DCIT v. Central Concrete and Allied Products

236 ITR 595High Court1999#15450 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2018.

Judgments citing DCIT v. Central Concrete and Allied Products

INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 5326/MUM/2015[1991-92]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2018AY 1991-92

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 1991-92 Indian Aluminum Company Dy. Commissioner Ltd. (Since Merged With Of Income Tax- Vs. Hindaloc Industries Ltd.) Central Circle-1(4), Century Bhavan Dr. Annie 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Besant Road, Worli, Building, M.K. Mumbai-400018. Road, Mumbai. Pan No. Aaaci5375F Appellant Respondent Assesseeby : Mr. Naresh Jain, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Pooja Swaroop, Dr Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/03/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Naresh Jain, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 244(1)(a)Section 244ASection 244A(1)(a)Section 244A(1)(b)Section 254

…ons 214, 243 and 244 which apply in respect of prior assessment years. The section grants a substantive right to interest and is not procedural and is therefore, not applicable to pending assessments prior to the AY 1989-90 as held in DCIT v. Central Concrete 236 ITR 595. In Delhi Development Authority v. ITO (1998) 230 ITR 9, 15 (Del), affirmed in ITO v. Delhi Development Authority, (2001) 252 ITR 772 (SC), the AO was directed to deal with and dispose of the petitioner’s claim for interest for AY 1989-90 and 1990-91, according to the provisions of section 244A. 8.3 At this moment, we discuss below the case laws…

ITO, CHENNAI vs. A.L.HOMES, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1427/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: 31.10.2017
Section 801BSection 801B(10)Section 80ISection 8O

…rtment to an individual or any other persons mentioned in the said clause. Hence, by insertion of this clause, a restriction in selling the apartments is sought to be made. Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in DCIT v Central Concrete and Allied Products Ltd [1999] 236 ITR 595 has held that: ‘Substantive law is that part of law which creates, defines and regulates rights as opposed to adjective or remedial law which prescribes the method of enforcing the rights and obtaining redress for their invasion.[see Black’s Law Dictionary] Procedural law means the mode of 5 procedure by which the legal rights are enforced as d…

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. INDIA TRADE PROMOTION ORGANIZATION

Appeals stand dismissed

ITA - 549 / 2008HC Delhi29 Jul 2008
For Appellant: Ms Prem Lata BansalFor Respondent: None
Section 10Section 154Section 244A

…d, as a question of fact, that there was no waiver of interest on the part of the assessee. The Tribunal considered the decisions of the Calcutta High Court as well as the Punjab and Haryana High Court in (i) DCIT v. Central Concrete and Allied Products: 236 ITR 595 (CAL) and (ii) National Horticulture Board v. Union of India: 253 ITR 12 (P & H). These decisions clearly established that the entitlement to interest under Section 244A is a substantive and an inherent right. 5. The only issue, therefore, which was there before the Tribunal was whether the assessee had waived its right to interest. A…

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. INDIA TRADE PROMOTION ORGANIZATION

Appeals stand dismissed

ITA - 548 / 2008HC Delhi29 Jul 2008
For Appellant: Ms Prem Lata BansalFor Respondent: None
Section 10Section 154Section 244A

…d, as a question of fact, that there was no waiver of interest on the part of the assessee. The Tribunal considered the decisions of the Calcutta High Court as well as the Punjab and Haryana High Court in (i) DCIT v. Central Concrete and Allied Products: 236 ITR 595 (CAL) and (ii) National Horticulture Board v. Union of India: 253 ITR 12 (P & H). These decisions clearly established that the entitlement to interest under Section 244A is a substantive and an inherent right. 5. The only issue, therefore, which was there before the Tribunal was whether the assessee had waived its right to interest. A…

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. INDIA TRADE PROMOTION ORGANIZATION

Appeals stand dismissed

ITA/549/2008HC Delhi29 Jul 2008
For Appellant: Ms Prem Lata BansalFor Respondent: None
Section 10Section 154Section 244A

…d, as a question of fact, that there was no waiver of interest on the part of the assessee. The Tribunal considered the decisions of the Calcutta High Court as well as the Punjab and Haryana High Court in (i) DCIT v. Central Concrete and Allied Products: 236 ITR 595 (CAL) and (ii) National Horticulture Board v. Union of India: 253 ITR 12 (P & H). These decisions clearly established that the entitlement to interest under Section 244A is a substantive and an inherent right. 5. The only issue, therefore, which was there before the Tribunal was whether the assessee had waived its right to interest. A…

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. INDIA TRADE PROMOTION ORGANIZATION

Appeals stand dismissed

ITA/548/2008HC Delhi29 Jul 2008
For Appellant: Ms Prem Lata BansalFor Respondent: None
Section 10Section 154Section 244A

…d, as a question of fact, that there was no waiver of interest on the part of the assessee. The Tribunal considered the decisions of the Calcutta High Court as well as the Punjab and Haryana High Court in (i) DCIT v. Central Concrete and Allied Products: 236 ITR 595 (CAL) and (ii) National Horticulture Board v. Union of India: 253 ITR 12 (P & H). These decisions clearly established that the entitlement to interest under Section 244A is a substantive and an inherent right. 5. The only issue, therefore, which was there before the Tribunal was whether the assessee had waived its right to interest. A…

DCIT v. Central Concrete and Allied Products (236 ITR 595) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax