Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd. v. Union of India

2 SCC 536Reported decision2000#915 most cited

What is Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd. v. Union of India authority for?

Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, which preserves rights and liabilities under repealed statutes, does not automatically apply to a mere omission of a statutory provision unless the omitting enactment specifically provides for it, thereby affecting the continuation of pending proceedings.

117

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2003 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd. v. Union of India · Section 6 General Clauses Act · omission of statutory provision · repeal of statutory provision · pending proceedings · effect of omission · Section 92BA · transfer pricing adjustment · validity of TPO order · statutory interpretation

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 92BA(i)Section 144CSection 14ASection 92CA(3)Section 115JAASection 115JBSection 144C(13)

Issues it is cited on

section 92ba(i)section 92basection 6(1)specified domestic transactionreference to tposection 92bsection 40a(2)section 40a(2)(b)section 92ca(3)transfer pricing adjustmentsection 2(24)(x)section 92ca

Judgments citing Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd. v. Union of India

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE LTU-1, CHENNAI, NUNGAMBAKKAM vs. ORIENT GREEN POWER COMPANY LIMITED , CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 230/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CITFor Respondent: Mr. Raghav Rajeev Menon
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92BSection 92C

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी मनु कुमार िग"र ,"ाियक सद" एवं "ी एस . आर . रघुनाथा, लेखा सद" के सम& BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.230/Chny/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Vs M/s. The Assistant Commissioner of Orient Green Power Income Tax, Company Limited, #10/1, 4th floor, Bascon Futura Circle LTU-1, Chennai. Sv, Venkatnarayana Road, T,Nagar, Chennai-600 017. PAN : AAACO-9310-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant by : Ms. A…

DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI vs. DLF MIDTOWN PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the appellant assessee is allowed and appeal of Department of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2859/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92BSection 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘I’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER DLF Midtown Pvt. Ltd. Asst. CIT 15, Shivaji Marg Circle-7(2) New Delhi-110015 Vs. Delhi PAN:AAFCD3015Q (Appellant) (Respondent) DCIT, DLF Midtown Pvt. Ltd. Circle-7(1) 15, Shivaji Marg Delhi Vs. New Delhi-110015 PAN:AAFCD3015Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri R.S. Singhvi & Satyajeet Goel, CA Respondent by Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 04/07/2024 Date of Pronouncement 06/09/2024 O R D E R PER VIMAL KUMAR, JM: 1. The appeal by the assesse…

DLF MIDTOWN P. LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-7(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the appellant assessee is allowed and appeal of Department of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1963/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92BSection 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘I’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER DLF Midtown Pvt. Ltd. Asst. CIT 15, Shivaji Marg Circle-7(2) New Delhi-110015 Vs. Delhi PAN:AAFCD3015Q (Appellant) (Respondent) DCIT, DLF Midtown Pvt. Ltd. Circle-7(1) 15, Shivaji Marg Delhi Vs. New Delhi-110015 PAN:AAFCD3015Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri R.S. Singhvi & Satyajeet Goel, CA Respondent by Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 04/07/2024 Date of Pronouncement 06/09/2024 O R D E R PER VIMAL KUMAR, JM: 1. The appeal by the assesse…

UTTAM ENERGY LIMITED,PUNE vs. ACIT CIRCLE-12, PUNE

Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2033/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2033/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Uttam Energy Limited, The Acit, Circle-12, Mahendra Chamber, Mayfair V Pune. Co-Op Housing Society, S A-4, Dhole Patil Road, Pune – 411001. Pan: Aabcu4100H Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By Shri Ch Naniwadekar & Kiran Sanmane – Ar;S Revenue By Shri Deepak Garg – Cit Date Of Hearing 16/05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30/05/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Of The Learned Acit, Circle-12, Pune Passed U/Sec. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short "The Act") After Giving Effect To The Learned Drp’S Order Dated 24.09.2019. 1.1 The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153(1)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 92BSection 92C

…. There is no discussion on how the two terms are separate and whether they can be used interchangeably. 3.3 Rayala Corporation case came for consideration before the five-Judge Bench of Supreme Court in Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd. v. Union of India [(200) 2 SCC 536]. In this case the Court dealt with the definitions of ‘Central Act’, ‘enactment’, ‘regulation’, ‘rule’ as defined in Sections 3(7), 3(19), 3(50) and 3(51) respectively in the General Clauses Act and held that Section 6 only applies to Central Act and regulations. The Court further stated that — “When the Legislature by clear and unambiguous langu…

PANACEA BOITEC LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDI. CIT NATIONAL ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 807/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarasstt. Year: 2016-17 Panacea Boitec Ltd. Vs. Addl. Cit, G-3/B-1 Extension, National Assessment Mohan Coop. Indl Centre, Estate, Mathura Road New Delhi. New Delhi – 110044 Pan Aaacp5335J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 6Section 6(1)Section 92BSection 92C

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Asstt. Year: 2016-17 Panacea Boitec Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT, G-3/B-1 Extension, National Assessment Mohan Coop. Indl Centre, Estate, Mathura Road New Delhi. New Delhi – 110044 PAN AAACP5335J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate Mr. Madhur Aggarwal, Advocate, Mr. Uma Shankar, Advocate Department by: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT(DR) Date of Hearing: 09.05.2024 Date of 22.05.2024 pronouncement: O R D E R PER VIMAL KUMAR, JM The appeal is against Lear…

INFRASTRUCTURE LEASING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL /JT/ACIT/NFAC DELHI, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1554/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 92B

…der of TPO u/s.92BA could be invalid and bad in law, While coming to this conclusion the Hon‟ble High Court has referred and relied upon the judgment of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., (2000) 2 SCC 536. 8. Though, this judgment of PCIT vs. Textport Overseas Pvt. Ltd (supra) clearly clinches the issue in favour of the assessee and will apply mutatis mutandis in the present appeal also. However, we deem fit to deal with the relevant law on this point. The amendment made in the Act which has the effect of omitting a clause from the statute has to be…

SRI. REDDY VEERANNA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

ITA 1146/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nischal B., D.R
Section 132(1)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153A

…ITA No.1111/Bang/2022 Smt. Reddy Sangeetha, Bangalore ITA Nos.1112 & 1113/Bang/2022 & ITA Nos.1145 & 1146/Bang/2022 Shri Reddy Veeranna, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1145/Bang/2022, 1112/Bang/2022, ITA No.1113/Bang/2022 & 1146/Bang/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2014-15 and 2015-16 respectively Shri Reddy Veeranna #9/1, 2nd Floor, Classic Court Richmond Road DCIT Vs. Bengaluru 560 025 Central Circle-1(3) Bengaluru PAN NO : AASPV4626M APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA Nos.11…

SRI. REDDY VEERANNA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

ITA 1145/BANG/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nischal B., D.R
Section 132(1)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153A

…ITA No.1111/Bang/2022 Smt. Reddy Sangeetha, Bangalore ITA Nos.1112 & 1113/Bang/2022 & ITA Nos.1145 & 1146/Bang/2022 Shri Reddy Veeranna, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1145/Bang/2022, 1112/Bang/2022, ITA No.1113/Bang/2022 & 1146/Bang/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2014-15 and 2015-16 respectively Shri Reddy Veeranna #9/1, 2nd Floor, Classic Court Richmond Road DCIT Vs. Bengaluru 560 025 Central Circle-1(3) Bengaluru PAN NO : AASPV4626M APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA Nos.11…

SRI. REDDY VEERANNA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

ITA 1113/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nischal B., D.R
Section 132(1)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153A

…ITA No.1111/Bang/2022 Smt. Reddy Sangeetha, Bangalore ITA Nos.1112 & 1113/Bang/2022 & ITA Nos.1145 & 1146/Bang/2022 Shri Reddy Veeranna, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1145/Bang/2022, 1112/Bang/2022, ITA No.1113/Bang/2022 & 1146/Bang/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2014-15 and 2015-16 respectively Shri Reddy Veeranna #9/1, 2nd Floor, Classic Court Richmond Road DCIT Vs. Bengaluru 560 025 Central Circle-1(3) Bengaluru PAN NO : AASPV4626M APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA Nos.11…

SRI. REDDY VEERANNA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

ITA 1112/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nischal B., D.R
Section 132(1)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153A

…ITA No.1111/Bang/2022 Smt. Reddy Sangeetha, Bangalore ITA Nos.1112 & 1113/Bang/2022 & ITA Nos.1145 & 1146/Bang/2022 Shri Reddy Veeranna, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1145/Bang/2022, 1112/Bang/2022, ITA No.1113/Bang/2022 & 1146/Bang/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2014-15 and 2015-16 respectively Shri Reddy Veeranna #9/1, 2nd Floor, Classic Court Richmond Road DCIT Vs. Bengaluru 560 025 Central Circle-1(3) Bengaluru PAN NO : AASPV4626M APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA Nos.11…

SMT. REDDY SANGEETHA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

ITA 1111/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nischal B., D.R
Section 132(1)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153A

…ITA No.1111/Bang/2022 Smt. Reddy Sangeetha, Bangalore ITA Nos.1112 & 1113/Bang/2022 & ITA Nos.1145 & 1146/Bang/2022 Shri Reddy Veeranna, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1145/Bang/2022, 1112/Bang/2022, ITA No.1113/Bang/2022 & 1146/Bang/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2014-15 and 2015-16 respectively Shri Reddy Veeranna #9/1, 2nd Floor, Classic Court Richmond Road DCIT Vs. Bengaluru 560 025 Central Circle-1(3) Bengaluru PAN NO : AASPV4626M APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA Nos.11…

DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HIND ALUMINIUM INDUSTRIES LTD.,, MUMBAI

In the result, Cross objection of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1904/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2023AY 2013-14
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

…a Corporation (P) Ltd. vs. Director of Enforcement, New Delhi (1969) 2 SCC 412, Constitutional Bench decision In the case of Kolhapur 6 ITA No.1904/Mum/2023 & CO No.107/Mum/2023 M/s. Hind Aluminium Industries Ltd. Canesugar Works Ltd vs. Union of India (2000)2 SCC 536 and then after the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Fibre Boards (P) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore (2015) 10 SCC 333 wherein they have explained the judgment of Rayala Croporation (P) Ltd & Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd. supra and Shri Bhagwati Steel Rolling vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (2016) 3 SCC 643. The re…

THE SUPREME INDUSTRIAL LTD ,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT LTU CIRCLE , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7598/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 7598/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) The Supreme Industries Ltd. Acit Ltu, Circle, बिधम/ 612, Raheja Chambers, Free Mumbai Vs. Press Journal Marg, Room No. X, 29Th Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai- World Trade Centre-1, 400021. Cuffee Parade, Mumbai- 400005. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact1344F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Nitesh Joshi & Shri Harsh Shah Revenue By: Shri Manoj Kumar (Cit- Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi & Shri Harsh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar (CIT- DR)
Section 143(3)Section 17(1)Section 197Section 40ASection 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 92BSection 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 7598/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) The Supreme Industries Ltd. ACIT LTU, Circle, बिधम/ 612, Raheja Chambers, Free Mumbai Vs. Press Journal Marg, Room No. X, 29th Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai- World Trade Centre-1, 400021. Cuffee Parade, Mumbai- 400005. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAACT1344F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Nitesh Joshi & Shri Harsh Shah Revenue by: Shri Manoj Kumar (CIT- DR) सुनवाई की त…

TRANZTAR COMMERCIAL VEHICLE APPLICATIONS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 14 (3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6624/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 40ASection 92BSection 92C

…der of TPO u/s.92BA could be invalid and bad in law, While coming to this conclusion the Hon’ble High Court has referred and relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., (2000) 2 SCC 536. 8. Though, this judgment of PCIT vs. Textport Overseas Pvt. Ltd (supra) clearly clinches the issue in favour of the assessee and will apply mutatis mutandis in the present appeal also. However, we deem fit to deal with the relevant law on this point. The amendment made in the Act which has the effect of omitting a clause from the statute has to be…

RAHEE JHAJHARIA E TO E (JV),KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR.-32, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 135/KOL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 135/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Rahee Jhajharia E To E (Jv),..................Appellant “Kemwell Manor”, 5Th Floor, 10/D/2, Ho Chi Minh Sarani, Kolkata-700071 [Pan: Aabar5042H] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,..Respondent Circle-32, Kolkata, 10B, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700071 Appearances By: Shri K.K. Khemka, Advocate & Shri Anuj Musaddi, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit (D.R.), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 40A(2)(b)Section 92B

…during the currency of the Act is very much valid. Shri Vijay Shankar, (CIT-DR), also submitted before the Bench that the judgments of Hon`ble Supreme Court, which were used by the assessee, in the case of Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd. V Union of India (2002) 2 SCC 536 and in Royala Corporation P. Ltd. V Director of Enforcement (1969) 2 SCC 412 and in the case of General Finance Co. Vs. Asstt. CIT (2002) 257 ITR 338 (SC) were overruled by the Hon`ble Supreme Court by its subsequent judgments in the case of M/s. Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills vs. C.I.T. Excise & Others - 2015(326) ELT 209(S.C.), and M/s. Fibre…

ENMAS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,TIRUVALLUR vs. DCIT , CPC , BANGALORE

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

ITA 714/CHNY/2022[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2022AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.714/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020 -21 M/S. Enmas India Private Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Sp 107, Eom Square Ambattur, Vs. Income Tax, Ambattur Indl. Estate S.O., Tiruvallur, Cpc, Bengaluru 560 500. Tamil Nadu 600 058. [Pan:Aabce4825F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Zakir Hussain, C.A. & Shri Sriraj Gokavarapu, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K.N. Dhandapani, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi Dated 03.08.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2020-21 On 16.12.2020 Declaring The Total Income At ₹.4,77,23,830/-. The Cpc, Bengaluru Has Completed The 2

For Appellant: Shri Zakir Hussain, C.A. &For Respondent: Shri K.N. Dhandapani, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 43B

…ause would mean that the provisions were never in existence. For this purpose, in the said case the assessee had placed reliance on the judgment of a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd v. Union of India: (2000) 2 SCC 536 and Rayala Corporation P. Ltd v. Director of Enforcement (1969) 2 SCC 412 and General Finance Co. v. Asst. CIT: (2002) 257 ITR 338 (SC). The said submissions found favour with the Division Bench of the Guahati High Court and relying on earlier decisions of its own Court in CIT v. Assam Tribune: (2002) 253 ITR 93 and CIT v. Bharat Bamboo and Tiber S…

M/S BAB LEATHER PRODUCTS INTERNATIONAL ,THIRUMUDIVAKKAM vs. DCIT , CHENAI

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

ITA 665/CHNY/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2022AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.665/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Bab Leather Products The Deputy Commissioner Of International, 162/163, Sidco Vs. Income Tax, Industrial Estate, Thirumudivakkam, Non Corporate Circle 4(1), Chennai 600 044. Chennai. [Pan:Aaafb6228M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Tarun, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K.N. Dhandapani, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi Dated 28.07.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2015-16 On 23.09.2015 Declaring The Total Income At ₹.54,09,150/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & 2

For Appellant: Shri G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.N. Dhandapani, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 43B

…/22 would mean that the provisions were never in existence. For this purpose, in the said case the assessee had placed reliance on the judgment of a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd v. Union of India: (2000) 2 SCC 536 and Rayala Corporation P. Ltd v. Director of Enforcement (1969) 2 SCC 412 and General Finance Co. v. Asst. CIT: (2002) 257 ITR 338 (SC). The said submissions found favour with the Division Bench of the Guahati High Court and relying on earlier decisions of its own Court in CIT v. Assam Tribune: (2002) 253 ITR 93 and CIT v. Bharat Bamboo and Tiber S…

KALPANADEVI,PONDICHERRY vs. ADIT , BANGALORE

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

ITA 664/CHNY/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.664/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 Kalpanadevi, The Assistant Director Of 34, Koil Mania Street, Vs. Income Tax, Dharmapuri, Pondicherry 605 009. Cpc, Bengaluru 560 500. [Pan:Csjpk5198N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K. N. Dhandapani, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi Dated 10.06.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2019-20 Declaring The Total Income At ₹.14,89,000/-. The Return Filed By The Assessee Was Processed Under 2

For Appellant: Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. N. Dhandapani, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 43B

…ause would mean that the provisions were never in existence. For this purpose, in the said case the assessee had placed reliance on the judgment of a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd v. Union of India: (2000) 2 SCC 536 and Rayala Corporation P. Ltd v. Director of Enforcement (1969) 2 SCC 412 and General Finance Co. v. Asst. CIT: (2002) 257 ITR 338 (SC). The said submissions found favour with the Division Bench of the Guahati High Court and relying on earlier decisions of its own Court in CIT v. Assam Tribune: (2002) 253 ITR 93 and CIT v. Bharat Bamboo and Tiber S…

M/S MAXIMA AUTOMATION SOLUTIONS PVT LTD ,CHENNAI vs. ACIT , CORP CIRCLE 4 (1) , CHENNAI

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

ITA 649/CHNY/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.649/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S. Maxima Automation Solutions Pvt. Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Ltd., Represented By Its Managing Income Tax, Director, No. 2/87, Raghaava Nagar, Corporate Circle 4(1), 7Th Street, Moovarasampet, Chennai Madipakkam, Chennai 600 091. [Pan:Aagcm1970L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri P. James Victor Rajkumar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi Dated 25.05.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By Eight Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal, For Which, The Assessee Has Filed A 2

For Appellant: Shri P. James Victor RajkumarFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 43B

…ause would mean that the provisions were never in existence. For this purpose, in the said case the assessee had placed reliance on the judgment of a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd v. Union of India: (2000) 2 SCC 536 and Rayala Corporation P. Ltd v. Director of Enforcement (1969) 2 SCC 412 and General Finance Co. v. Asst. CIT: (2002) 257 ITR 338 (SC). The said submissions found favour with the Division Bench of the Guahati High Court and relying on earlier decisions of its own Court in CIT v. Assam Tribune: (2002) 253 ITR 93 and CIT v. Bharat Bamboo and Tiber S…

SRI. KRISHNA DIAMONDS,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 232/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Goutham, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT (DR)
Section 234BSection 92B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No.232/Bang/2022 Assessment year : 2014-15 Sri Krishna Diamonds (Firm) Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income- No.1, Kamaraj Road, tax, Commercial Street, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore-560 001. Bengaluru. PAN – AASFS 6946 B APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Rohit Goutham, C.A Revenue by : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT (DR) Date of hearing : 21.07.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member This appeal…

Showing 1–20 of 117 · Page 1 of 6