Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd. v. Union of India

2 SCC 536Reported decision2000#904 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Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, which preserves rights and liabilities under repealed statutes, does not automatically apply to a mere omission of a statutory provision unless the omitting enactment specifically provides for it, thereby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 367,181 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

Sathiapal Engineers (India) Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 610/CHNY/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Aug 2022AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 610/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 Sathiapal Engineers (India) Pvt. Ltd. The Assistant /Deputy Commissioner Formerly Known As Sathiapal Vs. Of Income Tax, Engineers India Ltd., New No. 14, Cpc, Bengaluru. Old No. 25, Temple Street, Alagappa Nagar, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010. [Pan:Aahcs2295P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Viswanathan, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.08.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2022 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 26.05.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2017-18. The Only Effective Ground Raised In The Appeal Of The Assessee Relates To Confirmation Of Disallowance Of Pf & Esi Payments.

For Appellant: Shri R. Viswanathan, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(va)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…

Shri Indhira Cottons Mills P Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 563/CHNY/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./ I. T. A. No.563/Chny/2022 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19) M/S. Shri Indhira Cotton Mills P.Ltd. Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of P.B No.6 , Jagampet Gardens, Income Tax, Cpc, Chitlapakkam Main Road, Chrompet, Bengaluru. Chennai-600 044. Pan: Aaaci 0899J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: 25.08.2022
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 36(1)(va)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…

Srm Sweets and Cakes, Erode vs. ADIT-CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 545/CHNY/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jul 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. AR.V.Sreenivasan, Addl.CITFor Respondent: 21.07.2022
Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 5

…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…

Riflex Industries Private Limited, Chennai vs. CIT[A], NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 536/CHNY/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jul 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. AR.V.Sreenivasan, Addl.CITFor Respondent: 21.07.2022
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)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…

Ideal Beach Resort, Neelankarai vs. The Assesing Officer, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 531/CHNY/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jul 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. AR.V.Sreenivasan, Addl.CITFor Respondent: 21.07.2022
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)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…

Spr Construction Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3(1), Chennai

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

ITA 520/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Respondent: 21.07.2022
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 25Section 36(1)(va)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…

R.Ramakrishnan, Tirupur vs. DCIT, Bengaluru

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

ITA 513/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. AR.V.Sreenivasan, Addl.CITFor Respondent: 21.07.2022
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)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 Autotech Industries [ India ] Private Limited, Chennai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 500/CHNY/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jul 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. AR.V.Sreenivasan, Addl.CITFor Respondent: 21.07.2022
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)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…

Airtec Systems, Coimbatore vs. ADIT, Bangalore

In the result, both these appeals filed by the assessee for

ITA 493/CHNY/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jul 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. AR.V.Sreenivasan, Addl.CITFor Respondent: 21.07.2022
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 438

…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…

Airtec Systems, Coimbatore vs. ADIT, Bangalore

In the result, both these appeals filed by the assessee for

ITA 492/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. AR.V.Sreenivasan, Addl.CITFor Respondent: 21.07.2022
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 438

…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 Rahee Jhajharia E to E Jv, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle-33, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed & appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 343/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 1125/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Rahee Jhajharia E To E Jv Flat 1C, 1St Floor Circle-33, Kolkata Vs 4, Ho Chi Minh Sarani Chowringhee Kolkata - 700071 Pan : Aabar5042H अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K.K. Khemka, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Kananjia, CIT D/R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40A(2)(b)Section 92BSection 92C

…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…

ACIT, Circle-33, Kolkata vs. M/S Rahee Jhajharia E to E Jv, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed & appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1125/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 1125/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Rahee Jhajharia E To E Jv Flat 1C, 1St Floor Circle-33, Kolkata Vs 4, Ho Chi Minh Sarani Chowringhee Kolkata - 700071 Pan : Aabar5042H अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K.K. Khemka, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Kananjia, CIT D/R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40A(2)(b)Section 92BSection 92C

…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…

Bhupendra Nath Pandey, Varanasi vs. ACIT, R - 03, Varanasi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is in ITA No

ITA 31/VNS/2021[2018-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi07 Jul 2022AY 2018-2016

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2018-19 Bhupendra Nath Pandey Assistant Director Of Income 6-159/27, Kashi Enclave V. Tax (Cpc), Centralized Colony, Pahadiya Sarnath, Processing Center , Varanasi-221007, U.P. Bengaluru-560500 (The Acit, Range-3, Varanasi, U.P.) Pan:Ajfpp1273J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak K Gujarati, CAFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)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. Asstt.CIT [2002] 257 ITR 338 (SC). The said submissions found favour with the Division Bench of the Guwahati 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 & Timber…

Utkarsh Small Finance Bank Ltd., Varanasi vs. National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is in ITA No

ITA 29/VNS/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi07 Jul 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Utkarsh Small Finance National E-Assessment Centre, Bank Limited V. Delhi S-24/1-2, First Floor, Mahavir Nagar, Orderly Bazar, Near Mahavir Mandir, Varanasi- 221001, U.P. Pan:Aabcu9355J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Nikhil Tiwari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

…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. Asstt.CIT [2002] 257 ITR 338 (SC). The said submissions found favour with the Division Bench of the Guwahati 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 & Timber…

Lawkush Sharma, Sonebhadra vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3 (5), Sonebhadra

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is in ITA No

ITA 23/VNS/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi07 Jul 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2018-19 Lawkush Sharma Assistant Director Of Income 14-495, V.V. Colony, V. Tax (Cpc), Centralized Shakti Nagar, Sonebhadra- Processing Center , 231222, U.P. Bengaluru-560500 Pan:Artps9822Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. K.R.Tiwari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)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. Asstt.CIT [2002] 257 ITR 338 (SC). The said submissions found favour with the Division Bench of the Guwahati 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 & Timber…

M/S Rugs Mart, Varanasi vs. DCIT, Circle - 03, Varanasi

In the result, appeal filed by the assesseeis in ITA No

ITA 21/VNS/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi07 Jul 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2018-19 Rugs Mart Deputy Commissioner Of Barhi Ewada V. Income Tax (Cpc), Centralized District Varanasi-221207 Processing Center , U.P. Bengaluru-560500 (The Dcit , Circle-3, Varanasi, U.P.) Pan:Aalfr4883R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. R.K.N.Jaiswal,AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)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. Asstt.CIT [2002] 257 ITR 338 (SC). The said submissions found favour with the Division Bench of the Guwahati 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 & Timber…

M/S.Apollo Hospitals Enterprise Limited, Chennai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the

ITA 274/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G.Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. G.Johnson, Addl.CITFor Respondent: 13.05.2022
Section 115BSection 115JSection 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 90

…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.Apollo Hospitals Enterprise Limited, Chennai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the

ITA 273/CHNY/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G.Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. G.Johnson, Addl.CITFor Respondent: 13.05.2022
Section 115BSection 115JSection 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 90

…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…

Shri Neeraj Maheshwari, Sonebhadra vs. Dy. CIT, (CPC), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 18/ALLD/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad10 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Before Shri. Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Neeraj Maheshwari, V. Shri Amrit Raj Singh, Bijpur Rihand Nagar, Sonebhadra- Dy. Commissioner Of Inco Tax, 2312233, U.P. Cpc Bangalore Pan- Afvpm5660E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. A.K. Pandey, Adv Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.05.2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Sh. A.K. Pandey, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 234BSection 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 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. Asstt. CIT [2002] 257 ITR 338 (SC). The said submissions found favour with the Division Bench of the Guwahati 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 & Timber…

DCIT CC-2(1), Chennai vs. M/S Eversendai Construction Private Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 965/CHNY/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.965/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Eversendai Construction Private Limited, No. 1 & 2, The Lords, 5Th Floor, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 2(1), Room No. 511, 5Th Floor, Wanaparthy Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Guindy, Block, No. 121, M.G. Road, Chennai 600 032. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aacce2174N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.04.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.05.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 6, Chennai Dated 09.09.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Delayed By 9 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal Due To Outbreak Of Covid-19 Pandemic & Accordingly, The Delay Is Condoned & Admitted The Appeal For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri G. Johnson, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 41(1)

…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…