CIT v. Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd.

345 ITR 552High Court2012#10546 most cited

What is CIT v. Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd. authority for?

Statutory power to pass an order under section 201 of the Income Tax Act must be exercised within a reasonable period, even if no specific limitation period is prescribed.

10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2023.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd. · section 201 · reasonable time limit · limitation · order under section 201 · TDS · withholding tax · Himachal Pradesh High Court

Judgments citing CIT v. Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd.

Ambattur Developer (P) Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT International Taxation 1(1), Chennai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 2348/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Jan 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) –Ld. DR
Section 201Section 201(1)Section 201(3)

…order passed u/s 201 of the I.T.Act beyond four years was not reasonable and had quashed the same as barred by limitation. Similar view was taken by the Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT v. Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd. reported in [(2012) 345 ITR 552 (HP)]. As mentioned earlier, the learned DR submitted that the time limit prescribed in sub-section (3) of section 201 does not have application since the payee is a non-resident. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Director of Income-tax (International Taxation) v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. (supra) had held even if there is no time limit…

Srinivas Rudrappa, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, TDS, Ward-3(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 703/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv C Nulvi, C.A : Smt. Priyadarshini
Section 133ASection 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI. LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 702 & 703/Bang/2022 Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Shri Srinivas Rudrappa, #845, 5th Main, 11th Cross, The Income Tax Capital School, RBI Officer, Layout, TDS, Ward 3(1), JP Nagar, 7th Phase, Bengaluru. Vs. Bengaluru. PAN : ASLPR 7967 E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Rajiv C Nulvi, C.A : Smt. Priyadarshini Revenue by Baseganni, Addl.CIT (DR) Date of Hearing : 18-10-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 02-12-2022 ORDER PER BENCH These two appeals h…

Srinivas Rudrappa, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, TDS, Ward-3(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 702/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv C Nulvi, C.A : Smt. Priyadarshini
Section 133ASection 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI. LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 702 & 703/Bang/2022 Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Shri Srinivas Rudrappa, #845, 5th Main, 11th Cross, The Income Tax Capital School, RBI Officer, Layout, TDS, Ward 3(1), JP Nagar, 7th Phase, Bengaluru. Vs. Bengaluru. PAN : ASLPR 7967 E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Rajiv C Nulvi, C.A : Smt. Priyadarshini Revenue by Baseganni, Addl.CIT (DR) Date of Hearing : 18-10-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 02-12-2022 ORDER PER BENCH These two appeals h…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Intl Taxn) Circle-1(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Coffeeday Enterprises Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2931/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muzzaffar Hussain, CIT (D.R)
Section 195

…order passed u/s 201 of the I.T.Act beyond four years was not reasonable and had quashed the same as barred by limitation. Similar view was taken by the Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT v. Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd. reported in [(2012) 345 ITR 552 (HP)]. As mentioned earlier, the learned DR submitted that the time limit prescribed in sub-section (3) of section 201 does not have application since the payee is a non-resident. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Director of Income-tax (International Taxation) v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. (supra) had held even if there is no time limit…

The Director of Income Tax vs. The Executive Engineer

ITA/166/2011HC Karnataka24 Aug 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 201(1)Section 201(3)Section 231Section 260Section 260A

…‘CIT V. UB ELECTRONIC INSTRUMENTS LTD’, 371 ITR 314 (ANDHRA PRADESH), decision of Bombay High Court in ‘DIT VS. MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA’, 365 ITR 560 (BOMBAY) and decision of High Court of Himachal Pradesh in ‘CIT V SATLUJ JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LTD’, 345 ITR 552 (HIMACHAL PRADESH). 10 8. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel on both the sides and have perused the record. The seminal issue, which arises for consideration in these appeals is with regard to the reasonable period of limitation for initiation of proceeding under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the A…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Circle - 2(1), Bangalore vs. M/S. Infosys Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and the cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1687/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Mar 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri H Padamchand Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Misra, JCIT (DR)
Section 201Section 201(1)Section 201(3)Section 40

…initiated by the competent authority under the Income Tax Act, where no limitation is prescribed as in Section 201 of the Act within that period of four years," 2.12 The Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT v Satluj Jul Vidyut Nigam Limited (2010) 345 ITR 552 (HP) relied on the Delhi High Court judgment in NHK Japan Broadcasting Corpn case observed as under.' "We are in respectful agreement with the judgment of the Delhi High Court since it follows the law laid down by the Apex Court. The law is well settled that even if no period of limitation is prescribed, the statutory power must be exercised wit…

M/S. Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd ( Earlier Known As Indian Rayon and Industries Ltd and Now Amalgamated With Grasim Industries Limited)), Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (International Taxation)-2(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 671/MUM/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Shri S.H. Usmani
Section 195(1)Section 195(2)Section 201Section 201(1)

…s:– i) DIT(IT) v/s Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., [2014] 365 ITR 560 (Bom.); ii) CIT v/s NHK Japan Broadcasting Corp., [2008] 305 ITR 137 (Del.); iii) CIT v/s Hutchison Essar Telecome Ltd., [2010] 323 ITR 230 (Del.); iv) CIT v/s M/s. Sathuj Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd., 345 ITR 552 (HP); v) CIT v/s C.J. International Hotels Pvt. Ltd., TS–74–HC–Del), dated 09.02.2015; vi) CIT v/s M/s. U.B. Electronic Instruments Ltd., TS–844–HC– 2014 (Tel & AP) dated 12.11.2014; and vii) Tech Mahindra Ltd. v/s ITO, [2018] 96 taxmann.com 357 (Mum.). 7. We have considered rival submissions and perused material on record in the light of the de…

M/S.Us Technology Resources P. Ltd, Trivandrum vs. The ACIT(International Taxation), Trivandrum

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the Stay Petition filed

ITA 122/COCH/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Apr 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 40

…der passed u/s 201 of the I.T.Act beyond four years was not reasonable and had quashed the same as barred by limitation. Similar view was taken by the Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT v. Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd. reported in [(2012) 345 ITR 552 (HP)]. As mentioned earlier, the CIT had held the time limit prescribed in sub-section (3) of section 201 does not have application since the payee is a non-resident. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Director of Income-tax (International Taxation) v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. (supra) had held even if there is no time limit prescribe…

Hatway Nasik Cable Network P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. TRO (TDS) 1, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby Allowed

ITA 5190/MUM/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. No.5190/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2003-04) बनाम/ Hathway Nasik Cable The Tax Recovery Officer Network Private Limited (Tds) Rg. -1 Vs. Rahejas, 4Th Floor, Corners Smt. K.G.Mittal Ayurvedic Of Main Avenue & V.P.Road, Hospital Bldg. Santacruz (West) Charni Road – West, Mumbai - 400054 Mumbai - 400002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaach9070Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi & Manoj DixitFor Respondent: Shri M. C. Omi Ningshen
Section 133Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई "ायपीठ “एच‘’ मुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL“H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. No.5190/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2003-04) बनाम/ Hathway Nasik Cable The Tax Recovery Officer Network Private Limited (TDS) Rg. -1 Vs. Rahejas, 4th Floor, Corners Smt. K.G.Mittal Ayurvedic of Main Avenue & V.P.Road, Hospital Bldg. Santacruz (West) Charni Road – West, Mumbai - 400054 Mumbai - 400002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AAACH9070Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) .. Assessee by: Shri Nitesh Joshi & Manoj…

Commissioner of Income Tax, Guntur vs. Agricultural Market Committee, Krosur

ITTA/166/2011HC Telangana21 Apr 2011

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

CIT v. Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd. (345 ITR 552) — Cited in 10 Judgments | BharatTax