State Bank of India v. ACIT

106 ITD 589Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#18716 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 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 State Bank of India v. ACIT

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

…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 after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant financial year where default has been allegedly commit ted. 2.2 On this preposition we would like to draw yo…

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

…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 after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant financial year where default has been allegedly commit ted. 2.2 On this preposition we would like to draw yo…

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

…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 after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant financial year where default has been allegedly commit ted. 2.2 On this preposition we would like to draw yo…

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

…erence 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/Ahd/17 [Adani Enterprise Ltd. vs. DCIT TDS] A.Y. 2009-10 - 5 - be passed after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant financial year where default…

State Bank of India v. ACIT (106 ITD 589) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax