Patil Vijay Kumar v. Union of India

151 ITR 48High Court1985#5692 most cited
21

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2023.

Judgments citing Patil Vijay Kumar v. Union of India

DHYAN SWAMIBAPA TRUST,SENJALDHAM, TEHSIL : SAVARKUNDLA, DIST: AMRELI vs. THE ITO EXEMPTION, WARD-1, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 244/RJT/2022[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot14 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.244/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2015-16 Dhyan Swamibapa Trust, Ito Senjaldham, Vs. Ward-1(Exemption), Tehsil Saavarkundala Rajkot. Dist. Amreli-364515 C/O. Sanghavi & Company, Prasham, 4Th Floor, Kasturba Road, Nr. Bilkha Plaza, Rajkot-360001. Pan: Aaatd1598E

For Appellant: Shri G.R Sanghavi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. D.R
Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 12ASection 143(1)

…jurisdiction in Hon'ble Bombay High Court, as the view so taken in Godavari Devi Saraf's case (supra) has not found favour with Hon'ble Karnataka High Court as well as Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, in the case of Patil Vijay Kumar v. Union of India ( 151 ITR 48) and CIT v. Ved Prakash (178 ITR 332). The observations made in this order are subject to this rider and, therefore, while we agree with the conclusions arrived at by a Co-ordinate Bench in Tej International (P.) Ltd. (supra), our reasons are not exactly the same as adopted by our distinguished colleagues. 6. Yet, the coordinate bench, in the case…

NILKAMAL LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. CIT CENTRAL CIR-1(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 2001/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Nilkamal Limited Acit, Cc-1(2) 77/78, Nilkamal House, Vs. Pratishtha Bhavan, Road No. 13, Midc, Old Cgo, Annexe, Andheri (East), M.K. Marg, Mumbai – 400 093 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan No. Aaacn2329N (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee By : Shri Vipul Joshi, A.R Revenue By : Shri Kprr Murty, D.R Date Of Hearing : 06/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 08/10/2021

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri KPRR Murty, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…and unambiguous, the Court has to give effect to it whatever be the consequences, as the Court has not jurisdiction of mitigate harsh consequences, if any. This was held by Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Patil Vijay Kumar vs Union of India & Anr 151 ITR 48(Kar). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of IPCA Laboratories vs DCIT 266 ITR 521 (SC) held that when no ambiguity is present in the provisions of the statute, the provisions cannot be interpreted to confer benefit on the assessee. Moreover, the decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg Co Ltd vs DCIT (234 CTR 1),…

M/S.IMPACT RETAILTECH FUND PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 6(2)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 2050/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp& Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2050/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala &For Respondent: Shri V. Sreekar, DR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

…, it cannot be said that the transaction between a holding company and a subsidiary company are outside the purview of the provisions of this section. It has been held by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Patil Vijaykumar & Ors Vs Union of India 151 ITR 48 that when-the meaning of the words is clear and unambiguous, the court has to give effect to it whatever be the consequences, as the court has no jurisdiction to mitigate harsh consequences of the statute, if any. In the case of Tarulata Shyam & Ors Vs CIT 16 I.T.A. No. 2050/Mum/2018 M/s Impact RetailTech Fund Pvt. Ltd. 108 ITR 345, the Hon'ble S…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1), HUBLI vs. M/S KARNATAKA VIKAS GRAMEEN BANK , DHARWAD

In the result the disallowance made of Rs

ITA 2054/BANG/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(2)(v)

…followed in preference to the decision of non jurisdictional High Court decision. In this regard, the ld counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Patil Vijayakumar & Others Vs. Union of India 151 ITR 48 (Kar). 8. We have considered the rival submission. The provisions of Section 36(1)(viia)(a) of the Act lays down as follows: “viia) in respect of any provision for bad and doubtful debts made by (a) a scheduled bank not being a bank incorporated by or under the laws of a country outside India] or a co- operative bank other than a primary agricultu…

KAYBEE P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 10(1)(3) (ERSTWHILE JURIDICTIONAL ITO 8(2)(2), MUMBAI

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

ITA 4950/MUM/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2020AY 2006-07
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271ASection 271BSection 92ASection 92A(1)(b)Section 92A(2)Section 92DSection 92E

…jurisdiction in Hon'ble Bombay High Court, as the view so taken in Godavari Devi Saraf's case (supra) has not found favour with Hon'ble Karnataka High Court as well as Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, in the case of Patil Vijay Kumar v. Union of India ( 151 ITR 48) and CIT v. Ved Prakash ( 178 ITR 332). The observations made in this order are subject to this rider and, therefore, while we agree with the conclusions arrived at by a Co-ordinate Bench in Tej International (P.) Ltd. (supra), our reasons are not exactly the same as adopted by our distinguished colleagues. 12. Viewed thus, the views expressed by…

KAYBEE P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 10(1)(3) (ERSTWHILE JURIDICTIONAL ITO 8(2)(2), MUMBAI

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

ITA 4949/MUM/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2020AY 2006-07
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271ASection 271BSection 92ASection 92A(1)(b)Section 92A(2)Section 92DSection 92E

…jurisdiction in Hon'ble Bombay High Court, as the view so taken in Godavari Devi Saraf's case (supra) has not found favour with Hon'ble Karnataka High Court as well as Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, in the case of Patil Vijay Kumar v. Union of India ( 151 ITR 48) and CIT v. Ved Prakash ( 178 ITR 332). The observations made in this order are subject to this rider and, therefore, while we agree with the conclusions arrived at by a Co-ordinate Bench in Tej International (P.) Ltd. (supra), our reasons are not exactly the same as adopted by our distinguished colleagues. 12. Viewed thus, the views expressed by…

KAYBEE P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 10(1)(3) (ERSTWHILE JURIDICTIONAL ITO 8(2)(2), MUMBAI

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

ITA 2165/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2020AY 2007-08
Section 143(3)Section 92ASection 92A(1)Section 92A(1)(b)Section 92A(2)

…jurisdiction in Hon'ble Bombay High Court, as the view so taken in Godavari Devi Saraf's case (supra) has not found favour with Hon'ble Karnataka High Court as well as Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, in the case of Patil Vijay Kumar v. Union of India ( 151 ITR 48) and CIT v. Ved Prakash ( 178 ITR 332). The observations made in this order are subject to this rider and, therefore, while we agree with the conclusions arrived at by a Co-ordinate Bench in Tej International (P.) Ltd. (supra), our reasons are not exactly the same as adopted by our distinguished colleagues. ITA No. 2165/Mum/15 Assessment year: 20…

KAYBEE P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 10(1)(3) (ERSTWHILE JURIDICTIONAL ITO 8(2)(2), MUMBAI

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

ITA 2164/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2020AY 2006-07
Section 143(3)Section 92ASection 92A(1)Section 92A(1)(b)Section 92A(2)

…jurisdiction in Hon'ble Bombay High Court, as the view so taken in Godavari Devi Saraf's case (supra) has not found favour with Hon'ble Karnataka High Court as well as Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, in the case of Patil Vijay Kumar v. Union of India ( 151 ITR 48) and CIT v. Ved Prakash ( 178 ITR 332). The observations made in this order are subject to this rider and, therefore, while we agree with the conclusions arrived at by a Co-ordinate Bench in Tej International (P.) Ltd. (supra), our reasons are not exactly the same as adopted by our distinguished colleagues. 12. Viewed thus, the views expressed by…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, HUBLI vs. M/S. KARNATAKA VIKAS GRAMEEN BANK, DHARWAD

In the result the appeal is Partly allowed

ITA 1391/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaran

For Appellant: S/Shri Pranav Krishna, & Ravishankar, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1391 & 1392/Bang/2016 Assessment year: 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Jt. Commissioner Vs. M/s Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank, of Income-tax, Head Office, H.O Building Circle-2(1), Belgaum Road, Hubli. Dharwad. PAN: AAAAK 6324Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT CO Nos.107 & 108/Bang/2017 [in ITA No. 1391 & 1392/Bang/2016] Assessment year: 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/s Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank, Vs. The Jt. Commissioner Head Office, H.O Building of Income-tax, Belgaum Road, Circle-2(1), Dh…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, HUBLI vs. M/S. KARNATAKA VIKAS GRAMEEN BANK, DHARWAD

In the result the appeal is Partly allowed

ITA 1392/BANG/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaran

For Appellant: S/Shri Pranav Krishna, & Ravishankar, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1391 & 1392/Bang/2016 Assessment year: 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Jt. Commissioner Vs. M/s Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank, of Income-tax, Head Office, H.O Building Circle-2(1), Belgaum Road, Hubli. Dharwad. PAN: AAAAK 6324Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT CO Nos.107 & 108/Bang/2017 [in ITA No. 1391 & 1392/Bang/2016] Assessment year: 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/s Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank, Vs. The Jt. Commissioner Head Office, H.O Building of Income-tax, Belgaum Road, Circle-2(1), Dh…

IDEA CELLULAR LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO (TDS) 1(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3785/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarita No. 3785/Mum/2016 For (Assessment Year 2012-13) M/S. Vodafone Idea Ltd. Ito (Tds)-1(2)(4), (Formerly Known As Idea 803, K.G. Mittal Ayurvedic Cellular Ltd.), Skyline Icon, Vs. Hospital Building, 1St Floor, 86/92 Andheri Kurla Charni Road (W), Road, Marol Naka, Andheri Mumbai-400002. (E), Mumbai-400059. Pan: Aaacb2100P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ronak Doshi with Shri C.D. Joshi (AR)For Respondent: Shri S. Padmaja CIT-DR with Shri V.K. Agarwal ( Sr DR)
Section 133ASection 191Section 194HSection 201Section 201(1)Section 254(1)

…the Tribunal was not right in following the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Godavaridevi's case (supra). 4. In our opinion, the legal position is correctly stated by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in CfT vs. Ved Prakash (1989) 77 CTR (P&H) 116 : (1989) 178 ITR 332 (P&H) when it observed that "unless and until the Supreme Court or the High Court of the State in question, under Art. 226 of the Constitution, declares a provision of the Act to be ultra vires, it must be taken to be constitutionally valid and treated as such". 5. In our opinion, the Tribunal of another State would be justified in proceeding on…

ACIT, HUBLI vs. KARNATAKA VIKAS GRAMEEN BANK, DHARWAD

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 673/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri A Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C.H Sundar Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(viia)

…followed in preference to the decision of non jurisdictional High Court decision. In this regard, the ld counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Patil Vijayakumar & Others Vs. Union of India 151 ITR 48 (Kar). 8. We have considered the rival submission. The provisions of Section 36(1)(viia)(a) of the Act lays down as follows: ITA Nos.673, 674 & 684/B/14 4 “viia) in respect of any provision for bad and doubtful debts made by – (a) a scheduled bank not being a bank incorporated by or under the laws of a country outside India] or a co-operative…

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU vs. SH. DARSHAN KUMAR MAHAJAN, PATHANKOT

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 566/ASR/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Apr 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 566(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Pan: Adjpm7623B

For Appellant: Sh. A. N. Mishra (D. R.)For Respondent: Sh. J. S. Bhasin (Adv.)
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 40A(3)

…r the Tribunal, is well settled (refer: Suresh Desai & Ass. v. CIT [1998] 230 ITR 912 (Del); Geoffery Manners & Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1996] 221 ITR 695 (Bom); CIT v. Thane Electricity Supply Ltd. [1994] 206 ITR 797 (Bom); Patil Vijayakumar v. Union of India [1985] 151 ITR 48 (Kar)). There are, on the contrary, decisions galore, rendered during the long history of the provision, clarifying that, save as provided u/r. 6DD, the breach of the monetary limit for cash (or other than the prescribed modes of) payment would attract the rigor of s. 40A(3). In fact, several, including two by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court…

LALLY MOTORS INDIA PVT. LTD,JALANDHAR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JALANDHAR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 218/ASR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 218(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Sameer Bhatia (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Bhawani Shankar (D. R.)
Section 119Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…0 ITR 912 (Del); Geoffery Manners & Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1996] 221 ITR 695 (Bom); CIT v. 7 ITA No.218 (Asr)/2017(AY 2012-13) Lally Motors India P. Ltd. v. Pr.CIT Thane Electricity Supply Ltd. [1994] 206 ITR 797 (Bom); Patil Vijayakumar v. Union of India [1985] 151 ITR 48 (Kar)). No such decision by either the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court or the Hon’ble Apex Court has been brought to our notice. The moot question therefore is if the said Circular is in conformity with the law. Section 14A, immediately succeeds section 14 – the first section of Chapter IV of the Act, enumerating the heads of income under which…

DCIT TDS 1(1), MUMBAI vs. BHARAT BUSINESS CHANNELS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in both the years are allowed

ITA 7047/MUM/2012[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

Section 194CSection 194HSection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)

…the Tribunal was not right in following the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Godavaridevi's case (supra). 4. In our opinion, the legal position is correctly stated by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT vs. Ved Prakash (1989) 77 CTR (P&H) 116 : (1989) 178 ITR 332 (P&H) when it observed that "unless and until the Supreme Court or the High Court of the State in question, under Art. 226 of the Constitution, declares a provision of the Act to be ultra vires, it must be taken to be constitutionally valid and treated as such". 5. In our opinion, the Tribunal of another State would be justified in proceeding on…

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. VIRGO PROPERTIES PVT LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 741/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.741/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri K.Balasubramanian, AdvocateFor Respondent: 16.05.2017
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 28Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

…r the Tribunal, is well settled (refer: Suresh Desai & Ass. v. CIT [1998] 230 ITR 912 (Del); Geoffery Manners & Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1996] 221 ITR 695 (Bom); CIT v. Thane Electricity Supply Ltd. [1994] 206 ITR 797 (Bom); Patil Vijayakumar v. Union of India [1985] 151 ITR 48 (Kar)). The decision in Veekayal Investment Co. (P.) Ltd. (supra), in our view, with respect, lays down the correct proposition in law. We decide accordingly. 4. In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced on July 31, 2017 at Chennai. (धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी) (संजय अरोड़ा) (Duvvuru RL Reddy) (Sanjay Arora) "या"यक सद"य/Judi…

DCIT 17(2), MUMBAI vs. ATEEV V GALA, MUMBAI

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

ITA 1906/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2010-11 Dcit-17(2), Ateev V. Gala, R. No.217, 02Nd Floor, 575/A, The Orient Jame बनाम/ Piramal Chambers, Jamshed Road, Vs. Mumbai-400012 Matunga Mumbai-400019 Pan No.Aalpg6039N (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee)

Section 10(2)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 56Section 56(2)Section 64(2)

…en separately defined under the Act and HUF is a separate person. The ld.DR submitted that how a gift can be given to himself. The ld.DR in support of his contention relied upon the judgment of Karnataka High Court in the case of Patil Vijaykumar & Ors vs UOI 151 ITR 48 . 10. We have heard the ld. representatives of the parties, record perused and gone through the decisions cited. The crux of the issues in the case under consideration, are – (1) Whether gift received from HUF by a member of HUF falls under the definition of “relative” as provided in the Explanation to clause (vi) of sub section (2) of section 56…

INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT BANK OF INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1416/KOL/2014[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Apr 2017AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1416/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2004-2005) Industrial Investment Bank Vs. Dcit, Circle-6, Kolkata, Of India Limited, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, 19, Netaji Subhas Road, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700001 Kolkata-700001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabci 0324 D .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Bhattacharya,Fca "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri R.K.Kureel, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 28/02/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 05/04/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: ` The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2004-2005, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Vi, Kolkata, In Appeal No.343/08-09/Cit(A)-Vi/Cir-6/Kol, Dated 29.04.2014, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Ao U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 17.11.2006. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Is A Public Sector Undertaking Bank & Its Operations Are Solely In The Segment Of Non-Banking Financial Intermediation Services. The Assessee Being A Financial Institution, Its Activities Are Subject To Guidelines Issued By The Reserve Bank Of India For Banking Companies. During The Financial Year Under Consideration, The Assessee Company Written Off A Sum Of Rs.1,42,48,266/- On Account Of Debts As Irrecoverable. The Assessee Is An Organization To Which The Provisions Of Section 36(1)(Viia) Is Applicable.

For Appellant: Shri R.K.Kureel, JCITFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Bhattacharya,FCA
Section 143(3)Section 2(45)Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)Section 5

…the meaning of the words used in the statute is clear and unambiguous, question of making any different interpretation does not arise. This has been affirmed in a number of decisions such in the cases of Paul Vijayakumar & others vs. Union of India & another 151 ITR 48 (Kar), Sheshayee Paper & Boards Ltd. vs. DCIT 272 ITR 165 (Mad) etc. The apex court has also held in its decision in the case of IPCA Laboratory Ltd. vs. DCIT 266 ITR 521 (SC), that if there is no ambiguity in the provisions of the Act, the same could not be interpreted to confer benefit to the assessee. 4 Industrial Investment Bank Of India Ltd.…

M/S. BHARTI AIRTEL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee with respect to ground No

ITA 5816/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishibharti Airtel Ltd, Addl Cit, Bharti Crescent, 1, Vs. Range-2, Cr Building, Ip Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Estate, New Delhi Kunj, New Delhi Pan:Aaacb2894G (Appellant) (Respondent) Bharti Airtel Ltd, Addl Cit, Bharti Crescent, 1, Vs. Range-2, Cr Building, Ip Nelson Mandela Road, Vaxant Estate, New Delhi Kunj, New Delhi Pan:Aaacb2894G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, SrFor Respondent: Sh. NC Swain, CIT DR (OSD)
Section 201Section 254Section 40

…was not right in following the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Godavaridevi's case (supra). 4. In our opinion, the legal position is correctly stated by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT v. Ved Prakash (1989) 77 CTR (P&H) 116 : Page 48 of 59 (1989) 178 ITR 332 (P&H) when it observed that "unless and until the Supreme Court or the High Court of the State in question, under Art. 226 of the Constitution, declares a provision of the Act to be ultra vires, it must be taken to be constitutionally valid and treated as such". 5. In our opinion, the Tribunal of another State would be justified in proceeding on…

SMT SAIRA BANU vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITA/228/2009HC Karnataka26 Jun 2015

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,VINEET SARAN

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 260Section 40A(3)

…iv. Smt. Harshila Chordia –vs- Income-Tax Officer [2008] 298 ITR 349 (Raj) v. Shri Shankar S. Koliwad –vs - The Income Tax Officer ITA NO.5040/2009 (Dharwad Bench) vi. Patil Vijaykumar and others –vs- Union of India & another [1985] 151 ITR 48 (Karn) vii. Walford Transport (Eastern India) Ltd. –vs- Commissioner of Income Tax [1999] 240 ITR 902 viii. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax –vs- Sri Saraswathi Iron Foundry [2006] 287 ITR 313 (Karn) It has been vehemently contended on behalf of the appellant that the purpose of Section…

Showing 1–20 of 21 · Page 1 of 2