CIT v. Revathi Equipment Limited

298 ITR 67High Court2008#5340 most cited

What is CIT v. Revathi Equipment Limited authority for?

An assessee is not liable to pay interest for failure to pay advance tax when the tax liability arose due to a law amendment made after the end of the financial year.

22

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

CIT v. Revathi Equipment Ltd · advance tax · interest · sections 234B · 234C · amendment to law · liability to pay tax

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 115BBESection 124(3)(b)Section 127Section 131(1A)Section 132Section 133(6)Section 144

Issues it is cited on

section 29section 133asection 263section 26section 69asection 153asection 132section 68section 142(1)section 143(2)section 15section 13

Judgments citing CIT v. Revathi Equipment Limited

SRIMANTHI KANTHIMATHI KUMARASWAMI MUDALIAR KALYANAMANDAPAM TRUST,CHITTOOR vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), HYDERABAD

ITA 690/HYD/2025[2025-26]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad16 Jul 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G.

Section 12A

…surance Corp Ltd. v. CIT (1996) 219 ITR 410 (SC) State of Rajasthan v. Shamsher Singh 1985 AIR 1082 [SC] State of MP Vs. Narmada Bachao Andolan (2011) 7 SCC 639 Krishnaswamy S. PD. v. Union of India [2006] 281 ITR 305 (SC) CIT V. Revathi Equipment Ltd. (2008) 298 ITR 67 (Mad) Emperor v. Ganpat Laxman Kalgutkar, AIR 1938 Bom 427 4. The learned CIT(E) failed to appreciate that the literal interpretation of clause (iii) leads to absurd results and therefore to be eschewed, as held by the Apex Court in K.P.Varghese vs ITO 131 ITR 597 (SC). K. Rathen 5. The CIT(E) ought to have accepted that the application in 10AB…

SHRI BHARATKUMAR IASHWARBHAI BHATIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRL-1,, RAJKOT

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue, in ITA No

ITA 44/RJT/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Jun 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 134 & 135/Rjt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2007-08 & 2008-09) Income Tax Officer, Ward- Shri Kherajmal Lekhrajbjai 5Th 1(2)(1), Aaykar Bhavan, Thavrani, 4- Parsana Nagar, Shri Vs. Floor, Room No. 517, Race Vaheguru Grupa, Near Refugee Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 Colony, Rajkot-360 001 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जी आइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Adrpt 5807 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

…envat Credit had not been availed, had not been fulfilled, as the condition which is required to be fulfilled by the transferor cannot be expected to be fulfilled by the transferee. Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT V. Revathi Equipment Ltd. (2008) 298 ITR 67 (Mad)While dealing with question as to whether an assessee can be held liable to pay interest for failure to pay advance tax during the year when the liability 1. BHARATKUMAR ISHWARBHAI BHATIYA 2. DHAMJIBHAI & KHIRAJMAL LEKHRAJBHAI THALVANI to pay tax had arisen on account of amendment to law which took place after the end of the year, it is hel…

JAGDISH KUMAR ARORA,BHAWANIMANDI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1195/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 69

…. [2009] 319 ITR 306 (SC) vi) (vi) CIT v. Ansal Land Mark Township (P) Ltd. (ITA 160/2015 dated 28.05.2015 Delhi High Court) (vii) CIT v. NGC Network India Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 397/2015 dated 29th January 2018) (viii) CIT v. M/s Revathi Equipment Ltd. [2008] 298 ITR 67 (Mad) 4.8. That Rajasthan High Court has also decided in the case of Niharika Jain w/o Sh. Andesh Jain vs. Union of India in Sb. Civil Wirt Petition No. 2915/2019 and other dt. 12.07.2019 that Benami Amendment Act, 2016 cannot have retrospective effect. It was decided that court has no hesitation to hold that the Benami Amendment Act, 2016 amendin…

SILVER WINGS LIFE SPACES,KOTA vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1 KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 511/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Learned Cit(A), Which Appeal Was Filed By The Assessee

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra(Addl. CIT)
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 69

…Ansal Land Mark Township (P) Ltd. (ITA 160/2015 dated 28.05.2015 Delhi High Court) 28 Silver Wings Life Spaces vs DCIT, Kota (vii) CIT v. NGC Network India Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 397/2015 dated 29th January 2018) (viii) CIT v. M/s Revathi Equipment Ltd. [2008] 298 ITR 67 (Mad) 4.8. That Rajasthan High Court has also decided in the case of Niharika Jain w/o Sh. Andesh Jain vs. Union of India in Sb. Civil Wirt Petition No. 2915/2019 and other dt. 12.07.2019 that Benami Amendment Act, 2016 cannot have retrospective effect. It was decided that court has no hesitation to hold that the Benami Amendment Act, 2016 amendin…

SRI SANKARAHEALTH CENTRE,VELLORE vs. CIT-EXEMPTIONS, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 781/CHNY/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jul 2024

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.781/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: - V. Sri Sankara Health Centre, The Cit (Exemptions), 8, Katpadi Road, Chennai. Mottur Village, Vellore-632 006. [Pan: Aakas 6655 C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 12ASection 5Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)Section 80G(5)(iv)

…Corp Ltd. v. CIT (1996) 219 ITR 410 (SC) o State of Rajasthan v. Shamsher Singh 1985 AIR 1082 [SC] o State of MP Vs. Narmada Bachao Andolan (2011) 7 SCC 639 o Krishnaswamy S. PD. v. Union of India [2006] 281 ITR 305 (SC) o CIT V. Revathi Equipment Ltd. (2008) 298 ITR 67 (Mad) o Emperor v. Ganpat Laxman Kalgutkar, AIR 1938 Bom 427 4. We note that the assessee Trust filed an application in Form No.10AB on 19.04.2023 seeking regular approval for five (5) years under clause (iii) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of Sec.80G of the Act. The Ld.CIT(E) while processing the application noticed that the date of creatio…

S.KANNAIYAN,ERODE vs. DCIT, SALEM

In the result, appeals of all the assessees are dismissed

ITA 314/CHNY/2017[1992-93]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2018AY 1992-93

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

Section 143(3)Section 69

…Act was to be charged with reference to assessed tax and not with reference to income declared in the returns. Ad libitum reply of the ld. Authorised Representative was 6. that Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Revathi Equipment Ltd, 298 ITR 67 had held that assessee was liable to pay interest under sections 234B and 234C of the Act only based on law that prevailed at the time when assessees filed their returns originally. According to him, there could be no retrospective levy of interest. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High ITA Nos.314 to 321 /Mds/20…

ITO, CHENNAI vs. A.L.HOMES, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1427/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: 31.10.2017
Section 801BSection 801B(10)Section 80ISection 8O

…m Haji Abdul Khayumsab v. Kumar [2006] 1 SCC 46, Mohammed Gazi v. State of M. P. [2000] 4 SCC 342 and Gursharan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee [1996] 2 SCC 459]. 21. Further the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Revathi Equipment Ltd., 298 ITR 67 (Mad.) while considering the issue of retrospective amendment introduced in relation to the levy of interest under sections 234A and 234B of the Act observed as under: “held, dismissing the appeal, that the assessee had paid advance tax after deducting the payment made under the voluntary retirement scheme. In view of the decisions of the jurisdi…

CAIRN UK HOLDING LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 5 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1669/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Puri CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144

…ictum lex non cogit ad impossibillia would be attracted which in simple terms means that 'law cannot compel to do the impossible'.In this regard, the Appellant relies on the following judicial precedents: a. In case of CIT v. Revathi Equipment Limited. [2008] 298 ITR 67 (Mad.), wherein the Madras High Court held that. ".......Normally, new provisions are introduced with effect from the next assessment year, but this provision under section 35DDA was introduced by Parliament in its wisdom with effect from April 1, 2001, ie., the same year and that is why difficulty has arisen for visualizing the liability and the…

M.CT.M. GLOBAL INVESTMENTS P LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, while the assessee’s appeals in I

ITA 1936/CHNY/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1873/Mds/2008 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.456/Mds/2009 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1102/Mds/2011 आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.115 & 1936/Mds/2012 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2004-05, 2005-06, 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 M/S M.Ct.M. Global Investments Pvt. The Assistant Commissioner Of Ltd., V. Income Tax, 761, Anna Salai, Company Circle Iv(1), Chennai - 600 002. Chennai - 600 034. Pan : Aabcm 9738 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. Anita Sumanth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Pathlavath Peerya, CIT

…under the bona fide belief that the income of the Malaysian branch is not taxable in India, there cannot be any levy of interest under Section 234B of the Act. Placing reliance on the judgment of Madras High Court in CIT v. Revathi Equipment Limited (2008) 298 ITR 67, the Ld.counsel submitted that the assessee has paid the advance tax voluntarily in respect of Indian income. The assessee never anticipated that the income earned in Malaysian investments would be included in the total income of the assessee, therefore, the assessee is under the bona fide belief that the Malaysian income is not taxable in India,…

M.CT.M.GLOBAL INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, while the assessee’s appeals in I

ITA 115/CHNY/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1873/Mds/2008 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.456/Mds/2009 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1102/Mds/2011 आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.115 & 1936/Mds/2012 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2004-05, 2005-06, 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 M/S M.Ct.M. Global Investments Pvt. The Assistant Commissioner Of Ltd., V. Income Tax, 761, Anna Salai, Company Circle Iv(1), Chennai - 600 002. Chennai - 600 034. Pan : Aabcm 9738 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. Anita Sumanth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Pathlavath Peerya, CIT

…under the bona fide belief that the income of the Malaysian branch is not taxable in India, there cannot be any levy of interest under Section 234B of the Act. Placing reliance on the judgment of Madras High Court in CIT v. Revathi Equipment Limited (2008) 298 ITR 67, the Ld.counsel submitted that the assessee has paid the advance tax voluntarily in respect of Indian income. The assessee never anticipated that the income earned in Malaysian investments would be included in the total income of the assessee, therefore, the assessee is under the bona fide belief that the Malaysian income is not taxable in India,…

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. MCTM GLOBAL INVESTMENTS PVT LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, while the assessee’s appeals in I

ITA 1285/CHNY/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1873/Mds/2008 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.456/Mds/2009 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1102/Mds/2011 आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.115 & 1936/Mds/2012 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2004-05, 2005-06, 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 M/S M.Ct.M. Global Investments Pvt. The Assistant Commissioner Of Ltd., V. Income Tax, 761, Anna Salai, Company Circle Iv(1), Chennai - 600 002. Chennai - 600 034. Pan : Aabcm 9738 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. Anita Sumanth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Pathlavath Peerya, CIT

…under the bona fide belief that the income of the Malaysian branch is not taxable in India, there cannot be any levy of interest under Section 234B of the Act. Placing reliance on the judgment of Madras High Court in CIT v. Revathi Equipment Limited (2008) 298 ITR 67, the Ld.counsel submitted that the assessee has paid the advance tax voluntarily in respect of Indian income. The assessee never anticipated that the income earned in Malaysian investments would be included in the total income of the assessee, therefore, the assessee is under the bona fide belief that the Malaysian income is not taxable in India,…

M.CT.M.GLOBAL INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, while the assessee’s appeals in I

ITA 1102/CHNY/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1873/Mds/2008 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.456/Mds/2009 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1102/Mds/2011 आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.115 & 1936/Mds/2012 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2004-05, 2005-06, 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 M/S M.Ct.M. Global Investments Pvt. The Assistant Commissioner Of Ltd., V. Income Tax, 761, Anna Salai, Company Circle Iv(1), Chennai - 600 002. Chennai - 600 034. Pan : Aabcm 9738 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. Anita Sumanth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Pathlavath Peerya, CIT

…under the bona fide belief that the income of the Malaysian branch is not taxable in India, there cannot be any levy of interest under Section 234B of the Act. Placing reliance on the judgment of Madras High Court in CIT v. Revathi Equipment Limited (2008) 298 ITR 67, the Ld.counsel submitted that the assessee has paid the advance tax voluntarily in respect of Indian income. The assessee never anticipated that the income earned in Malaysian investments would be included in the total income of the assessee, therefore, the assessee is under the bona fide belief that the Malaysian income is not taxable in India,…

M/S M.CT.M. GLOBAL INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, while the assessee’s appeals in I

ITA 456/CHNY/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1873/Mds/2008 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.456/Mds/2009 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1102/Mds/2011 आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.115 & 1936/Mds/2012 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2004-05, 2005-06, 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 M/S M.Ct.M. Global Investments Pvt. The Assistant Commissioner Of Ltd., V. Income Tax, 761, Anna Salai, Company Circle Iv(1), Chennai - 600 002. Chennai - 600 034. Pan : Aabcm 9738 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. Anita Sumanth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Pathlavath Peerya, CIT

…under the bona fide belief that the income of the Malaysian branch is not taxable in India, there cannot be any levy of interest under Section 234B of the Act. Placing reliance on the judgment of Madras High Court in CIT v. Revathi Equipment Limited (2008) 298 ITR 67, the Ld.counsel submitted that the assessee has paid the advance tax voluntarily in respect of Indian income. The assessee never anticipated that the income earned in Malaysian investments would be included in the total income of the assessee, therefore, the assessee is under the bona fide belief that the Malaysian income is not taxable in India,…

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. M.CT.M.GLOBAL INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, while the assessee’s appeals in I

ITA 1654/CHNY/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1873/Mds/2008 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.456/Mds/2009 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1102/Mds/2011 आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.115 & 1936/Mds/2012 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2004-05, 2005-06, 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 M/S M.Ct.M. Global Investments Pvt. The Assistant Commissioner Of Ltd., V. Income Tax, 761, Anna Salai, Company Circle Iv(1), Chennai - 600 002. Chennai - 600 034. Pan : Aabcm 9738 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. Anita Sumanth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Pathlavath Peerya, CIT

…under the bona fide belief that the income of the Malaysian branch is not taxable in India, there cannot be any levy of interest under Section 234B of the Act. Placing reliance on the judgment of Madras High Court in CIT v. Revathi Equipment Limited (2008) 298 ITR 67, the Ld.counsel submitted that the assessee has paid the advance tax voluntarily in respect of Indian income. The assessee never anticipated that the income earned in Malaysian investments would be included in the total income of the assessee, therefore, the assessee is under the bona fide belief that the Malaysian income is not taxable in India,…

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. M.CT. M GLOBAL INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, while the assessee’s appeals in I

ITA 1465/CHNY/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1873/Mds/2008 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.456/Mds/2009 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1102/Mds/2011 आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.115 & 1936/Mds/2012 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2004-05, 2005-06, 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 M/S M.Ct.M. Global Investments Pvt. The Assistant Commissioner Of Ltd., V. Income Tax, 761, Anna Salai, Company Circle Iv(1), Chennai - 600 002. Chennai - 600 034. Pan : Aabcm 9738 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. Anita Sumanth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Pathlavath Peerya, CIT

…under the bona fide belief that the income of the Malaysian branch is not taxable in India, there cannot be any levy of interest under Section 234B of the Act. Placing reliance on the judgment of Madras High Court in CIT v. Revathi Equipment Limited (2008) 298 ITR 67, the Ld.counsel submitted that the assessee has paid the advance tax voluntarily in respect of Indian income. The assessee never anticipated that the income earned in Malaysian investments would be included in the total income of the assessee, therefore, the assessee is under the bona fide belief that the Malaysian income is not taxable in India,…

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S M.CT.M.GLOBAL INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, while the assessee’s appeals in I

ITA 1438/CHNY/2009[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1873/Mds/2008 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.456/Mds/2009 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1102/Mds/2011 आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.115 & 1936/Mds/2012 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2004-05, 2005-06, 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 M/S M.Ct.M. Global Investments Pvt. The Assistant Commissioner Of Ltd., V. Income Tax, 761, Anna Salai, Company Circle Iv(1), Chennai - 600 002. Chennai - 600 034. Pan : Aabcm 9738 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. Anita Sumanth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Pathlavath Peerya, CIT

…under the bona fide belief that the income of the Malaysian branch is not taxable in India, there cannot be any levy of interest under Section 234B of the Act. Placing reliance on the judgment of Madras High Court in CIT v. Revathi Equipment Limited (2008) 298 ITR 67, the Ld.counsel submitted that the assessee has paid the advance tax voluntarily in respect of Indian income. The assessee never anticipated that the income earned in Malaysian investments would be included in the total income of the assessee, therefore, the assessee is under the bona fide belief that the Malaysian income is not taxable in India,…

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. M CT M GLOBAL INVESTMENTS P. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, while the assessee’s appeals in I

ITA 1954/CHNY/2008[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1873/Mds/2008 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.456/Mds/2009 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1102/Mds/2011 आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.115 & 1936/Mds/2012 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2004-05, 2005-06, 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 M/S M.Ct.M. Global Investments Pvt. The Assistant Commissioner Of Ltd., V. Income Tax, 761, Anna Salai, Company Circle Iv(1), Chennai - 600 002. Chennai - 600 034. Pan : Aabcm 9738 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. Anita Sumanth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Pathlavath Peerya, CIT

…under the bona fide belief that the income of the Malaysian branch is not taxable in India, there cannot be any levy of interest under Section 234B of the Act. Placing reliance on the judgment of Madras High Court in CIT v. Revathi Equipment Limited (2008) 298 ITR 67, the Ld.counsel submitted that the assessee has paid the advance tax voluntarily in respect of Indian income. The assessee never anticipated that the income earned in Malaysian investments would be included in the total income of the assessee, therefore, the assessee is under the bona fide belief that the Malaysian income is not taxable in India,…

M/S M.CT.M. GLOBAL INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, while the assessee’s appeals in I

ITA 1873/CHNY/2008[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1873/Mds/2008 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.456/Mds/2009 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1102/Mds/2011 आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.115 & 1936/Mds/2012 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2004-05, 2005-06, 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 M/S M.Ct.M. Global Investments Pvt. The Assistant Commissioner Of Ltd., V. Income Tax, 761, Anna Salai, Company Circle Iv(1), Chennai - 600 002. Chennai - 600 034. Pan : Aabcm 9738 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. Anita Sumanth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Pathlavath Peerya, CIT

…under the bona fide belief that the income of the Malaysian branch is not taxable in India, there cannot be any levy of interest under Section 234B of the Act. Placing reliance on the judgment of Madras High Court in CIT v. Revathi Equipment Limited (2008) 298 ITR 67, the Ld.counsel submitted that the assessee has paid the advance tax voluntarily in respect of Indian income. The assessee never anticipated that the income earned in Malaysian investments would be included in the total income of the assessee, therefore, the assessee is under the bona fide belief that the Malaysian income is not taxable in India,…

DCIT 10(2), MUMBAI vs. UNITED HELICHARTERS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6917/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. United Helicharters Tax-10(2), Pvt Ltd Room No.432, 4Th Floor, 238, Hindustan Ayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Khohinoor Complex, Mumbai 400 020 Lbs Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai 400 064. Pan: Aaacu 3352N Appellant .. Respondent

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 40Section 44ASection 9(1)(vii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI JASON P. BOAZ, AM AND SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM Dy. Commissioner of Income Vs. M/s. United Helicharters tax-10(2), Pvt Ltd Room No.432, 4th floor, 238, Hindustan Ayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Khohinoor Complex, Mumbai 400 020 LBS Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai 400 064. PAN: AAACU 3352N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by Shri Neil Philip Respondent by None Date of hearing: 16-05-2016 Date of pronouncement: 10-08-2016 O R D E R PER SANDEEP GOSAIN,JUDICIAL MEMBER: The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of the learned CIT (A…

INDIAN PETROCHEMICAL CORPORATION LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT LTU, MUMBAI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6514/MUM/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Joginder Singh

For Appellant: Shri Arvind SondeFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Kardam
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 234B

…001. The plea of the assessee is that in such a situation, interest u/s 234B of the Act is not chargeable and in support, he has relied upon various decisions as under :- i) Emami Ltd. v. CIT (2011), 63 DTR 301 (Cal) ii) CIT v. Revathi Equipment Ltd. (2008), 298 ITR 67 (Mad) iii) Trinity Forge v. ACIT (2001), 73 TTJ 582 (ITAT Pune) 4 Indian Petrochemicals Corporation ITA Nos. 6513 & 6514/Mum/2014 iv) Priyanka Overseas Ltd. v. DCIT (2001), 79 ITD 353 (Delhi ITAT) v) Hindson International v. ITO (2010), 133 TTJ 83 (Chd) vi) Canara Bank v. ITO (2009), 121 ITD 1 (Nagpur Bench) vii) DCIT v. Uttam Sugar Mills Ltd.…

Showing 1–20 of 22 · Page 1 of 2