IRC 1926 AC 37, CIT vs. Mahaliram Ramjidas (1940) 8 ITR 442 (PC), Indian United Mills Ltd. v. CEPT

3 SCR 893Reported decision1963#17583 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2019.

Judgments citing IRC 1926 AC 37, CIT vs. Mahaliram Ramjidas (1940) 8 ITR 442 (PC), Indian United Mills Ltd. v. CEPT

M/S. Steel Authority of India Ltd. (Unit Bhilai Steel Plant) Ispat Bhawan . Through Its Sr. Manager (F and A) vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Raipur

C.A. No.-002150-002150 - 2012Supreme Court08 May 2019

Bench: Us. 2. Very Briefly Put, The Question Which We Are Called Upon To Consider & Resolve Is As To Whether Interest Is Payable On The Differential Excise Duty With Retrospective Effect That Become Payable On The Basis Of Escalation Clause Under Section 11Ab Of The Central Excise Act, 1944 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”). 3. In This Batch Of Appeals, We Will Treat C.A. No.2150/2012 As The Leading Case. We Will Refer To The Said Case As The Sail Case. In The Said Case Originally, The Appellant Company Which Is Manufacturer Of Various Products Including Rail

Section 11Section 11A

…CIT v. Mahaliram Ramjidas [(1940) 8 ITR 442 : AIR 1940 PC 124 : 67 IA 239], India United Mills 42 Ltd. v. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax, Bombay [(1955) 1 SCR 810 : AIR 1955 SC 79 : (1955) 27 ITR 20] and Gursahai Saigal v. CIT, Punjab [(1963) 3 SCR 893 : AIR 1963 SC 1062 : (1963) 48 ITR 1] ). But it must also be realised that provision by which the authority is empowered to levy and collect interest, even if construed as forming part of the machinery provisions, is substantive law for the simple reason that in the absence of contract or usage interest can be levied under law and it canno…

Bhavya Construction Co., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 21(1), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 4389/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 143(3)Section 80I

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, बी, मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “B”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एन. के. "धान, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri N.K. Pradhan, Accountant Member ITA Nos.4389 & 4390/Mum/2014 Assessment Years: 2006-07 & 2007-08 M/s. Bhavya Construction ACIT, Circle-21(1), Co., 4, Bhide Bungalow, बनाम/ 6th Floor, Pratyaksha Kar 37-A, M.G. Road, Vile Bhavan, BKC, Bandra- Vs. Parle-East, Mumbai – 57. East, Mumbai – 51. (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. AAAFB 1375 K राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue by Shri O.P…

Director of Income Tax vs. Jacabs Civil Inc

Appeals of the Department are dismissed

ITA/491/2008HC Delhi30 Aug 2010

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL

Section 234B

…would effectuate the object and purpose of the statute and not defeat the same.[See Whitney vs. IRC 1926 AC 37, CIT vs. Mahaliram Ramjidas (1940) 8 ITR 442 (PC), Indian United Mills Ltd. vs. CEPT (1955) 1 SCR 810 and Gursahai Saigal vs. CIT (1963) 3 SCR 893]. But it must also be realized that provision by which the authority is empowered to levy and collect interest, even if construed as forming part of the machinery provisions, is substantive law for the simple reason that in the absence of contract or usage interest can be levied under law and it cannot be recovered by way of damages for wro…

Director of Income Tax vs. Mitsubishi Corporation

Appeals of the Department are dismissed

ITA - 297 / 2010HC Delhi30 Aug 2010
Section 143(2)Section 234B

…t, be so construed as would effectuate the object and purpose of the statute and not defeat the same. [See Whitney vs. IRC 1926 AC 37, CIT vs. Mahaliram Ramjidas (1940) 8 ITR 442 (PC), Indian United vs. CEPT (1955) 1 SCR 810 and Gursahai Saigal vs. CIT (1963) 3 SCR 893]. But it must also be realized that provision by which the authority is empowered to levy and collect interest, even if construed as forming part of the machinery provisions, is substantive law for the simple reason that in the absence of contract or usage interest can be levied under law and it cannot be recovered by way of damages for wrongful de…

Director of Income Tax vs. Jacabs Civil Inc

Appeals of the Department are dismissed

ITA - 491 / 2008HC Delhi30 Aug 2010
Section 143(2)Section 234B

…would effectuate the object and purpose of the statute and not defeat the same.[See Whitney vs. IRC 1926 AC 37, CIT vs. Mahaliram Ramjidas (1940) 8 ITR 442 (PC), Indian United Mills Ltd. vs. CEPT (1955) 1 SCR 810 and Gursahai Saigal vs. CIT (1963) 3 SCR 893]. But it must also be realized that provision by which the authority is empowered to levy and collect interest, even if construed as forming part of the machinery provisions, is substantive law for the simple reason that in the absence of contract or usage interest can be levied under law and it cannot be recovered by way of damages for wro…

IRC 1926 AC 37, CIT vs. Mahaliram Ramjidas (1940) 8 ITR 442 (PC), Indian United Mills Ltd. v. CEPT (3 SCR 893) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax