Pratibha Syntex Ltd. v. Jt. Commissioner of Income-tax

81 ITD 118Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2002#10137 most cited
11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2020.

Judgments citing Pratibha Syntex Ltd. v. Jt. Commissioner of Income-tax

M/S. IFCI LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 2473/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 14Section 143Section 43B

…wance cannot be made. The learned CIT – A considered the judgment of Honourable Calcutta High Court in case of National standard Duncan Ltd 2003 – 260 ITR 97 and of coordinate bench in case of Pratibha syntax Ltd versus joint Commissioner of income tax (2002) 81 ITD 118 (Ahm). 18. The learned departmental representative vehemently supported the order of the learned assessing officer. 19. The learned authorised representative supported the order of the learned CIT – A and reiterated the same submissions. 20. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. The Ass…

IFCI LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 5381/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 14Section 143Section 43B

…wance cannot be made. The learned CIT – A considered the judgment of Honourable Calcutta High Court in case of National standard Duncan Ltd 2003 – 260 ITR 97 and of coordinate bench in case of Pratibha syntax Ltd versus joint Commissioner of income tax (2002) 81 ITD 118 (Ahm). 18. The learned departmental representative vehemently supported the order of the learned assessing officer. 19. The learned authorised representative supported the order of the learned CIT – A and reiterated the same submissions. 20. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. The Ass…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. IFCI LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 2062/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 14Section 143Section 43B

…wance cannot be made. The learned CIT – A considered the judgment of Honourable Calcutta High Court in case of National standard Duncan Ltd 2003 – 260 ITR 97 and of coordinate bench in case of Pratibha syntax Ltd versus joint Commissioner of income tax (2002) 81 ITD 118 (Ahm). 18. The learned departmental representative vehemently supported the order of the learned assessing officer. 19. The learned authorised representative supported the order of the learned CIT – A and reiterated the same submissions. 20. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. The Ass…

IFCI LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 1984/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 14Section 143Section 43B

…wance cannot be made. The learned CIT – A considered the judgment of Honourable Calcutta High Court in case of National standard Duncan Ltd 2003 – 260 ITR 97 and of coordinate bench in case of Pratibha syntax Ltd versus joint Commissioner of income tax (2002) 81 ITD 118 (Ahm). 18. The learned departmental representative vehemently supported the order of the learned assessing officer. 19. The learned authorised representative supported the order of the learned CIT – A and reiterated the same submissions. 20. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. The Ass…

IFCI LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 3443/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 14Section 143Section 43B

…wance cannot be made. The learned CIT – A considered the judgment of Honourable Calcutta High Court in case of National standard Duncan Ltd 2003 – 260 ITR 97 and of coordinate bench in case of Pratibha syntax Ltd versus joint Commissioner of income tax (2002) 81 ITD 118 (Ahm). 18. The learned departmental representative vehemently supported the order of the learned assessing officer. 19. The learned authorised representative supported the order of the learned CIT – A and reiterated the same submissions. 20. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. The Ass…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S IFCI LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 3207/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 14Section 143Section 43B

…wance cannot be made. The learned CIT – A considered the judgment of Honourable Calcutta High Court in case of National standard Duncan Ltd 2003 – 260 ITR 97 and of coordinate bench in case of Pratibha syntax Ltd versus joint Commissioner of income tax (2002) 81 ITD 118 (Ahm). 18. The learned departmental representative vehemently supported the order of the learned assessing officer. 19. The learned authorised representative supported the order of the learned CIT – A and reiterated the same submissions. 20. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. The Ass…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S IFCI LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 2199/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 14Section 143Section 43B

…wance cannot be made. The learned CIT – A considered the judgment of Honourable Calcutta High Court in case of National standard Duncan Ltd 2003 – 260 ITR 97 and of coordinate bench in case of Pratibha syntax Ltd versus joint Commissioner of income tax (2002) 81 ITD 118 (Ahm). 18. The learned departmental representative vehemently supported the order of the learned assessing officer. 19. The learned authorised representative supported the order of the learned CIT – A and reiterated the same submissions. 20. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. The Ass…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S IFCI LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 1631/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 14Section 143Section 43B

…wance cannot be made. The learned CIT – A considered the judgment of Honourable Calcutta High Court in case of National standard Duncan Ltd 2003 – 260 ITR 97 and of coordinate bench in case of Pratibha syntax Ltd versus joint Commissioner of income tax (2002) 81 ITD 118 (Ahm). 18. The learned departmental representative vehemently supported the order of the learned assessing officer. 19. The learned authorised representative supported the order of the learned CIT – A and reiterated the same submissions. 20. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. The Ass…

ADDL CIT 3(2), MUMBAI vs. MANGALORE REFINER & PETROCHEMICALS LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1826/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & C. N. Prasadआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./1240/Mum/2010,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year:2006-07 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Mangalore Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd. Addl. Cit-Range-3(2) Maker Tower-F Wing, 16Th Floor, Mumbai. Vs. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 005. Pan:Aaacm 5132 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./1826/Mum/2010,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year:2006-07 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Addl. Cit-Range-3(2) Vs. Mangalore Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd. Mumbai. Mumbai-400 005. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By: Shri Jasbir Chohan-Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से /Assessee By:S/ Shri S.E. Dastur & Madhur Aggarwal सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30/03/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement:17/05/2017 लेखा सद"य सद"य, राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार/ Per Rajendra A.M.- लेखा लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging The Order,Dated 15/12/2009,Of Cit (A)-7,Mumbai, The Assessing Officer (Ao) & The Assessee Have Filed Cross Appeals For The Above-Mentioned Assessment Year.Assessee- Company, Engaged In The Business Of Refining Of Crude Oil, Selling Of Petroleum Products & Captive Generation & Distribution Of Power, Filed Its Return Of Income On 25/10/2006, Declaring Total Income Of Rs.Nil. The Ao Completed The Assessment On 18/12/2008, Under Section 143 (3) Of The Act, Determining Its Income At Rs.Nil.

For Appellant: S/ Shri S.E. Dastur and Madhur AggarwalFor Respondent: Shri Jasbir Chohan-CIT-DR
Section 143Section 40A(9)

…y for payment of Customs duty arises during the year of the clearance of goods. At the time of hearing, reliance has also been placed on the decision of the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Pratibha Syntex Ltd. v. Jt. Commissioner of Income-tax, 81 ITD 118 where it has been observed under somewhat similar circumstances that the Customs duty liability is not to be regarded as a contingent liability. 34. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid discussion, it is reasonable to conclude that the liability represented by the Provision of Rs.40,75,50,184/- being Customs duty payable on import of raw material a…

MANGALORE REFINERY AND PETROCHEMICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 3(2), MUMBAI

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

ITA 2630/MUM/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Shri Ravish Sood (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 41(1)Section 43B

…y for payment of Customs duty arises during the year of the clearance of goods. At the time of hearing, reliance has also been placed on the decision of the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Pratibha Syntex Ltd. v. Jt. Commissioner of Income-tax, 81 ITD 118 where it has been observed under somewhat similar circumstances that the Customs duty liability is not to be regarded as a contingent liability. 34. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid discussion, it is reasonable to conclude that the liability represented by the Provision of Rs.40,75,50,184/- being Customs duty payable on import of raw material…

ACIT 3(2), MUMBAI vs. MANGALORE REFINERY & PETROCHEMICALS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the Cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed, as above

ITA 6835/MUM/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2016AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla: (A.Y : 2004-05)

For Appellant: Shri S.E. Dastor & Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri G.M. Doss
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 40A(9)Section 43B

….6835/Mum/2008 & CO No.105/Mum/2009 during the year of the clearance of goods. At the time of hearing, reliance has also been placed on the decision of the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Pratibha Syntex Ltd. v. Jt. Commissioner of Income-tax, 81 ITD 118 where it has been observed under somewhat similar circumstances that the Customs duty liability is not to be regarded as a contingent liability. 34. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid discussion, it is reasonable to conclude that the liability represented by the Provision of Rs.40,75,50,184/- being Customs duty payable on import of raw material…