JT 2001(2) SC 642 and in BANK OF INDIA v. KETHAN PAREKH

8 SCC 148Reported decision2012#2580 most cited

What is JT 2001(2) SC 642 and in BANK OF INDIA v. KETHAN PAREKH authority for?

When two special acts conflict, the later act generally prevails, unless the dominant purpose of the earlier act is covered by the contingency in question, in which case the earlier act may prevail.

45

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Solidaire India Limited vs Fairgrowth Financial Services · Bank of India vs Kethan Parekh · conflicting special acts · later act prevails · dominant purpose · overriding effect

Sections most often in play

Section 10ASection 37Section 37(1) of the Income Tax ActSection 43(5)Section 10A of the Income Tax ActSection 194J of the Income Tax ActSection 1961 - Section 143(2)Section 1961 - Section 250(4)

Issues it is cited on

stpi unittest of enduring benefitsection 203convertible foreign exchangesoftware technology parksection 10(2)section 39speculative transactionscheme of arrangementdemergerinfrastructure facilitysection 194j

Judgments citing JT 2001(2) SC 642 and in BANK OF INDIA v. KETHAN PAREKH

Shri C Devaraju vs. The Deputy Director

WP/48031/2017HC Karnataka11 Dec 2020

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar W.P. No.38642/2016 C/W W.P. Nos.15917/2013, 15918/2013, 39889/2014, 17894/2015, 24444/2015, 19313/2016, 23176/2016, 33740/2016, 42157/2016, 57756/2016, 62102/2016, 4215/2017, 5269/2017, 6159/2017, 6173/2017, 8261/2017, 13160/2017, 14158/2017, 18557/2017, 36309/2017, 36310/2017, 41176/2017, 46318/2017, 48031/2017, 24480/2018, 27705/2018, 27744/2018, 28027/2018, 35991/2018 (Gm-Res) In W.P. No.38642/2016: Between: 1 . Mr. Dyani Antony Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 33 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore - 575 008. 2 . Mr. Lawence Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 42 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore – 575 008. ®

…wo Acts are Special Acts, in such an event it is the later act which will prevail. Hon'ble Apex Court in SOLIDAIRE INDIA LIMITED vs FAIRGROWTH FINANCIAL SERVICES reported in JT 2001(2) SC 642 and in BANK OF INDIA VS. KETHAN PAREKH reported in (2008) 8 SCC 148 has held when both Acts are Special Acts, it is subsequent legislation which will have a over- riding effect. It was further observed by Hon'ble Apex Court that cases might arise where both the enactments have the non-obstante clause, then in that event the proper perspective would be that one has to see the subject 174 and dominant purpose…

Meerama Overseas Pvt Ltd vs. The Deputy Director

WP/62102/2016HC Karnataka11 Dec 2020

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar W.P. No.38642/2016 C/W W.P. Nos.15917/2013, 15918/2013, 39889/2014, 17894/2015, 24444/2015, 19313/2016, 23176/2016, 33740/2016, 42157/2016, 57756/2016, 62102/2016, 4215/2017, 5269/2017, 6159/2017, 6173/2017, 8261/2017, 13160/2017, 14158/2017, 18557/2017, 36309/2017, 36310/2017, 41176/2017, 46318/2017, 48031/2017, 24480/2018, 27705/2018, 27744/2018, 28027/2018, 35991/2018 (Gm-Res) In W.P. No.38642/2016: Between: 1 . Mr. Dyani Antony Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 33 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore - 575 008. 2 . Mr. Lawence Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 42 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore – 575 008. ®

…wo Acts are Special Acts, in such an event it is the later act which will prevail. Hon'ble Apex Court in SOLIDAIRE INDIA LIMITED vs FAIRGROWTH FINANCIAL SERVICES reported in JT 2001(2) SC 642 and in BANK OF INDIA VS. KETHAN PAREKH reported in (2008) 8 SCC 148 has held when both Acts are Special Acts, it is subsequent legislation which will have a over- riding effect. It was further observed by Hon'ble Apex Court that cases might arise where both the enactments have the non-obstante clause, then in that event the proper perspective would be that one has to see the subject 174 and dominant purpose…

M/S Jsw Steel Limited vs. Deputy Director

WP/17894/2015HC Karnataka11 Dec 2020

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar W.P. No.38642/2016 C/W W.P. Nos.15917/2013, 15918/2013, 39889/2014, 17894/2015, 24444/2015, 19313/2016, 23176/2016, 33740/2016, 42157/2016, 57756/2016, 62102/2016, 4215/2017, 5269/2017, 6159/2017, 6173/2017, 8261/2017, 13160/2017, 14158/2017, 18557/2017, 36309/2017, 36310/2017, 41176/2017, 46318/2017, 48031/2017, 24480/2018, 27705/2018, 27744/2018, 28027/2018, 35991/2018 (Gm-Res) In W.P. No.38642/2016: Between: 1 . Mr. Dyani Antony Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 33 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore - 575 008. 2 . Mr. Lawence Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 42 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore – 575 008. ®

…wo Acts are Special Acts, in such an event it is the later act which will prevail. Hon'ble Apex Court in SOLIDAIRE INDIA LIMITED vs FAIRGROWTH FINANCIAL SERVICES reported in JT 2001(2) SC 642 and in BANK OF INDIA VS. KETHAN PAREKH reported in (2008) 8 SCC 148 has held when both Acts are Special Acts, it is subsequent legislation which will have a over- riding effect. It was further observed by Hon'ble Apex Court that cases might arise where both the enactments have the non-obstante clause, then in that event the proper perspective would be that one has to see the subject 174 and dominant purpose…

C Mahadesh @ Avvamahadesh vs. The Deputy Director

WP/46318/2017HC Karnataka11 Dec 2020

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar W.P. No.38642/2016 C/W W.P. Nos.15917/2013, 15918/2013, 39889/2014, 17894/2015, 24444/2015, 19313/2016, 23176/2016, 33740/2016, 42157/2016, 57756/2016, 62102/2016, 4215/2017, 5269/2017, 6159/2017, 6173/2017, 8261/2017, 13160/2017, 14158/2017, 18557/2017, 36309/2017, 36310/2017, 41176/2017, 46318/2017, 48031/2017, 24480/2018, 27705/2018, 27744/2018, 28027/2018, 35991/2018 (Gm-Res) In W.P. No.38642/2016: Between: 1 . Mr. Dyani Antony Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 33 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore - 575 008. 2 . Mr. Lawence Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 42 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore – 575 008. ®

…wo Acts are Special Acts, in such an event it is the later act which will prevail. Hon'ble Apex Court in SOLIDAIRE INDIA LIMITED vs FAIRGROWTH FINANCIAL SERVICES reported in JT 2001(2) SC 642 and in BANK OF INDIA VS. KETHAN PAREKH reported in (2008) 8 SCC 148 has held when both Acts are Special Acts, it is subsequent legislation which will have a over- riding effect. It was further observed by Hon'ble Apex Court that cases might arise where both the enactments have the non-obstante clause, then in that event the proper perspective would be that one has to see the subject 174 and dominant purpose…

M/S. Jsw Steel Limited vs. Deputy Director

WP/24444/2015HC Karnataka11 Dec 2020

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar W.P. No.38642/2016 C/W W.P. Nos.15917/2013, 15918/2013, 39889/2014, 17894/2015, 24444/2015, 19313/2016, 23176/2016, 33740/2016, 42157/2016, 57756/2016, 62102/2016, 4215/2017, 5269/2017, 6159/2017, 6173/2017, 8261/2017, 13160/2017, 14158/2017, 18557/2017, 36309/2017, 36310/2017, 41176/2017, 46318/2017, 48031/2017, 24480/2018, 27705/2018, 27744/2018, 28027/2018, 35991/2018 (Gm-Res) In W.P. No.38642/2016: Between: 1 . Mr. Dyani Antony Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 33 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore - 575 008. 2 . Mr. Lawence Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 42 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore – 575 008. ®

…wo Acts are Special Acts, in such an event it is the later act which will prevail. Hon'ble Apex Court in SOLIDAIRE INDIA LIMITED vs FAIRGROWTH FINANCIAL SERVICES reported in JT 2001(2) SC 642 and in BANK OF INDIA VS. KETHAN PAREKH reported in (2008) 8 SCC 148 has held when both Acts are Special Acts, it is subsequent legislation which will have a over- riding effect. It was further observed by Hon'ble Apex Court that cases might arise where both the enactments have the non-obstante clause, then in that event the proper perspective would be that one has to see the subject 174 and dominant purpose…

M Gopi vs. The Joint Director

WP/15917/2013HC Karnataka11 Dec 2020

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar W.P. No.38642/2016 C/W W.P. Nos.15917/2013, 15918/2013, 39889/2014, 17894/2015, 24444/2015, 19313/2016, 23176/2016, 33740/2016, 42157/2016, 57756/2016, 62102/2016, 4215/2017, 5269/2017, 6159/2017, 6173/2017, 8261/2017, 13160/2017, 14158/2017, 18557/2017, 36309/2017, 36310/2017, 41176/2017, 46318/2017, 48031/2017, 24480/2018, 27705/2018, 27744/2018, 28027/2018, 35991/2018 (Gm-Res) In W.P. No.38642/2016: Between: 1 . Mr. Dyani Antony Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 33 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore - 575 008. 2 . Mr. Lawence Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 42 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore – 575 008. ®

…wo Acts are Special Acts, in such an event it is the later act which will prevail. Hon'ble Apex Court in SOLIDAIRE INDIA LIMITED vs FAIRGROWTH FINANCIAL SERVICES reported in JT 2001(2) SC 642 and in BANK OF INDIA VS. KETHAN PAREKH reported in (2008) 8 SCC 148 has held when both Acts are Special Acts, it is subsequent legislation which will have a over- riding effect. It was further observed by Hon'ble Apex Court that cases might arise where both the enactments have the non-obstante clause, then in that event the proper perspective would be that one has to see the subject 174 and dominant purpose…

Nataraj Dakshinamurhty vs. The Assistant Director

WP/6159/2017HC Karnataka11 Dec 2020

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar W.P. No.38642/2016 C/W W.P. Nos.15917/2013, 15918/2013, 39889/2014, 17894/2015, 24444/2015, 19313/2016, 23176/2016, 33740/2016, 42157/2016, 57756/2016, 62102/2016, 4215/2017, 5269/2017, 6159/2017, 6173/2017, 8261/2017, 13160/2017, 14158/2017, 18557/2017, 36309/2017, 36310/2017, 41176/2017, 46318/2017, 48031/2017, 24480/2018, 27705/2018, 27744/2018, 28027/2018, 35991/2018 (Gm-Res) In W.P. No.38642/2016: Between: 1 . Mr. Dyani Antony Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 33 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore - 575 008. 2 . Mr. Lawence Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 42 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore – 575 008. ®

…wo Acts are Special Acts, in such an event it is the later act which will prevail. Hon'ble Apex Court in SOLIDAIRE INDIA LIMITED vs FAIRGROWTH FINANCIAL SERVICES reported in JT 2001(2) SC 642 and in BANK OF INDIA VS. KETHAN PAREKH reported in (2008) 8 SCC 148 has held when both Acts are Special Acts, it is subsequent legislation which will have a over- riding effect. It was further observed by Hon'ble Apex Court that cases might arise where both the enactments have the non-obstante clause, then in that event the proper perspective would be that one has to see the subject 174 and dominant purpose…

Shri S Thimmaraju vs. The Deputy Director

WP/36310/2017HC Karnataka11 Dec 2020

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar W.P. No.38642/2016 C/W W.P. Nos.15917/2013, 15918/2013, 39889/2014, 17894/2015, 24444/2015, 19313/2016, 23176/2016, 33740/2016, 42157/2016, 57756/2016, 62102/2016, 4215/2017, 5269/2017, 6159/2017, 6173/2017, 8261/2017, 13160/2017, 14158/2017, 18557/2017, 36309/2017, 36310/2017, 41176/2017, 46318/2017, 48031/2017, 24480/2018, 27705/2018, 27744/2018, 28027/2018, 35991/2018 (Gm-Res) In W.P. No.38642/2016: Between: 1 . Mr. Dyani Antony Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 33 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore - 575 008. 2 . Mr. Lawence Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 42 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore – 575 008. ®

…wo Acts are Special Acts, in such an event it is the later act which will prevail. Hon'ble Apex Court in SOLIDAIRE INDIA LIMITED vs FAIRGROWTH FINANCIAL SERVICES reported in JT 2001(2) SC 642 and in BANK OF INDIA VS. KETHAN PAREKH reported in (2008) 8 SCC 148 has held when both Acts are Special Acts, it is subsequent legislation which will have a over- riding effect. It was further observed by Hon'ble Apex Court that cases might arise where both the enactments have the non-obstante clause, then in that event the proper perspective would be that one has to see the subject 174 and dominant purpose…

M Gopi vs. The Joint Director

WP/15918/2013HC Karnataka11 Dec 2020

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar W.P. No.38642/2016 C/W W.P. Nos.15917/2013, 15918/2013, 39889/2014, 17894/2015, 24444/2015, 19313/2016, 23176/2016, 33740/2016, 42157/2016, 57756/2016, 62102/2016, 4215/2017, 5269/2017, 6159/2017, 6173/2017, 8261/2017, 13160/2017, 14158/2017, 18557/2017, 36309/2017, 36310/2017, 41176/2017, 46318/2017, 48031/2017, 24480/2018, 27705/2018, 27744/2018, 28027/2018, 35991/2018 (Gm-Res) In W.P. No.38642/2016: Between: 1 . Mr. Dyani Antony Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 33 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore - 575 008. 2 . Mr. Lawence Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 42 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore – 575 008. ®

…wo Acts are Special Acts, in such an event it is the later act which will prevail. Hon'ble Apex Court in SOLIDAIRE INDIA LIMITED vs FAIRGROWTH FINANCIAL SERVICES reported in JT 2001(2) SC 642 and in BANK OF INDIA VS. KETHAN PAREKH reported in (2008) 8 SCC 148 has held when both Acts are Special Acts, it is subsequent legislation which will have a over- riding effect. It was further observed by Hon'ble Apex Court that cases might arise where both the enactments have the non-obstante clause, then in that event the proper perspective would be that one has to see the subject 174 and dominant purpose…

Shri V Bhaskar vs. The Deputy Director

WP/27744/2018HC Karnataka11 Dec 2020

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar W.P. No.38642/2016 C/W W.P. Nos.15917/2013, 15918/2013, 39889/2014, 17894/2015, 24444/2015, 19313/2016, 23176/2016, 33740/2016, 42157/2016, 57756/2016, 62102/2016, 4215/2017, 5269/2017, 6159/2017, 6173/2017, 8261/2017, 13160/2017, 14158/2017, 18557/2017, 36309/2017, 36310/2017, 41176/2017, 46318/2017, 48031/2017, 24480/2018, 27705/2018, 27744/2018, 28027/2018, 35991/2018 (Gm-Res) In W.P. No.38642/2016: Between: 1 . Mr. Dyani Antony Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 33 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore - 575 008. 2 . Mr. Lawence Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 42 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore – 575 008. ®

…wo Acts are Special Acts, in such an event it is the later act which will prevail. Hon'ble Apex Court in SOLIDAIRE INDIA LIMITED vs FAIRGROWTH FINANCIAL SERVICES reported in JT 2001(2) SC 642 and in BANK OF INDIA VS. KETHAN PAREKH reported in (2008) 8 SCC 148 has held when both Acts are Special Acts, it is subsequent legislation which will have a over- riding effect. It was further observed by Hon'ble Apex Court that cases might arise where both the enactments have the non-obstante clause, then in that event the proper perspective would be that one has to see the subject 174 and dominant purpose…

Pr Commissioner of vs. M/S Syngene

In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal, the

ITA/184/2016HC Karnataka02 Dec 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 10BSection 260Section 260A

…m proved facts by applying the law erroneously or the decision is based on no evidence. The aforesaid decisions were referred to with approval in VIJAY KUMAR TALWAR VS. CIT, (2011) 1 SCC 673 supra as well as in ‘UNION OF INDIA V. IBRAHIM UDDIN’, (2012) 8 SCC 148 and ‘MANGALORE GANESH BEEDI WORKS VS. CIT’, (2016) 2 SCC 556. It is pertinent to mention here that even in the memo of appeal, the revenue has not pointed out any perversity 20 in respect of concurrent finding of fact recorded in favour of the assessee. In view of preceding analysis, substantial question of law framed by a bench of this co…

Commissoner of Income Tax vs. M/S Shaw Wallace

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby

ITA/501/2013HC Karnataka09 Nov 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 260Section 41(1)

…ed facts by applying the law erroneously or the decision is based on no evidence. The aforesaid decisions were referred to with approval in ‘VIJAY KUMAR TALWAR VS. CIT’, (2011) 196 TAXMAN 136 (SC), as well as in ‘UNION OF INDIA V. IBRAHIM UDDIN’, (2012) 8 SCC 148 and has been followed by a division bench of this court in ‘CIT VS. SOFT BRANDS (P.) LTD.,’ (2018) 406 ITR 513. 6. Before proceeding further, we may advert to Rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. From perusal of the aforesaid Rule, it is evident that the aforesaid Rule applies to the appellate authority namely Commissioner of Income Ta…

The Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S. Infosys Bpo Ltd

ITA/351/2016HC Karnataka09 Nov 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 10ASection 14ASection 260

…wer under Section 260-A of the Act, would not interfere with the findings of the Court. (SEE: ‘HERO VINOTH (MINOR) VS. SESHAMMAL’, (2006) 5 SCC 545; 'VIJAY KUMAR TALWAR VS. CIT', (2011) 1 SCC 673; 'UNION OF INDIA VS. IBRAHIM 7 UDDIN', (2012) 8 SCC 148 and 'MANGALORE GANESH BEEDI WORKS VS. CIT', (2016) 2 SCC 556. For the aforementioned reasons, the third substantial question of law is also answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. In view of preceding analysis, we do not find any merit in this appeal. The same fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/-…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Jindal Aluminium Limited

In the result, we do not find any merit in this

ITA/450/2013HC Karnataka08 Oct 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 260Section 260ASection 70Section 80I

…m proved facts by applying the law erroneously or the decision is based on no evidence. The aforesaid decisions were referred to with approval in VIJAY KUMAR TALWAR VS. CIT, (2011) 1 SCC 673 supra as well as in ‘UNION OF INDIA V. IBRAHIM UDDIN’, (2012) 8 SCC 148 and ‘MANGALORE GANESH BEEDI WORKS VS. CIT’, (2016) 2 SCC 556. 15 9. Now we may advert to the third substantial question of law. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal has recorded a finding that the assessee has invested a sum of Rs.26,61,011/- from its own capital and the claim of the assessee for an amo…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S L & T Valdel Engineering Pvt Ltd

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA/57/2013HC Karnataka18 Sept 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 10(2)(ii)Section 10ASection 10A(2)Section 143(2)Section 260Section 260A

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD I.T.A. NO.57 OF 2013 BETWEEN: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE. 2. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-11(5), C.R. BUILDING QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.,) AND: M/S. L & T VALDEL ENGINEERING PVT. LTD., NO.19, SHRUTHA COMPLEX PRIMROSE ROAD, BANGALORE-560025. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. A. SHANKAR, SR.…

The Director of Income-Tax vs. M/S Sasken Communication

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA/241/2011HC Karnataka10 Jun 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 201Section 201(1)Section 260Section 260ASection 28Section 5(2)

…inferences from proved facts by 23 applying the law erroneously or the decision is based on no evidence. The aforesaid decisions were referred to with approval in VIJAY KUMAR TALWAR supra as well as in ‘UNION OF INDIA V. IBRAHIM UDDIN’, (2012) 8 SCC 148 and has been followed by a division bench of this court in ‘CIT VS. SOFT BRANDS (P.) LTD.,’ (2018) 406 ITR 513. In G.E.TECHNOLOGIES supra, it has been held that the payer is bound to deduct tax at source if the tax is assessable in India. 16. In the backdrop of aforementioned statutory provisions and the well settled legal principle…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - 4 vs. General Sales Ltd

ITA/160/2018HC Delhi18 Sept 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

…Civil Procedure 1908 (as amended), the present RSA 160/2018 does not lie on the ground of stated erroneous findings of fact based on appreciation of the relevant evidence as laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ibrahim & Others : (2012) 8 SCC 148 and thus the RSA 160/2018 assailing the judgment dated 29.9.2018 of the learned First Appellate Court (Additional District Judge-03, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi) in RCA No. 61274/2016 and the judgment dated 19.10.2016 of the learned Civil Judge-01 (West), Tis Hazari Courts, in SCJ No. 608748/2016 and the accompanying application being CM Nos.46496…

Nerka Chemicals P. Ltd, Gujrat vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 38, Mumbai

In the result this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4423/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Accountant Mamber & Shri Pawan Singh

For Respondent: Sh. Girish Dave Special
Section 115Section 115JSection 14ASection 2(22)(a)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 28Section 56(1)

…r relied upon the decision of (i) New Delhi Television Ltd. (83 Taxmann.com 282), (ii) Khairunnissa Ebrahim (201 ITR 903),(iii)Jansampark Advertising (375 ITR 373) (Del HC),(iv) Maruti Udyog (161 CTR 81) (Del HC) and (v) Union of India vs Ibrahim Uddin (2012) 8 SCC 148. 26. On the other hand the ld. Sr. Counsel for the assessee objected for the admission of the additional evidence, it was submitted that it is not open to the Revenue to make an application for admission of additional evidence. The scope of Rule 29 postulates that additional evidence can be admitted under two circumstances. The first circumstances…

Kashinath Tapuriah, Kolkatta vs. DCIT Cen Cir 2, Mumbai

In the result, the penalty appeals for all the seven years under reference are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8339/MUM/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan, Vp & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am Sr. Appellant Respondent A.Ys.

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Karia &For Respondent: Shri Girish Dave &
Section 132(1)Section 132ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…re evidence on record is sufficient to enable the court to pass an order, it may yet admit additional evidence for any other substantial cause. The ld. special counsel for the Revenue would rely on the decision in the case of in Ibrahiam Uddin and Anr. [2012] 8 SCC 148, specifically referring to para 41 (at page 168 thereof), to say that the power to admit additional evidence u/r. 29 ‘for any other substantial cause’ is to be read in context of the earlier words ‘requires… to enable it to pass orders’, and cannot be admitted where evidence on record enables the tribunal to pass an order. The argument raised by th…

Chandrika Tapuriah, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 2, Mumbai

In the result, the penalty appeals for all the seven years under reference are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8298/MUM/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan, Vp & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am Sr.No.

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Karia &For Respondent: Shri Girish Dave &
Section 132(1)Section 132ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…re evidence on record is sufficient to enable the court to pass an order, it may yet admit additional evidence for any other substantial cause. The ld. special counsel for the Revenue would rely on the decision in the case of in Ibrahiam Uddin and Anr. [2012] 8 SCC 148, specifically referring to para 41 (at page 168 thereof), to say that the power to admit additional evidence u/r. 29 ‘for any other substantial cause’ is to be read in context of the earlier words ‘requires… to enable it to pass orders’, and cannot be admitted where evidence on record enables the tribunal to pass an order. The argument raised by Sh…