the Act and in the light of the decisions cited before them. Before the I.T.A.T. ‘A’ Bench in the case of Laxmi Hydraulics Pvt. Ltd. (supra), two more decisions were also cited, viz. CIT Vs. National Duncan Ltd. (2003) 260 ITR 97 (Cal) and CIT Vs. India Carbon Ltd. (2003) 262 ITR 327 (Gau). Since the CIT(A) has not deliberated the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Chowringhee Sales Bureau (P) Ltd. reported in 87 ITR 542 (SC) as referred to by the I.T.A.T. Pune Bench ‘A’ in the case of Laxmi Hydraulics P. Ltd. (supra), we have no other alternative than to restor…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. SWATI MINERALS,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1023/PUN/2015[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Oct 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Prateek JhaFor Respondent: Shri Alok Singh

Section 143(3)Section 43B

…ight of the provisions of section 43B of the Act and in the light of the decisions cited before them. Before the I.T.A.T. ‘A’ Bench in the case of Laxmi Hydraulics Pvt. Ltd. (supra), two more decisions were also cited, viz. CIT Vs. National Duncan Ltd. (2003) 260 ITR 97 (Cal) and CIT Vs. India Carbon Ltd. (2003) 262 ITR 327 (Gau). Since the CIT(A) has not deliberated the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Chowringhee Sales Bureau (P) Ltd. reported in 87 ITR 542 (SC) as referred to by the I.T.A.T. Pune Bench ‘A’ in the case of Laxmi Hydraulics P. Ltd. (supra), we have no other alternative than to restor…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. SWATI MINERALS,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1022/PUN/2015[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Oct 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Prateek JhaFor Respondent: Shri Alok Singh

Section 143(3)Section 43B

…ight of the provisions of section 43B of the Act and in the light of the decisions cited before them. Before the I.T.A.T. ‘A’ Bench in the case of Laxmi Hydraulics Pvt. Ltd. (supra), two more decisions were also cited, viz. CIT Vs. National Duncan Ltd. (2003) 260 ITR 97 (Cal) and CIT Vs. India Carbon Ltd. (2003) 262 ITR 327 (Gau). Since the CIT(A) has not deliberated the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Chowringhee Sales Bureau (P) Ltd. reported in 87 ITR 542 (SC) as referred to by the I.T.A.T. Pune Bench ‘A’ in the case of Laxmi Hydraulics P. Ltd. (supra), we have no other alternative than to restor…

CIT v. National Duncan Ltd. (260 ITR 97) — Cited in 14 Judgments | BharatTax