Commissioner of Income Tax v. Shrawan Kumar Swarup & Sons.

232 ITR 123High Court1998#19992 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2021.

Judgments citing Commissioner of Income Tax v. Shrawan Kumar Swarup & Sons.

M/S. Ratan Conductors, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-4, Jaipur

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

ITA 1259/JPR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1259/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Ratan Conductors, Cuke A.C.I.T., Vs. H-377(B), Road No. 17, Vki Area, Circle-4, Jaipur. Jaipur. Pan No.: Aabfr 8166 P Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Ashok Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Jcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 05/08/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Jaipur Dated 21/08/2019 For The A.Y. 2012-13 Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. Disallowance Of Interest Of Rs. 17,73,769/- On Account Of Non Tds:- That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Law & Facts In Confirming Disallowance Of Interest Of Rs.17,73,769/- Paid To M/S Barelays Investment & Loan (India) Ltd. (Rs. 298826/-) & M/S Future Capital (Rs. 1474943/-) On Account Of Non Deduction Of Tds Thereon By Invoking Provisions Of Section 40(A)(Ia) Of The It Act 1961. (A) The Assessee Firm Paid, Interest Of Rs. 2,98,826/- To Nbfc. M/S Barelays Investment & Loan (India) Ltd. & Rs.14,74,943/- To M/S Future Capital Another Nbfc. The Assessee Firm Raised Loan

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kr. Gupta (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 40

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “A”, JAIPUR Jh lanhi x®lkÃa] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1259/JP/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s Ratan Conductors, cuke A.C.I.T., Vs. H-377(B), Road No. 17, VKI Area, Circle-4, Jaipur. Jaipur. PAN No.: AABFR 8166 P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Ashok Kr. Gupta (Adv) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Heari…

M/S. Seatel Electronics India Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Office, Ward-2(1), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of the

ITA 591/JPR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Feb 2019AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Ranka (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri J.C. Kulhari (JCIT)
Section 143(3)Section 40

…ties as right to appeal has been held to be a substantive law, but law of limitation is regarded as procedural. There is an interplay and interconnect between what can be regarded as substantive and procedural law [see CITv. Shrawan Kumar Swarup & Sons [1998] 232 ITR 123(All.)]. 17. There are decisions, which hold that process of litigation or enforcement of law is procedural. Similarly, machinery provision for collection of tax, rather than tax itself is procedural. Read in this context, it can be strongly argued that Section 40(a)(ia) at least to the extent of the amendment is procedural as by enacting Section…

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi VI vs. Talbros (P) Ltd

ITA/218/2013HC Delhi06 Sept 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

Section 139Section 260ASection 40

…eld to be a substantive law, but law of limitation is regarded as procedural. There is an interplay and interconnect between what can be regarded as substantive and procedural law [see Commissioner of Income Tax versus Shrawan Kumar Swarup & Sons, (1998) 232 ITR 123(SC)]. 17. There are decisions, which hold that process of litigation or enforcement of law is procedural. Similarly, machinery provision for collection of tax, rather than tax itself is procedural. Read in this ITA 24 & 218/2013 Page 16 of 27 context, it…

Commissioner of Income Tax XIII

ITA/24/2013HC Delhi06 Sept 2013
Section 139Section 260ASection 40

…eld to be a substantive law, but law of limitation is regarded as procedural. There is an interplay and interconnect between what can be regarded as substantive and procedural law [see Commissioner of Income Tax versus Shrawan Kumar Swarup & Sons, (1998) 232 ITR 123(SC)]. 17. There are decisions, which hold that process of litigation or enforcement of law is procedural. Similarly, machinery provision for collection of tax, rather than tax itself is procedural. Read in this 2013:DHC:4434-DB ITA 24 & 218/2013 Page 16 of 2…

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Shrawan Kumar Swarup & Sons. (232 ITR 123) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax