Commercial Tax Officer v. Binani Cements Ltd & Another

8 SCC 319Reported decision2014#2554 most cited
46

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Commercial Tax Officer v. Binani Cements Ltd · Binani Cements · 8 SCC 319 (2014) · Section 194A · Section 201 · Section 201(1) · Section 201(1A) · TDS on interest · failure to deduct tax at source · interest for non-deduction · penalty for non-deduction

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Commercial Tax Officer v. Binani Cements Ltd & Another

UDAY UTTAMRAO NEVASE,PUNE vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER / ASSESSMENT UNIT, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2606/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2606/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Uday Uttamrao Nevase, V The Assessing Officer / Saugandh Niwas, Hind Colony S Assessment Unit, Pune. Lane No.1 A, Bhekrai Nagar, Phursungi, Pune – 412308. Pan: Akqpn1150Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Ca Rohan Gupta Revenue By Shri Harshit Bari – Addl.Cit(Virtual) Date Of Hearing 16/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/02/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2022-23 Dated 04.09.2025 Emanating From The Penalty Order Passed Under Section 270A, Dated 17.09.2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “Ground 1 Section 270Aa Immunity Cit A Erred In Law By Confirming The Penalty Of Rs 629382 Under Section 270A Without Considering And

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270A

…kery or deceit. The aforesaid principle has been reiterated in Roshan Deen v.Preeti Lal AIR 2002 SC 33, Ram Preeti Yadav v. U.P.Board of High School and Intermediate Education and others (2003) 8 SCC 312 and Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi and others (2003) 8 SCC 319. 6.2 Reverting to the facts of the present case, here also, the assessee who has a history for habitually claiming fraudulent refund by increasing deductions and reducing his taxable income since A.Y. 2016- 17 onwards, could not justify why he has continuously misreported his income and what was the legal basis for such an action and no plausible l…

Showing 120 of 46 · Page 1 of 3