Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Anand Prakash

316 ITR 141High Court2009#14000 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,628 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2023.

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 215section 2(43)section 2(28a)section 40(a)(ii)statutory duesinterest under section 201(1a)section 21business expediencysection 201(1a)advance taxsection 36(1)(iii)tax deducted at source

Judgments citing Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Anand Prakash

Shri Dhirendra Narbheram Sheth, Rajkot vs. The Income Tax Officer- Ward 2 (3) (5), Rajkot

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

ITA 181/RJT/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot03 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED (Accountant Member), MS. MADHUMITA ROY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Fenil Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 140ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 234ASection 234B

…the income-tax return for the relevant assessment year. The impugned provisions are only compensatory in nature and no part thereof is penal in character. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income- tax-II v. Anand Prakash reported in 316 ITR 141 has held as under: “11. We have examined the decisions cited by the counsel on both sides and after considering the submissions made by them, we agree with the learned counsel for the revenue that the levy undersection234B of the said Act is compensatory in nature and is not in the nature of penalty. We may also note the decision of the Bombay H…

Air India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4467/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br, Accountat Member & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 4467, 4518 & 4544/Mum/2018 (A.Y: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal.ARFor Respondent: Smt Sailaja Rai, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 250Section 44A

…judicial pronouncements: - No. Case Title Judicial Cittion Authority 1 Anjum MH Ghaswala Hon’ble SC 252 ITR 1 and Ors 2 CIT Vs. Kotal Hon’ble 265 ITR 119 Mahindra Fin Ltd Bombay HC 3 Raju Bhojwani Vs Hon’ble 13 Taxman CIT Delhi HC 221 4 CIT Vs Anand Hon’ble 316 ITR 141 Prakash Delhi HC 4.2 Proceedings further, the submissions of Ld. AR that the disallowance could not be made u/s 40(a)(ii) since the expression tax did not include interest, is also tenable in view of the following judicial pronouncements: - No. Case Title Judicial Cittion ITA Nos. 4484, 4485,4486, 4518,4544 & 4467/Mum/2018 M/s Air India Ltd.,…

Air India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4544/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br, Accountat Member & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 4467, 4518 & 4544/Mum/2018 (A.Y: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal.ARFor Respondent: Smt Sailaja Rai, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 250Section 44A

…judicial pronouncements: - No. Case Title Judicial Cittion Authority 1 Anjum MH Ghaswala Hon’ble SC 252 ITR 1 and Ors 2 CIT Vs. Kotal Hon’ble 265 ITR 119 Mahindra Fin Ltd Bombay HC 3 Raju Bhojwani Vs Hon’ble 13 Taxman CIT Delhi HC 221 4 CIT Vs Anand Hon’ble 316 ITR 141 Prakash Delhi HC 4.2 Proceedings further, the submissions of Ld. AR that the disallowance could not be made u/s 40(a)(ii) since the expression tax did not include interest, is also tenable in view of the following judicial pronouncements: - No. Case Title Judicial Cittion ITA Nos. 4484, 4485,4486, 4518,4544 & 4467/Mum/2018 M/s Air India Ltd.,…

Air India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4518/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br, Accountat Member & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 4467, 4518 & 4544/Mum/2018 (A.Y: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal.ARFor Respondent: Smt Sailaja Rai, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 250Section 44A

…judicial pronouncements: - No. Case Title Judicial Cittion Authority 1 Anjum MH Ghaswala Hon’ble SC 252 ITR 1 and Ors 2 CIT Vs. Kotal Hon’ble 265 ITR 119 Mahindra Fin Ltd Bombay HC 3 Raju Bhojwani Vs Hon’ble 13 Taxman CIT Delhi HC 221 4 CIT Vs Anand Hon’ble 316 ITR 141 Prakash Delhi HC 4.2 Proceedings further, the submissions of Ld. AR that the disallowance could not be made u/s 40(a)(ii) since the expression tax did not include interest, is also tenable in view of the following judicial pronouncements: - No. Case Title Judicial Cittion ITA Nos. 4484, 4485,4486, 4518,4544 & 4467/Mum/2018 M/s Air India Ltd.,…

DCIT 5(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Air India Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4486/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br, Accountat Member & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 4467, 4518 & 4544/Mum/2018 (A.Y: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal.ARFor Respondent: Smt Sailaja Rai, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 250Section 44A

…judicial pronouncements: - No. Case Title Judicial Cittion Authority 1 Anjum MH Ghaswala Hon’ble SC 252 ITR 1 and Ors 2 CIT Vs. Kotal Hon’ble 265 ITR 119 Mahindra Fin Ltd Bombay HC 3 Raju Bhojwani Vs Hon’ble 13 Taxman CIT Delhi HC 221 4 CIT Vs Anand Hon’ble 316 ITR 141 Prakash Delhi HC 4.2 Proceedings further, the submissions of Ld. AR that the disallowance could not be made u/s 40(a)(ii) since the expression tax did not include interest, is also tenable in view of the following judicial pronouncements: - No. Case Title Judicial Cittion ITA Nos. 4484, 4485,4486, 4518,4544 & 4467/Mum/2018 M/s Air India Ltd.,…

DCIT 5(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Air India Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4485/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br, Accountat Member & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 4467, 4518 & 4544/Mum/2018 (A.Y: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal.ARFor Respondent: Smt Sailaja Rai, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 250Section 44A

…judicial pronouncements: - No. Case Title Judicial Cittion Authority 1 Anjum MH Ghaswala Hon’ble SC 252 ITR 1 and Ors 2 CIT Vs. Kotal Hon’ble 265 ITR 119 Mahindra Fin Ltd Bombay HC 3 Raju Bhojwani Vs Hon’ble 13 Taxman CIT Delhi HC 221 4 CIT Vs Anand Hon’ble 316 ITR 141 Prakash Delhi HC 4.2 Proceedings further, the submissions of Ld. AR that the disallowance could not be made u/s 40(a)(ii) since the expression tax did not include interest, is also tenable in view of the following judicial pronouncements: - No. Case Title Judicial Cittion ITA Nos. 4484, 4485,4486, 4518,4544 & 4467/Mum/2018 M/s Air India Ltd.,…

Fiserv India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-9(1), New Delhi

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 6583/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jul 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishifiserv India Private Limited, Vs. Acit, Regus Elegance, Level-2, Jasola Circle-9(1), District Centre, Old Mathura New Delhi Road, Delhi Pan: Aaccr0787L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143Section 154Section 234B

…ct. He submitted that if MAT credit is withdrawn, then revenue authorities have found that the interest u/s 234B of the act is also chargeable. He submitted that the honourable Delhi High Court in case of Commissioner Of Income Tax Versus Anand Prakash (2009) 316 ITR 141 (Delhi) in para number 15 held that when the income was not even known to the assessee till much later, assessee is not expected to have paid advance tax on such income which had not been received by the assessee and which would not have been in his contemplation. The honourable High Court held that the assessee could not have included the intere…

Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Anand Prakash (316 ITR 141) — Cited in 7 Judgments | BharatTax