ITO v. Titagarh Steels Ltd.

79 ITD 532Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2001#10780 most cited
10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2024.

Issues it is cited on

section 256(1)section 44csection 256section 10(15)minimum alternate taxsection 115jasection 244section 90(2)section 244aenduring benefitsection 40(a)(i)rule of consistency

Judgments citing ITO v. Titagarh Steels Ltd.

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK,MUMBAI vs. DDIT(IT) 2 (1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 1683/MUM/2019[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bleorder Per S. Rifaur Rahman (Am) 1. These Cross Appeals Are Filled By The Assessee & Revenue Against Different Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-57, Mumbai (Hereinafter In Short "Ld.Cit(A)"] Dated 28.12.2018 For The A.Ys.2002-03 & 2003-04. 2. Since The Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Identical, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Are Clubbed, Heard & Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. Revenue Appeals

Section 195Section 28Section 9(1)(v)

…s fairly well settled. As aptly conveyed by the legal maxim generalia specialibus non derogant', i.e., special things derogate from general things. As observed by a co-ordinate Bench, in the case of ITO v. Titagarh Steels Ltd. (2001) 73 TTJ (Cal) 297 : (2001) 79 ITD 532 (Cal) and relying upon Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of South India Corporation (P) Ltd. v. Secretary, Board of Revenue AIR 1964 SC 207, 'a special provision normally excludes the operations of general provision'. The provisions of Article 7 being general in nature are therefore, required to be read as subject to the provisions of Art…

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (IT) 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4867/MUM/2017[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2023AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalstandard Chartered Bank Taxation Department, 23-25, M. G. Road, 3Rd Floor, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Pan: Aabcs4681D ..... Appellant Vs. Ddit (Intl. Tax)-2(1) Scindia House, Ballard Estate, N. M. Marg, Mumbai-400 038 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant, Ld. DR
Section 14ASection 250Section 40

…s fairly well settled. As aptly conveyed by the legal maxim generalia specialibus non derogant', i.e., special things derogate from general things. As observed by a co-ordinate Bench, in the case of ITO v. Titagarh Steels Ltd. (2001) 73 TTJ (Cal) 297 : (2001) 79 ITD 532 (Cal) and relying upon Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of South India Corporation (P) Ltd. v. Secretary, Board of Revenue AIR 1964 SC 207, 'a special provision normally excludes the operations of general provision'. The provisions of Article 7 being general in nature are therefore, required to be read as subject to the provisions of Art…

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (IT) 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, ground raised by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3458/MUM/2009[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2023AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalstandard Chartered Bank Taxation Department, 23-25, M. G. Road, 3Rd Floor, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Pan: Aabcs4681D ..... Appellant Vs. Ddit (Intl. Tax)-2(1) Scindia House, Ballard Estate, N. M. Marg, Mumbai-400 038 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant, Ld. DR
Section 14ASection 250Section 40Section 44C

…s fairly well settled. As aptly conveyed by the legal maxim generalia specialibus non derogate', i.e., special things derogate from general things. As observed by a co-ordinate Bench, in the case of ITO v. Titagarh Steels Ltd. (2001) 73 TTJ (Cal) 297 : (2001) 79 ITD 532 (Cal) and relying upon Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of South India Corporation (P) Ltd. v. Secretary, Board of Revenue AIR 1964 SC 207, 'a special provision normally excludes the operations of general provision'. The provisions of Article 7 being general in nature are therefore, required to be read as subject to the provisions of Art…

M/S. ICICI SECURITIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAX WARD)2(2) (2) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1511/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2022AY 2015-16
Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 201(4)Section 204Section 49

…ealing with Section 201(1) and 201(1A). If it can be shown that no loss occurred to the revenue, there is no occasion to invoke these provisions of section 201(1) and 201(A). As observed by a coordinate bench, in the case of ITO Vs Titagarh Steels Ltd [(2001) 79 ITD 532 (Kol)] and speaking through one of us (i.e. the Vice President), “…. a look at the consequences of such a short deduction of tax at source. Of course, the first and foremost consequence is that the tax deductor has to make good the shortfall in tax deduction and the tax deductor also has to compensate the revenue by way of interest for the period…

M/S. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT (IT)1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 803/MUM/2009[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blestandard Chartered Bank V. Acit – Range-1(3) Taxation Department, 23-25 Scindia House, Ballard Estate M.G. Road, 3Rd Floor N.M. Marg, Mumbai - 400038 Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aabcs4681D (Appellant) (Respondent) Adit (It)– 2(3) V. Standard Chartered Bank Room No. 120, 1St Floor Taxation Department, 23-25 Scindia House, Ballard Estate M.G. Road, 3Rd Floor N.M. Marg, Mumbai - 400038 Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aabcs4681D (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri P.J. Pardiwala & Assessee Represented By : Shri Fenil Bhatt Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash Department Represented By :

Section 115JSection 14ASection 90Section 90(2)

…s fairly well settled. As aptly conveyed by the legal maxim generalia specialibus non derogant', i.e., special things derogate from general things. As observed by a co-ordinate Bench, in the case of ITO v. Titagarh Steels Ltd. (2001) 73 TTJ (Cal) 297 : (2001) 79 ITD 532 (Cal) and relying upon Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of South India Corporation (P) Ltd. v. Secretary, Board of Revenue AIR 1964 SC 207, 'a special provision normally excludes the operations of general provision'. The provisions of Article 7 being general in nature are therefore, required to be read as subject to the provisions of Art…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. BAJAJ FINANCE LTD., (FORMERLY: BAJAJ AUTO FINANCE LTD.,),, PUNE

In the result, appeal of Revenue and Cross Objections of assessee are dismissed

ITA 356/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.356/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Kirit Kamdar
Section 201Section 271C

…penalty or interest. The next question for consideration in the instant case was as to whether AO could have imposed the penalty at all under section 221 upon assessee. A Coordinate Bench of the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of ITO v. Titagarh Steel Ltd (2001) 79 ITD 532, dealing with the consequences of non-deduction or short deduction of tax at source, had held that post 1-4-1989, penalty for nondeduction of tax at source or short deduction of tax at source can only be imposed under section 271C. The CBDT itself had in Circular No.551, dated 23-1-1990 accepted that until section 271C was inserted in the Act, „no…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. FORD INDIA PVT. LTD., KANCHEEPURAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2012-13 is thus allowed

ITA 840/CHNY/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2017AY 2012-13
Section 195Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vii)

…general enactment and, secondly, there must be nothing contained in the general provisions indicating the legislative intent to overrule or set aside the particular provision." 46. Similar views were also expressed in the case of ITO vs. Titagarh Steels Ltd [79 ITD 532 (2001)], wherein one of us, while articulating the views of Kolkata C Bench, had observed as follows : "It is fairly well-settled in law that general provisions do not override specific provisions, as aptly described by the maxim 'generalia specialibus non derogant.' A special provision normally excludes the operation of a general provision and we…

FORD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KANCHEEPURAM vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2012-13 is thus allowed

ITA 749/CHNY/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2017AY 2012-13
Section 195Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vii)

…general enactment and, secondly, there must be nothing contained in the general provisions indicating the legislative intent to overrule or set aside the particular provision." 46. Similar views were also expressed in the case of ITO vs. Titagarh Steels Ltd [79 ITD 532 (2001)], wherein one of us, while articulating the views of Kolkata C Bench, had observed as follows : "It is fairly well-settled in law that general provisions do not override specific provisions, as aptly described by the maxim 'generalia specialibus non derogant.' A special provision normally excludes the operation of a general provision and we…

FORD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KANCHEEPURAM vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2012-13 is thus allowed

ITA 748/CHNY/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2017AY 2011-12
Section 195Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vii)

…general enactment and, secondly, there must be nothing contained in the general provisions indicating the legislative intent to overrule or set aside the particular provision." 46. Similar views were also expressed in the case of ITO vs. Titagarh Steels Ltd [79 ITD 532 (2001)], wherein one of us, while articulating the views of Kolkata C Bench, had observed as follows : "It is fairly well-settled in law that general provisions do not override specific provisions, as aptly described by the maxim 'generalia specialibus non derogant.' A special provision normally excludes the operation of a general provision and we…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. FORD INDIA PVT. LTD., KANCHEEPURAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2012-13 is thus allowed

ITA 673/CHNY/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2017AY 2011-12
Section 195Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vii)

…general enactment and, secondly, there must be nothing contained in the general provisions indicating the legislative intent to overrule or set aside the particular provision." 46. Similar views were also expressed in the case of ITO vs. Titagarh Steels Ltd [79 ITD 532 (2001)], wherein one of us, while articulating the views of Kolkata C Bench, had observed as follows : "It is fairly well-settled in law that general provisions do not override specific provisions, as aptly described by the maxim 'generalia specialibus non derogant.' A special provision normally excludes the operation of a general provision and we…

ITO v. Titagarh Steels Ltd. (79 ITD 532) — Cited in 10 Judgments | BharatTax