CIT v. Vasisth Chay Vyapar Ltd.

330 ITR 440High Court2011#830 most cited

What is CIT v. Vasisth Chay Vyapar Ltd. authority for?

Interest income is taxable under the mercantile system of accounting even if it is not actually recovered, provided there is a right to receive it. The decision also touches upon the treatment of bad debts and provisions for doubtful debts under Section 36(1)(viia).

125

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Vasisth Chay Vyapar Ltd · section 145 · mercantile system of accounting · right to receive · section 36(1)(viia) · bad debts · interest income · real income theory · section 43D

Also reported as

196 Taxmann 169238 CTR 142

Sections most often in play

Section 14ASection 1961Section 115JBSection 43DSection 145Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

Issues it is cited on

section 43dreal income theorysection 36(1)(viia)right to receivesection 45mercantile system of accountingsection 36(1)(vii)section 36(1)(iii)section 41section 43section 30section 36(1)

Judgments citing CIT v. Vasisth Chay Vyapar Ltd.

Gujarat State Land Development Corporation Ltd., Gandhinagar vs. The Dy.CIT, Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2632/AHD/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Feb 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Ms. Arti N. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT/DR
Section 250(6)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH (Conducted Through Virtual Court) Before: Ms. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member And Ms. Madhumita Roy, Judicial Member ITA No. 2538 /Ahd/2014 For A.Y. 2011-12 & ITA Nos. 2630 & 2632/Ahd/2015 For A. Ys. 2008-09 & 2012-13 Gujarat State Land Dy. Commissioner of Development Corporation Income-tax, Limited Balram Bhavan, Vs Gandhinagar Circle, Sector 10A. Gandhinagar- Gandhinagar 382010 (Respondent) PAN: AACCG2870P (Appellant) Appellant by : Ms. Arti N. Shah, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Mohd Usman, CIT/DR Date of hearing : 10-01-2022 Date of pronounce…

Gujarat State Land Development Corporation Ltd., Gandhinagar vs. The Dy.CIT, Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2630/AHD/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Feb 2022AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Ms. Arti N. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT/DR
Section 250(6)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH (Conducted Through Virtual Court) Before: Ms. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member And Ms. Madhumita Roy, Judicial Member ITA No. 2538 /Ahd/2014 For A.Y. 2011-12 & ITA Nos. 2630 & 2632/Ahd/2015 For A. Ys. 2008-09 & 2012-13 Gujarat State Land Dy. Commissioner of Development Corporation Income-tax, Limited Balram Bhavan, Vs Gandhinagar Circle, Sector 10A. Gandhinagar- Gandhinagar 382010 (Respondent) PAN: AACCG2870P (Appellant) Appellant by : Ms. Arti N. Shah, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Mohd Usman, CIT/DR Date of hearing : 10-01-2022 Date of pronounce…

Gujarat State Land Development Corporation Ltd., Gandhinagar vs. The Dy.CIT, Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2538/AHD/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Feb 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Ms. Arti N. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT/DR
Section 250(6)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH (Conducted Through Virtual Court) Before: Ms. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member And Ms. Madhumita Roy, Judicial Member ITA No. 2538 /Ahd/2014 For A.Y. 2011-12 & ITA Nos. 2630 & 2632/Ahd/2015 For A. Ys. 2008-09 & 2012-13 Gujarat State Land Dy. Commissioner of Development Corporation Income-tax, Limited Balram Bhavan, Vs Gandhinagar Circle, Sector 10A. Gandhinagar- Gandhinagar 382010 (Respondent) PAN: AACCG2870P (Appellant) Appellant by : Ms. Arti N. Shah, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Mohd Usman, CIT/DR Date of hearing : 10-01-2022 Date of pronounce…

Vardhman (Mahila) Co-Operative Urban Bank Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-14(1), Hyderabad

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 624/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S.Godara

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri T.Sunil Goutam, DR
Section 143(3)Section 145Section 430Section 43DSection 6

…/2013 and the decision of ITAT, Visakhapatnam Bench in the case of DCIT V5. Durga Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd in ITA No.511/Vizag/2010 dated 10.03.2011 and the judgement dated 29/11/201 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vasisth Chay Vyapar Ltd(330 ITR 440) where it has been held that even when the assessee is following mercantile system of accounting interest on NPA could not be said to have accrued to the assessee when recovery of the principal amount itself was doubtful. 04.2 According to the assessee, the Hon'ble High Court Delhi (supra) had duly considered the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court…

Frick India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our

ITA 330/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Advocate and Shri Pulkit Verma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar Varma, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 251(2)Section 263Section 94(7)

…Frick India Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Circle 11(1), New Delhi 1 ITA Nos. 2072/Del/2008 & 330/Del/2012 – A.Ys 2004-05 & 2005-06 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH: ‘B’: NEW DELHI) (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, PRESIDENT AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 330/Del/2012 (Assessment Year(s): 2004-05 & 2005-06) Frick India Limited, Deputy Commissioner of 809, Surya Kiran Building, Vs. Income Tax, 19, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, Circle 11(2), New Delhi. New Delhi. APPELLANT RESPONDENT PAN No: AAACF0410C Date of Hearing : 06.12.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 30.12.2021 Assessee By :…

Frick India Ltd vs. DCIT Circle-11 (1)

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our

ITA 2072/DEL/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2021AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Advocate and Shri Pulkit Verma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar Varma, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 251(2)Section 263Section 94(7)

…Frick India Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Circle 11(1), New Delhi 1 ITA Nos. 2072/Del/2008 & 330/Del/2012 – A.Ys 2004-05 & 2005-06 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH: ‘B’: NEW DELHI) (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, PRESIDENT AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 330/Del/2012 (Assessment Year(s): 2004-05 & 2005-06) Frick India Limited, Deputy Commissioner of 809, Surya Kiran Building, Vs. Income Tax, 19, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, Circle 11(2), New Delhi. New Delhi. APPELLANT RESPONDENT PAN No: AAACF0410C Date of Hearing : 06.12.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 30.12.2021 Assessee By :…

The Pr Commissioner of Income Tax, CIT(A) vs. M/S South Canara District

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA/393/2016HC Karnataka14 Dec 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

Section 145Section 260Section 260A

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY I.T.A.No.393/2016 BETWEEN: 1. The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax, CIT(A) C.R.Building, Attavara, Mangaluru-575 001. 2. The Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-2(1), C.R.building, Attavara, Mangaluru-575 001. … APPELLANTS (By Sri K.V.Aravind, Adv.) AND: M/s. South Canara District, Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Sadashiva Sahakara Sadana, K.S.Rao Road, Mangaluru-575 00…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4 vs. Navin Chand Suchanti

The appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITAT/1/2018HC Calcutta24 Nov 2021

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 1St May 2024. Appearance: Ms. Smita Das De, Advocate … For The Appellant. Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Senior Advocate Mr. Ananda Sen, Advocate … For The Respondent. 1. Heard Smt. Smita Das De, Learned Senior Standing Counsel For The Appellant & Sri J. P. Khaitan, Learned Senior Advocate Assisted By Sri Ananda Sen, Learned Counsel For The Respondent Assessee. 2.

Section 43BSection 43D

…d substantial question of law No.1 in ITA/331/2008 10. This substantial question of law regarding alleged interest on non- performing asses is covered by a judgment of Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Vasisth Chay Vyapar Ltd. & Another [2011] 330 ITR 440 (Delhi), which was affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Vasisth Chay Vyapar Ltd. [2019] 410 ITR 244 (SC). The relevant portion of the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Vasisth Chay Vyapar Ltd. (supra) is reproduced below:- “In this scenario, we have to examine the strength in the submission of learned coun…

Sri Kanyakaparameswari Co-Operative Bank Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

ITA/791/2017HC Karnataka27 Jul 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 260Section 260ASection 36(1)(viii)

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JULY 2021 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR I.T.A. NO.791 OF 2017 BETWEEN: SRI. KANYAKAPARAMESWARI CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER IN-CHARGE SRI. K.N. NAGARAJ K.R. CIRCLE, MYSURU-570001 PAN:AACAS 1220 M. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. A. SHANKAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. ANNAMALAI S, ADV.,) AND: THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RANGE-1 INCOME TAX BUILDING #21/16, AAYKAR BHAVAN RESIDENCY ROAD, NAZARBAD MYSURU-570010. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI.…

Brahmputra Capital and Financial Services Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 5(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3704/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri K.N. Chary

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT- DR

…st on 26th April, 2018. The Court is of the opinion that facially the appeal is covered against the Revenue by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court reported as Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vasisth Chay Vyapar Ltd, (2011) 196 Taxman 169 (Delhi) : 330 ITR 440 (Delhi).” 13. Respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in assesses own case we decline to interfere with the finding with the finding of the CIT (A).” 6. As no distinguishing decision has been brought to our notice, respectfully following the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Hon'ble Jurisdictional High…

Income Tax Officer, Ward- 3(1)(3), Bangalore vs. M/S. Hmt (International) Limited, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2325/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmajee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

…tax by the assessee. There was uncertainty with regard to recovery of interest concerned as a result of precarious position of EIC. Accordingly, the CIT(A) placed reliance on the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT(A) Vs. Vasisth Chay Vyapar Ltd., 330 ITR 440 (Delhi) and he allowed the appeal of the assessee. Again, the Revenue is in appeal in all these Assessment Years. The learned DR submitted that the judgment relied on by CIT(A) in the case of Vasisth Chay Vyapar Ltd., (supra) cannot to be applied to the facts of the present case which was delivered in a different set of facts and has no relevance…

Income Tax Officer, Ward- 3(1)(3), Bengaluru vs. M/S. Hmt (International) Limited, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2289/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmajee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

…tax by the assessee. There was uncertainty with regard to recovery of interest concerned as a result of precarious position of EIC. Accordingly, the CIT(A) placed reliance on the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT(A) Vs. Vasisth Chay Vyapar Ltd., 330 ITR 440 (Delhi) and he allowed the appeal of the assessee. Again, the Revenue is in appeal in all these Assessment Years. The learned DR submitted that the judgment relied on by CIT(A) in the case of Vasisth Chay Vyapar Ltd., (supra) cannot to be applied to the facts of the present case which was delivered in a different set of facts and has no relevance…

Income Tax Officer Ward-3(1)(3), Bangalore vs. M/S Hmt International Limited, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3348/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Dec 2020AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmajee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

…tax by the assessee. There was uncertainty with regard to recovery of interest concerned as a result of precarious position of EIC. Accordingly, the CIT(A) placed reliance on the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT(A) Vs. Vasisth Chay Vyapar Ltd., 330 ITR 440 (Delhi) and he allowed the appeal of the assessee. Again, the Revenue is in appeal in all these Assessment Years. The learned DR submitted that the judgment relied on by CIT(A) in the case of Vasisth Chay Vyapar Ltd., (supra) cannot to be applied to the facts of the present case which was delivered in a different set of facts and has no relevance…

Income Tax Officer Ward-3(1)(3), Bangalore vs. M/S Hmt International Limited, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3347/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Dec 2020AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmajee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

…tax by the assessee. There was uncertainty with regard to recovery of interest concerned as a result of precarious position of EIC. Accordingly, the CIT(A) placed reliance on the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT(A) Vs. Vasisth Chay Vyapar Ltd., 330 ITR 440 (Delhi) and he allowed the appeal of the assessee. Again, the Revenue is in appeal in all these Assessment Years. The learned DR submitted that the judgment relied on by CIT(A) in the case of Vasisth Chay Vyapar Ltd., (supra) cannot to be applied to the facts of the present case which was delivered in a different set of facts and has no relevance…

Simec Indus Resources Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 23(2), New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 71/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishisimec Indus Resources Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, Flat No. 257/Dda Commercial Circle-23(2), Complex-1, Cycle Market, New Delhi Jhandewalan Extn, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Prabhat Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Chaudhary, CIT DR
Section 10Section 10ASection 10A(5)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(5)

…n'ble Apex Court held that there can be no manner of doubt that the provision of Special Court Act wherever they are applicable shall prevail over the provision of the Income tax Act. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Vasisth Chay Vaapar Ltd. 330 ITR 440 held that when there is a provision in another enactment which contains a non-obstanate clause than that would override the provisions of the Income Tax. Thus one will have to consider the implication of Section 51 of the SEZ Act. It means that anything in-consistent to the provision of the SEZ Act will not be considered. Thus the word services a…

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, as indicated above

ITA 3644/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri G Manjunatha, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 3644/Mum/2016 (ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2008-09) State Bank Of India The Dy. Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Corporate Centre Income Tax, Circle -2(2)(1) बनाम/ Madam Cama Road Mumbai Vs. Nariman Point Mumbai-400021 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaacs8577K

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwalla &For Respondent: Shri Anadi Varma, CIT-DR&
Section 143(3)Section 147

…ties also to be reckoned as income on realisation basis and the same has regularly been recognised in the books of account accordingly. The case law cited by the learned Counsel for the assessee before us in the case of CIT vs. Vasisth Chay Vyapar Ltd. [2011] 330 ITR 440 (Delhi), the Delhi High Court had to consider a case where the assessee, being a NBFC, treated the inter corporate deposits as an NPA, in terms of the directions of the RBI and, hence, did not recognise interest income in respect of the same. The Delhi High Court has recognised the real income theory and this was approved by the Supreme Court in…

The Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S. Syndicate Bank

The appeals are disposed of

ITA/98/2010HC Karnataka23 Jan 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 115JSection 14ASection 260Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)(i)Section 43D

…IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI I.T.A. NO.98 OF 2010 C/W I.T.A. NO.100 OF 2010 I.T.A. NO.98 OF 2010 BETWEEN: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX C.R. BUILDING, ATTAVATA MANGALORE. 2. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-1, UDUPI. ... APPELLANTS (By Sri. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.) AND: M/S. SYNDICATE BANK SYNDICATE HOUSE MANIPAL. ... RESPONDENT (By Sri. T. SURYANARAYANA, ADV.) - - - 2 THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UND…

Lic Housing Finance Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai

ITA 5434/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5434/Mum/2011 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2004-05) Lic Housing Finance Limited Dcit-Circle -2(2) 2Nd Floor, Bombay Life Bldg. बनाम/ Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Marg 45/47 Veer Nariman Road Mumbai- 400 020. Vs. Fort, Mumbai-400 023. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaci-5375-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5435/Mum/2011 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2005-06) Lic Housing Finance Limited Dcit-Circle -2(2) 2Nd Floor, Bombay Life Bldg. बनाम/ Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Marg 45/47 Veer Nariman Road Mumbai- 400 020. Vs. Fort, Mumbai-400 023. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaci-5375-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri H.P. Mahajani- Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Anadi Varma - Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 30/07/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 04/10/2019 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri H.P. Mahajani- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Anadi Varma - Ld. CIT-DR
Section 36(1)(viii)

…o, we find that identical question came up for consideration before this Tribunal in GIC Housing Finance Ltd. V/s ADIT 45 SOT 318, wherein the bench, after considering the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court rendered in CIT V/s Vasisth Chay Vyapar Ltd. (2011 330 ITR 440) which Ld. AR has heavily relied upon, held as under:- 14. We have considered the rival submissions. The provisions of section 43D are as follows: "43D. Special Provisions in case of income of Public Financial Institutions, Public companies etc. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other provision of this Act,- (a) ** ** ** (…

The DCIT, Circle-1(3), Surat vs. M/S. Shree Vijya Laxmi Exports, Surat

In the result, both appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 815/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A. No.2342/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Vijaya Laxmi Exports, Ward-3(4), Surat. 5-15, Patel Park, Tadwadi, Rander Road, Surat – 395 009. [Pan: Aaifv 1685 J] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A. No. 815/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S.Shree Vijaya Laxmi Exports, Income Tax, Circle-1(3), Surat. S-15, Patel Park, Tadwadi, Rander Road, Surat – 395 009. [Pan: Aaifv 1685 J] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah – Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri O.P.Singh –Cit(Dr)

Section 10A

…le Apex Court held that there can be no manner of doubt that the provisions of Special Court Act wherever they are applicable shall prevail over the provisions of the Income-tax Act. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT V/s. Vasisth Chay Vyapar ltd 330 ITR 440 held that when there is a provision in another enactment which contains a non obstente clause than that would override the provisions of the Income Tax Act. Thus, one will have to consider the implication of section 51 of the SEZ Act. It means that anything inconsistent to the provisions of the SEZ Act will not be considered. Thus the word servic…

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(3), Ahmedabad vs. The Kalupur Commercial Co. Op. Bank Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the question is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and all Tax Appeals are dismissed

ITA 1864/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Jun 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri N. R. Soni, CIT-D.RFor Respondent: Shri S. N. Soparkar & Parin Shah, A.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

…ied the matter in appeal. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowed the appeal. He relied on the decision of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and of the Delhi High Court in case of CIT v. Vasisth Chay Vyapar Ltd. [2010] 8 taxmann.com 145/[2Q11] 196 Taxman 169/330 ITR 440. 5. The Revenue carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned judgment, rejected the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal relied on its earlier judgment in case of the assessee for earlier assessment years, in which, reliance was placed on the decision of Bombay High Court in case of CIT v. Deogiri Nagar Sahakari Bank L…