Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO

57 ITD 536Income Tax Appellate Tribunal1996#14342 most cited
7

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

Issues it is cited on

section 206c(6)section 206c(6a)section 206c(7)section 201(3)section 153(1)(a)tax collected at sourcesection 206csection 206section 153(1)admission of additional evidencechildassessee in default

Judgments citing Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO

SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 127/JODH/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur23 Aug 2023AY 2013-14
Section 206CSection 5

…limit for passing the order for default committed under s. 206C of the Act, unlike corresponding Section 201(3) of the Act in respect of ‘tax deduction at source’. The reference is made to the decision of the Honble Bench in Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. Vs. ITO 57 ITD 536 (Mum); CIT vs. Hutchison Essar Telecom Ltd. (2010) 323 ITR 230 (Del ); NHK Japan Broadcast ing Corporation 305 ITR 137 (Del ); State Bank of India vs. ACIT 106 ITD 589 (Mum) for the proposition that a period of four years was perceived as reasonable time limit by such judicial precedents. Thus such order under s. 206C of the Act cannot be passed a…

SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS , UDAIPU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 126/JODH/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur23 Aug 2023AY 2012-13
Section 206CSection 5

…limit for passing the order for default committed under s. 206C of the Act, unlike corresponding Section 201(3) of the Act in respect of ‘tax deduction at source’. The reference is made to the decision of the Honble Bench in Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. Vs. ITO 57 ITD 536 (Mum); CIT vs. Hutchison Essar Telecom Ltd. (2010) 323 ITR 230 (Del ); NHK Japan Broadcast ing Corporation 305 ITR 137 (Del ); State Bank of India vs. ACIT 106 ITD 589 (Mum) for the proposition that a period of four years was perceived as reasonable time limit by such judicial precedents. Thus such order under s. 206C of the Act cannot be passed a…

SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 125/JODH/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur23 Aug 2023AY 2011-12
Section 206CSection 5

…limit for passing the order for default committed under s. 206C of the Act, unlike corresponding Section 201(3) of the Act in respect of ‘tax deduction at source’. The reference is made to the decision of the Honble Bench in Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. Vs. ITO 57 ITD 536 (Mum); CIT vs. Hutchison Essar Telecom Ltd. (2010) 323 ITR 230 (Del ); NHK Japan Broadcast ing Corporation 305 ITR 137 (Del ); State Bank of India vs. ACIT 106 ITD 589 (Mum) for the proposition that a period of four years was perceived as reasonable time limit by such judicial precedents. Thus such order under s. 206C of the Act cannot be passed a…

ADANI ENTERPRISES LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT TDS CIRCLE,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1805/AHD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasadआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1805/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri V. R. Chokshi, A.R
Section 206CSection 206C(7)Section 6A

…or passing the order for default committed under s. 206C of the Act, unlike corresponding Section 201(3) of the Act in respect of ‘tax deduction at source’. The reference was made to the decision of the co-ordinate bench in Raymond Woollen Mills Lted. Vs. ITO 57 ITD 536 (Mum); CIT vs. Hutchison Essar Telecom Ltd. (2010) 323 ITR 230 (Del); NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation 305 ITR 137 (Del); State Bank of India vs. ACIT 106 ITD 589 (Mum) for the proposition that a period of four years was perceived as reasonable time limit by such judicial precendents. Thus such order under s. 206C of the Act cannot ITA No. 1805…

WIN CABLE & DATACOM P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (TDS) 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 3635/MUM/2016[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: S/Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Amarjit Singh (Jm) I.T.A. No. 3635/Mum/2016(Assessment Year 2001-02)

Section 191Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)

…e. The Ld. D.R., during the course of subsequent arguments, was fair enough to concede that the time limit may be specified, but requested that it should not be kept rigid at four years as has been held in the case of Raymond Woolen Mills Ltd. Vs. ITO [(1996) 57 ITD 536 (Bom.)]. Now the next question is that what can be the reasonable period for action u/s 201(1). There cannot be a particular time limit say two years or five years or ten years, which can be described as reasonable for all the actions under the Act, when no time limit is prescribed. The reasonable time for taking action under a particular section…

HATHWAY C-NET P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. TAX RECOVERY (TDS) 1, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 4261/MUM/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Taneja

Section 201Section 201(1)

…e. The Ld. D.R., during the course of subsequent arguments, was fair enough to concede that the time limit may be specified, but requested that it should not be kept rigid at four years as has been held in the case of Raymond Woolen Mills Ltd. Vs. ITO [(1996) 57 ITD 536 (Bom.)]. Now the next question is that what can be the reasonable period for action u/s 201(1). There cannot be a particular time limit say two years or five years or ten years, which can be described as reasonable for all the actions under the Act, when no time limit is prescribed. The reasonable time for taking action under a particular section…

HATHWAY CABLE & DATACOM LTD,MUMBAI vs. TRO (TDS) RG 1, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 3512/MUM/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Taneja

Section 201Section 201(1)

…e. The Ld. D.R., during the course of subsequent arguments, was fair enough to concede that the time limit may be specified, but requested that it should not be kept rigid at four years as has been held in the case of Raymond Woolen Mills Ltd. Vs. ITO [(1996) 57 ITD 536 (Bom.)]. Now the next question is that what can be the reasonable period for action u/s 201(1). There cannot be a particular time limit say two years or five years or ten years, which can be described as reasonable for all the actions under the Act, when no time limit is prescribed. The reasonable time for taking action under a particular section…

Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO (57 ITD 536) — Cited in 7 Judgments | BharatTax