General Finance Co. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax

257 ITR 38Supreme Court of India#20151 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2023.

Judgments citing General Finance Co. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax

M/S. Bhuwalka Steel Industries Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1599/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri. T. Srinivasa, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sunil Kumar Singh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

…h the rule has been framed in that case also the pending proceeding will not be affected by omission of the rule. A further reliance was also placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of General Finance Co. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax 257 ITR 38 ($.). in which the Apex Court has held that the principle underlying section 6 as saving the right to initiate proceedings for liabilities incurred during the currency of the Act will not apply to omission of a provision in an Act but only to repeal, Omission being different from repeal as held in the aforesaid decisions. Reliance was also placed…

M/S Bhuwalka Steel Industries Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1)(4), Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3433/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri. T. Srinivasa, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sunil Kumar Singh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

M/S Nava Karnataka Steels Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1947/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri T Srinivasa Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Susan D George, CIT(DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40ASection 92BSection 92CSection 92D

…the rule has been framed in that case also the pending proceeding will not be affected by omission of the rule. A further reliance was also placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of General Finance Co. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax 257 ITR 38 (SC) in which the Apex Court has held that the principle underlying section 6 as saving the right to initiate proceedings for liabilities incurred during the currency of the Act will not apply to omission of a provision in an Act but only to repeal, Omission being different from repeal as held in the aforesaid decisions. Reliance was also placed u…

Tolani Shipping Co. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cir-5(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee for A

ITA 6730/MUM/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2021AY 2004-05

Section 10(33)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…final fact finding body.” 20. Further learned Counsel of the assessee contended that this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision in the case of DCIT Vs. Orion Agencies ltd. (32 SOT 527)(Mum) and Sirius Shipping Co. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (257 ITR 38)(Chennai). 21. As regards the issue of other amount to be included for consideration as business income for the purpose of allowance of deduction u/s. 33Ac of the Act, learned Counsel of the assessee has made following submission :- “The Learned CIT(A) has erred in not considering the ground of Appellant that the following amounts earned by Asses…