Priyanka Overseas Ltd. v. DCIT

79 ITD 353Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2001#14478 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2017.

Judgments citing Priyanka Overseas Ltd. v. DCIT

CAIRN UK HOLDING LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 5 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1669/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Puri CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144

…able to pay advance tax. Once we come to the conclusion that the assessee was not liable to pay advance tax, there is no question of charging tax under sections 234B and 234C. In similar circumstances in the case of Priyanka Overseas Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [2001] 79 ITD 353 (Delhi) where the assessee had treated the receipt of cash assistance as capital receipts, which was subsequently amended to be business receipt by the Finance Act, 1990, it was held that in such cases interest under sections 234B and 234C was not chargeable. In these circumstances, we think that the assessee was not liable to pay advance tax and…

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)

…cisions: 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 first appellate authority for the assessment year 2008-09 which was not appealed before the Higher Forum by the revenue. In view of this the ld.AR prayed that the decision of the ld.CIT(A)…

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)

…cisions: 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 first appellate authority for the assessment year 2008-09 which was not appealed before the Higher Forum by the revenue. In view of this the ld.AR prayed that the decision of the ld.CIT(A)…

DCIT 10(2), MUMBAI vs. UNITED HELICHARTERS P.LTD, MUMBAI

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

ITA 6917/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. United Helicharters Tax-10(2), Pvt Ltd Room No.432, 4Th Floor, 238, Hindustan Ayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Khohinoor Complex, Mumbai 400 020 Lbs Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai 400 064. Pan: Aaacu 3352N Appellant .. Respondent

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 40Section 44ASection 9(1)(vii)

…iable to pay advance tax. Once we come to the conclusion that the assessee was not liable to pay advance tax, there is no question of charging tax under sections 2348 and 234C. In similar circumstances in the case of Priyanka Overseas Ltd. v. Deputy OT [2001J 79 ITD 353 (Delhi) where the assessee had treated the receipt of cash assistance as capital receipts, which was subsequently amended to be business receipt by the Finance Act, 1990, it was held that in such cases interest under sections 2348 and 234C was not chargeable. In these circumstances, we think that the assessee was not liable to pay advance tax and…

INDIAN PETROCHEMICAL CORPORATION LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT LTU, MUMBAI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6514/MUM/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Joginder Singh

For Appellant: Shri Arvind SondeFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Kardam
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 234B

…. CIT (2011), 63 DTR 301 (Cal) ii) CIT v. Revathi Equipment Ltd. (2008), 298 ITR 67 (Mad) iii) Trinity Forge v. ACIT (2001), 73 TTJ 582 (ITAT Pune) 4 Indian Petrochemicals Corporation ITA Nos. 6513 & 6514/Mum/2014 iv) Priyanka Overseas Ltd. v. DCIT (2001), 79 ITD 353 (Delhi ITAT) v) Hindson International v. ITO (2010), 133 TTJ 83 (Chd) vi) Canara Bank v. ITO (2009), 121 ITD 1 (Nagpur Bench) vii) DCIT v. Uttam Sugar Mills Ltd. (2011), 137 TTJ 517 (Delhi ITAT) viii) Sankhla Polymers (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2013), 84 DTR 154 (Kar) ix) Reliance Industries Ltd., ITA No.5247/Mum/2014 dt. 3.6.2016 4. On the other hand, the…

INDIAN PETROCHEMICAL CORPORATION LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT LTU, MUMBAI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6513/MUM/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Joginder Singh

For Appellant: Shri Arvind SondeFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Kardam
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 234B

…. CIT (2011), 63 DTR 301 (Cal) ii) CIT v. Revathi Equipment Ltd. (2008), 298 ITR 67 (Mad) iii) Trinity Forge v. ACIT (2001), 73 TTJ 582 (ITAT Pune) 4 Indian Petrochemicals Corporation ITA Nos. 6513 & 6514/Mum/2014 iv) Priyanka Overseas Ltd. v. DCIT (2001), 79 ITD 353 (Delhi ITAT) v) Hindson International v. ITO (2010), 133 TTJ 83 (Chd) vi) Canara Bank v. ITO (2009), 121 ITD 1 (Nagpur Bench) vii) DCIT v. Uttam Sugar Mills Ltd. (2011), 137 TTJ 517 (Delhi ITAT) viii) Sankhla Polymers (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2013), 84 DTR 154 (Kar) ix) Reliance Industries Ltd., ITA No.5247/Mum/2014 dt. 3.6.2016 4. On the other hand, the…

DCIT 7(3), MUMBAI vs. VODAFONE INDIA LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2005-06

ITA 880/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainthe Dcit- 7(3), Room No.615, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Mk Road, Mumbai 400 020 ... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: Shri Sumit KumarFor Respondent: Shri Nishant Thakkar
Section 115JSection 115jSection 143(3)Section 234CSection 234DSection 80I

…111 TTJ (Kol) 230. Now, the amendment having come about only by virtue of Finance Act, 2008, obviously there was no malafide intention on the part of the assessee, as has been recognized in Priyanka Overseas Ltd Vs. Dy. CIT (2002)(75 TTJ (Delhi) 783) : (2001)(79 ITD 353)(Delhi), in a similar fact situation. It was noted therein that from CBDT Order No. F 400/234/95-IT (B) dt. 21 st May, 1996, it was clear that the intention of the tax authorities was not to levy interest where any amendment came with retrospective effect. ..” In our view, the ratio of the above said decision shall squarely apply to the facts of t…

Priyanka Overseas Ltd. v. DCIT (79 ITD 353) — Cited in 7 Judgments | BharatTax