National Aluminium Company Ltd. v. DCIT

218 ITR 450High Court2006#18575 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Also reported as

153 Taxmann 18

Issues it is cited on

associated enterprisestransfer pricing adjustmentsection 92casection 92cassociated enterprisesection 43bsection 92section 144cinternational transactionsection 43section 37(1)double taxation

Judgments citing National Aluminium Company Ltd. v. DCIT

ASST CIT (LTU) 1, MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED (AS A SUCCESSOR TO ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1248/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Ms. A. Alankrutha, Sr. DR
Section 10BSection 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 37Section 40Section 43BSection 80I

…refore, section 43B cannot be applied to the interest on electricity tax. The ld. AR place reliance on the decision of the Cuttack Bench of the Tribunal in the case of National Aluminium Company Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2006) 153 taxman 18, Hindustan Motors Ltd vs CIT (218 ITR 450 (Calcutta HC)), CIT vs Padmavati Raje Cotton Mills Ltd (239 ITR 355 (Calcutta HC)) and Southern Electrodes Ltd vs ACIT (111 TTJ 143 (Hyderabad Trib)). 28. The ld. DR on the other hand, submitted that as per section 43B(a) interest is very much part of the statutory liability and therefore, should be included for the purpose of allowability under…

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED (AS A SUCCESSOR TO ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT LTU, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1065/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Ms. A. Alankrutha, Sr. DR
Section 10BSection 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 37Section 40Section 43BSection 80I

…refore, section 43B cannot be applied to the interest on electricity tax. The ld. AR place reliance on the decision of the Cuttack Bench of the Tribunal in the case of National Aluminium Company Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2006) 153 taxman 18, Hindustan Motors Ltd vs CIT (218 ITR 450 (Calcutta HC)), CIT vs Padmavati Raje Cotton Mills Ltd (239 ITR 355 (Calcutta HC)) and Southern Electrodes Ltd vs ACIT (111 TTJ 143 (Hyderabad Trib)). 28. The ld. DR on the other hand, submitted that as per section 43B(a) interest is very much part of the statutory liability and therefore, should be included for the purpose of allowability under…

HP INDIA SALES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU , BANGALORE

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

ITA 524/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.524/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/S.Hp India Sales Private The Joint Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly Known As Income-Tax, Ltu V. Bangalore. Hewlett-Packard India Sales Private Limited), 24 Salarpuria Area, Hosur Main Road, Adugodi Bangalore – 560 030. Pan : Aaacc9862F. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Ajay Vohra, Senior Counsel / Sri. Neeraj Jain, Sri.Lalit Attal & Sri.Karon Dhanuka, Advoicates Respondent By : Sri.Harishchandra Naik, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2022 Date Of Hearing : 27.07.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 03.01.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2012-2013. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In Import Of Computer Peripherals From Its Associated Enterprises (Aes) For Sale In India & Also Rendered Certain Support Services. The Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2012-2013 Was Filed On 29.02.2012, Admitting Total Income Of Rs.544,61,99,276. The Return Was Revised On 25.03.2014

For Appellant: Sri.Ajay Vohra, Senior Counsel / Sri. Neeraj JainFor Respondent: Sri.Harishchandra Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92BSection 92C

…by Appellant, wherein it was stated that the interest on custom duty is not covered with the scope of the provisions of section 43B of the Act and reliance placed on the decision of Honorable Calcutta High Court in the case of Hindustan Motors Limited Vs CIT (218 ITR 450) and other decisions relied on by the Appellant; 4.3 The Honorable DRP and the learned AO has further erred in law and on facts, in stating that decisions of the Courts are conflicting on the subject issue, without appreciating that the decision of the Calcutta High Court (supra) was on interest on custom duty. 4.4 Without prejudice to the above,…

ACIT 1(1), MUMBAI vs. FORBES & CO.LTD, MUMBAI

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

ITA 5536/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G S Pannu, Vice-And Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Girish Dave (AR)For Respondent: Shri S C Tiwari (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 3Section 37(1)Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G S PANNU, VICE-PRESIDENTAND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 5536/Mum/2011 Assessment Year: 2007-08 ACIT 1(1), M/s. Forbes & Co. Ltd., Mumbai. Forbes Building, Vs. Charnjit Singh Rai Marg, Fort, Mumbai 400 001. PAN: AAACF1765A (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No. 5540/Mum/2011 Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/s. Forbes & Co. Ltd., Dy. CIT OSD, Fort, Mumbai 400 001. Mumbai. Vs. PAN: AAACF1765A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Girish Dave (AR) Respondent By : Shri S C Tiwari (CIT-DR) Date of Hearing : 01.07.2019 Date of Pronouncemen…

M.J. EXPORTS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. D.C.I.T.3(2), MUMBAI

ITA 4874/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaita Nos.4874 & 4937/Mum/2012 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09 M/S M.J. Exports Pvt. Ltd. Dcit-3(2), C/O- H.N. Motiwalla & Co. Mumbai बनाम/ 508 Sharda Chambers, Vs. 33, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue ) Pan. No.Aadcm7712M

Section 158A(1)Section 269USection 37Section 43B

…anced identical arguments by placing reliance upon the decision from Hon’ble Apex court in Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Co. vs. CIT (123 ITR 429) (SC). It was also pleaded that the decision from Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in Hindustan Motors Ltd. vs. CIT (1996)(218 ITR 450) (Cal) is not applicable being on different facts by explaining that liability crystallized in A Y 2007-08 and demand was raised on 18.09.2006. Our attention was invited to a certificate from Canara Bank dated 20.09.1997 by claiming that either the same can be allowed u/s. 37 of the Act for which reliance was placed upon the decision in 250 I…

National Aluminium Company Ltd. v. DCIT (218 ITR 450) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax