Prime Securities Ltd. v. ACIT

333 ITR 464High Court2011#12964 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 208Section 209Section 210Section 211Section 234B

Judgments citing Prime Securities Ltd. v. ACIT

ERICSSON INDIA GLOBAL SERVICES PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT SPL. RANGE 3, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 2367/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Paras S. Savla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.S. Nethrapal, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(13)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 234BSection 234CSection 254(2)Section 92C

…tional income offered under APA and, that too, retrospectively. We find that the Coordinate Bench in the case of Colt Technology Services (I) Pvt.Ltd. (supra),on an identical issue followed the decision rendered in the case of Prime Securities Ltd. Vs. ACIT – 333 ITR 464 (Bombay) and deleted the interest levied under Section 234B and 234C of the Act on additional income agreed as per APA. For the sake of completeness, relevant extract of the findings of the Coordinate Bench on this issue are as under:- “33. The additional ground of appeal is directed against levying of interest u/s 234B and 234C of the Act on ad…

ASK INVESTMENT MANAGERS LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 6(1)(2), MUMBAI

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

ITA 1115/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudharyask Investment Vs. Dcit-6(1)(2) Managers Limited Aayakar Bhavan, Birla Aurora, 16 Level, M.K. Road, Office Floor 9, Dr. Annie Mumbai - 400020 Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai – 400030 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aafca2302P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : J.D. Mistri & Shreyam Shah Respondent By : Mehul Jain

For Appellant: J.D. Mistri &For Respondent: Mehul Jain
Section 234Section 234BSection 234CSection 23B

…also perused the decision of ld. CIT(A) in the case of the assessee itself for assessment year 2008-09 dated 05.05.2015 placed in the paper book wherein after considering the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Prime Securities Ltd. Vs. ACIT (333 ITR 464) and decision of ITAT, in the case of Kotak Securities Ltd., vide ITA No. 1502/Mum/2007 and decision of ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Kumari Kumar Advani Vs. ACIT vide ITA No.7661/Mum/2013 held that in the case of the assessee it had estimated its income and liability for payment of advance tax in accordance with law that was in force, therefore, t…

INDRAJIT ROY ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 35(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1807/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Aug 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap, Vice- & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year:2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 68

…been foreseen by the Appellant that the same would be chargeable to tax and therefore was not “current income” within the meaning of section 208 of the Income Tax Act, 1061. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court, in the case of Prime Securities Ltd. vs. ACIT [22012] 333 ITR 464 (Bom) has also taken similar view, even after considering the judgment of Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala [2001] 252 IT 1 (SC) The Appellant submits that the addition of the sum of Rs.60,50,000/- is addition of deem income under section 68 of the Act and that could not be said to be “current income” for the purposes of sectio…

DCIT CIR 2(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. MAHINDRA AUTOMOBILE DISTRIBUTOR P. LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 5625/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit, M/S Mahindra Automobile Circle-2(2)(2), Distributor Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Room No.549, Automotive Sector Div. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Admin. Bldg. 02Nd Floor, M.K. Road, Akurli Road, Kandivali (E), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400101 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacd3923C

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234B

…e was enough loss to the assessee. Reliance was placed upon the decision in the case of M/s Ultratech Cement Ltd. vs DCIT (ITA No.7646 and 7647/Mum/2007) order dated 20/08/2009 and Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s Prime Securities Ltd. vs ACIT 333 ITR 464 (Bom.), order dated 20/12/2010. 2.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The facts, in brief, are that the assessee was engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing and marketing of vehicles, declared total income of Rs.21,41,71,730/- in its return filed on 28/09/2012, which was process…

ASST CIT 14(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. GODREJ INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the results, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of revenue stands dismissed

ITA 164/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Godrej Industries Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner Of Kalyaniwlla & Mistry, Income-Tax-10(2), फनधभ/ Room No.475, 4Th Floor, Army & Navi Building, 148, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, M K Marg, Mumbai-400001 Mumbai-400020 Asst. Commissioner Of Income- Godrej Industries Ltd., Tax-14(1)(2), Pirojsha Nagar, Eastern फनधभ/ Room No.460, 4Th Floor, Express Highway, Aayakar Bhavan, Vikhroli, Vs. M K Marg, Mumbai-400079 Mumbai-400020 स्थधमी रेखध सं./ Pan : Aaacg2953R (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri F V IraniFor Respondent: Ms.Vidisha Kalra
Section 37(1)

…he assessee could not have visualized future changes in law and therefore could not be penalized for the fault not attributable to assessee. The ld. AR vehemently relied on the following decisions: 22 and 164/Mum/2015 A) Prime Securities V/s ACIT reported in 333 ITR 464 (Bom) (HC); B) Emami Ltd V/s CIT reported in 337 ITR 470 (Cal) (HC); C) Grindwell Norton V/s ACIT ITA No.9178/Mum/2004 (Mum-Trib); D) Priyanka Overseas Ltd V/s DCIT reported in 79 ITD 353 (Del-Trib); E) Haryana Warehousing Corporation V/s DCIT reported in 75 ITD 155 (Del-Trib). The ld.AR pointed out that the similar issue has been decided by the…

GODREJ INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 10(2), MUMBAI

In the results, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of revenue stands dismissed

ITA 151/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Godrej Industries Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner Of Kalyaniwlla & Mistry, Income-Tax-10(2), फनधभ/ Room No.475, 4Th Floor, Army & Navi Building, 148, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, M K Marg, Mumbai-400001 Mumbai-400020 Asst. Commissioner Of Income- Godrej Industries Ltd., Tax-14(1)(2), Pirojsha Nagar, Eastern फनधभ/ Room No.460, 4Th Floor, Express Highway, Aayakar Bhavan, Vikhroli, Vs. M K Marg, Mumbai-400079 Mumbai-400020 स्थधमी रेखध सं./ Pan : Aaacg2953R (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri F V IraniFor Respondent: Ms.Vidisha Kalra
Section 37(1)

…he assessee could not have visualized future changes in law and therefore could not be penalized for the fault not attributable to assessee. The ld. AR vehemently relied on the following decisions: 22 and 164/Mum/2015 A) Prime Securities V/s ACIT reported in 333 ITR 464 (Bom) (HC); B) Emami Ltd V/s CIT reported in 337 ITR 470 (Cal) (HC); C) Grindwell Norton V/s ACIT ITA No.9178/Mum/2004 (Mum-Trib); D) Priyanka Overseas Ltd V/s DCIT reported in 79 ITD 353 (Del-Trib); E) Haryana Warehousing Corporation V/s DCIT reported in 75 ITD 155 (Del-Trib). The ld.AR pointed out that the similar issue has been decided by the…

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. A.R. ENTERPRISES

C.A. No.-002688-002688 - 2006Supreme Court14 Jan 2013
Section 132Section 158BSection 260A

…he aforesaid judgments. The Madras High Court has correctly pointed out that for the purpose of payment of advance tax, all assessees including companies, are required to make an estimate of 5 [2003] 264 ITR 744 (Raj) 6 191 (2012) DLT 249 7 [2011] 333 ITR 464 (Bom) 8 [2009] 312 ITR 161 (Ker) 9 [2000) 243 ITR 519 (Kar) 10 [2006] 284 ITR 434 (SC) 11 [2005] 279 ITR 123 (P&H) 29 Page 30 JUDGMENT their current income. Even before the introduction of the provisions of Section 115J of the Act, companies had been estimating their total income after providing deductions admissible under the…

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. A.R. ENTERPRISES

C.A. No.-002688-002688 - 2006Supreme Court14 Jan 2013
Section 132Section 158BSection 260A

…he aforesaid judgments. The Madras High Court has correctly pointed out that for the purpose of payment of advance tax, all assessees including companies, are required to make an estimate of 5 [2003] 264 ITR 744 (Raj) 6 191 (2012) DLT 249 7 [2011] 333 ITR 464 (Bom) 8 [2009] 312 ITR 161 (Ker) 9 [2000) 243 ITR 519 (Kar) 10 [2006] 284 ITR 434 (SC) 11 [2005] 279 ITR 123 (P&H) 29 Page 30 JUDGMENT their current income. Even before the introduction of the provisions of Section 115J of the Act, companies had been estimating their total income after providing deductions admissible under the…