Tax Recovery Officer v. Custodian Appointed Under The Special Court

211 CTR 369Supreme Court of India#7323 most cited

What is Tax Recovery Officer v. Custodian Appointed Under The Special Court authority for?

Section 51 of the SEZ Act, 2005, and its definitions of 'service' override the term 'service' as it accrues in Section 10AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, especially when read in conjunction with relevant government instructions.

15

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2022.

Also referred to as

Tax Recovery Officer v. Custodian · 211 CTR 369 · SC · SEZ Act · Section 51 · Section 10AA · service · government instructions · Ministry of Commerce & Industry

Issues it is cited on

tax recovery officersection 36(1)(ii)section 51interest free advancesmistake apparent from recordsection 10aacomputer softwaresection 10asection 36(1)(iii)commercial expediencysection 36(1)section 36

Judgments citing Tax Recovery Officer v. Custodian Appointed Under The Special Court

Diamonds 'R' Us, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle 6(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 539/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…he Tribunal has discussed the issue in detail. The provisions of Section 51 of SEZ Act were also considered. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tax Recovery Officer vs. Custodian Appointed Under the Special Court, reported in the case of 211 CTR 369 (SC) and the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vasist Chay Vyapar Ltd., reported in 238 CTR 142 (Delhi), were also taken into consideration and thereafter it was concluded that in view of the Instruction No.1 of 2006, dated 24.03.2006 as modified by Instruction No.4 of 2006, dated 24.05.2006 issued by the Ministry of…

Diamonds 'R' Us, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle 6(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 538/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…he Tribunal has discussed the issue in detail. The provisions of Section 51 of SEZ Act were also considered. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tax Recovery Officer vs. Custodian Appointed Under the Special Court, reported in the case of 211 CTR 369 (SC) and the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vasist Chay Vyapar Ltd., reported in 238 CTR 142 (Delhi), were also taken into consideration and thereafter it was concluded that in view of the Instruction No.1 of 2006, dated 24.03.2006 as modified by Instruction No.4 of 2006, dated 24.05.2006 issued by the Ministry of…

Diamonds 'R' Us, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle 6(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 537/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…he Tribunal has discussed the issue in detail. The provisions of Section 51 of SEZ Act were also considered. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tax Recovery Officer vs. Custodian Appointed Under the Special Court, reported in the case of 211 CTR 369 (SC) and the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vasist Chay Vyapar Ltd., reported in 238 CTR 142 (Delhi), were also taken into consideration and thereafter it was concluded that in view of the Instruction No.1 of 2006, dated 24.03.2006 as modified by Instruction No.4 of 2006, dated 24.05.2006 issued by the Ministry of…

Diamonds 'R' Us, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle 6(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 536/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…he Tribunal has discussed the issue in detail. The provisions of Section 51 of SEZ Act were also considered. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tax Recovery Officer vs. Custodian Appointed Under the Special Court, reported in the case of 211 CTR 369 (SC) and the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vasist Chay Vyapar Ltd., reported in 238 CTR 142 (Delhi), were also taken into consideration and thereafter it was concluded that in view of the Instruction No.1 of 2006, dated 24.03.2006 as modified by Instruction No.4 of 2006, dated 24.05.2006 issued by the Ministry of…

M/S. Cliff Scaffoldings Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4530/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 10Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 36

…he Tribunal has discussed the issue in detail. The provisions of Section 51 of SEZ Act were also considered. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tax Recovery Officer Vs. Custodian Appointed Under The Special Court, reported in the case of 211 CTR 369 (SC) and the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vasisth Chay Vyapar Ltd., reported in 238 CTR 142 (Delhi), were also taken into consideration and thereafter it was concluded that in view of the Instruction No.1 of 2006, dated 24- 3-2006 as modified by Instruction No.4 of 2006, dated 24- 5-2006 issued by the Ministry o…

Asst CIT 19(1), Mumbai vs. Deepak Kanwarlal Jain, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed in terms of our above order subject to aforesaid verification by Ld

ITA 248/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.248/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Assistant Commissioner Of Deepak Kanwarlal Jain Income Tax-19(1) Flat No.B-6, Rock Side Apartment, बनाम/ Room No.203, 2Nd Floor 116, Walkeshwar Road Vs. Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road Mumbai-400 006 Mumbai-400 007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacpj-2057-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Suchek Anchaliya, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ram Tiwari, Ld. DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)

…he Tribunal has discussed the issue in detail. The provisions of Section 51 of SEZ Act were also considered. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tax Recovery Officer Vs. Custodian Appointed Under The Special Court, reported in the case of 211 CTR 369 (SC) and the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vasisth Chay Vyapar Ltd., reported in 238 CTR 142 (Delhi), were also taken into consideration and thereafter it was concluded that in view of the Instruction No.1 of 2006, dated 24-3-2006 as modified by Instruction No.4 of 2006, dated 24-5-2006 issued by the Ministry of…

ACIT CC 39, Mumbai vs. Diamond 'R'Us, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed while both the appeals filed by the assessee are statistically allowed

ITA 3490/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: S/Shri Vijay Mehta & Sunil HirawatFor Respondent: Smt. S. Padmaja
Section 10ASection 250Section 36(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "D" Bench, Mumbai Before Shri P K Bansal, Vice President and Shri Amarjit Singh, Judicial Member ITA No. 2365/Mum/2014 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/s. Diamonds "R" Us JCIT (OSD), Central Circle-39 C/o. Karnavat & Co. Room No. 32(1), Gr. Floor 2A Kitab Mahal, 1st Floor Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 192 Dr. D.N. Road, Fort Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400001 PAN – AAAFD4507H Appellant Respondent ITA No.3490/Mum/2014 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) JCIT (OSD), Central Circle-39 M/s. Diamond "R" Us Room No. 32(1), Gr. Floor 1110, Prasad Chambers Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Opera House M…

Diamonds 'R' Us, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 39, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed while both the appeals filed by the assessee are statistically allowed

ITA 2365/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: S/Shri Vijay Mehta & Sunil HirawatFor Respondent: Smt. S. Padmaja
Section 10ASection 250Section 36(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "D" Bench, Mumbai Before Shri P K Bansal, Vice President and Shri Amarjit Singh, Judicial Member ITA No. 2365/Mum/2014 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/s. Diamonds "R" Us JCIT (OSD), Central Circle-39 C/o. Karnavat & Co. Room No. 32(1), Gr. Floor 2A Kitab Mahal, 1st Floor Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 192 Dr. D.N. Road, Fort Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400001 PAN – AAAFD4507H Appellant Respondent ITA No.3490/Mum/2014 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) JCIT (OSD), Central Circle-39 M/s. Diamond "R" Us Room No. 32(1), Gr. Floor 1110, Prasad Chambers Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Opera House M…

JCIT (OSD) CC 39, Mumbai vs. Diamond 'R' Us, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed while both the appeals filed by the assessee are statistically allowed

ITA 4935/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: S/Shri Vijay Mehta & Sunil HirawatFor Respondent: Smt. S. Padmaja
Section 10ASection 250Section 36(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "D" Bench, Mumbai Before Shri P K Bansal, Vice President and Shri Amarjit Singh, Judicial Member ITA No. 2365/Mum/2014 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/s. Diamonds "R" Us JCIT (OSD), Central Circle-39 C/o. Karnavat & Co. Room No. 32(1), Gr. Floor 2A Kitab Mahal, 1st Floor Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 192 Dr. D.N. Road, Fort Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400001 PAN – AAAFD4507H Appellant Respondent ITA No.3490/Mum/2014 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) JCIT (OSD), Central Circle-39 M/s. Diamond "R" Us Room No. 32(1), Gr. Floor 1110, Prasad Chambers Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Opera House M…

Diamonds 'R' Us, Mumbai vs. Jt.C.I.T. (OSD) Central Circle 39, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed while both the appeals filed by the assessee are statistically allowed

ITA 4583/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: S/Shri Vijay Mehta & Sunil HirawatFor Respondent: Smt. S. Padmaja
Section 10ASection 250Section 36(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "D" Bench, Mumbai Before Shri P K Bansal, Vice President and Shri Amarjit Singh, Judicial Member ITA No. 2365/Mum/2014 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/s. Diamonds "R" Us JCIT (OSD), Central Circle-39 C/o. Karnavat & Co. Room No. 32(1), Gr. Floor 2A Kitab Mahal, 1st Floor Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 192 Dr. D.N. Road, Fort Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400001 PAN – AAAFD4507H Appellant Respondent ITA No.3490/Mum/2014 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) JCIT (OSD), Central Circle-39 M/s. Diamond "R" Us Room No. 32(1), Gr. Floor 1110, Prasad Chambers Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Opera House M…

DCIT Cen Cir 8(3), Mumbai vs. Ossian Exports, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 2024/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Ram Lal Negim/S. Ossian Exports Income Tax Officer-14(2)(4) 902, Jewel World Earnest House Vs. Kalbadevi Road Nariman Point Mumbai 400002 Mumbai Pan – Aaacfo0992K Appellant Respondent Dcit, Central Circle-8(3) M/S. Ossian Exports (Erstwhile Dcit, Cc-46) 902, Jewel World Room No. 659, 6Th Floor Vs. Kalbadevi Road Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai 400002 Mumbai 400020 Pan – Aaacfo0992K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Reepal TralshawalaFor Respondent: Ms. Anju Garodia
Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 51(1)

…he Tribunal has discussed the issue in detail. The provisions of Section 51 of SEZ Act were also considered. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tax Recovery Officer Vs. Custodian Appointed Under The Special Court, reported in the case of 211 CTR 369 (SC) and the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vasisth Chay Vyapar Ltd., reported in 238 CTR M/s. Ossian Exports 142 (Delhi), were also taken into consideration and thereafter it was concluded that in view of the Instruction No.1 of 2006, dated 24- 3- 2006 as modified by Instruction No.4 of 2006, dated 24-5-2006 issu…

Ossian Exports, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 1650/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Ram Lal Negim/S. Ossian Exports Income Tax Officer-14(2)(4) 902, Jewel World Earnest House Vs. Kalbadevi Road Nariman Point Mumbai 400002 Mumbai Pan – Aaacfo0992K Appellant Respondent Dcit, Central Circle-8(3) M/S. Ossian Exports (Erstwhile Dcit, Cc-46) 902, Jewel World Room No. 659, 6Th Floor Vs. Kalbadevi Road Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai 400002 Mumbai 400020 Pan – Aaacfo0992K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Reepal TralshawalaFor Respondent: Ms. Anju Garodia
Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 51(1)

…he Tribunal has discussed the issue in detail. The provisions of Section 51 of SEZ Act were also considered. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tax Recovery Officer Vs. Custodian Appointed Under The Special Court, reported in the case of 211 CTR 369 (SC) and the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vasisth Chay Vyapar Ltd., reported in 238 CTR M/s. Ossian Exports 142 (Delhi), were also taken into consideration and thereafter it was concluded that in view of the Instruction No.1 of 2006, dated 24- 3- 2006 as modified by Instruction No.4 of 2006, dated 24-5-2006 issu…

DCIT CC 6(4), Mumbai vs. Diamond R Us, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3241/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Br Baskaran & Sh Pawan Singh

Section 10Section 10ASection 143Section 260

…e Tribunal has discussed the issue in detail. The provision of section 51 of SEZ Act were also considered. The decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of Tax Recovery Officer Versus Custodian appointed under the Special Court, reported in the case of 211 CTR 369 (SC) and the decision of honourable Delhi High Court in case of CIT versus Vasisth Chay Vypar Ltd reported in 238 CTR 142 (Delhi), were also taken into consideration and thereafter it was concluded that in view of the instruction No. 1 of 2006, dated 24thMarch 2006, as modified by instruction No 4 of 2006 dated 24th of May 2006 issued by the Mini…

DCIT CC 39, Mumbai vs. Diamond 'R' Us, Mumbai

In the result, CO No. 276/Mum/2014 as well as ITA No

ITA 276/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Respondent: Shri A.K. Srivastava
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 1OSection 263

…he Tribunal has discussed the issue in detail. The provisions of Section 51 of SEZ Act were also considered. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tax Recovery Officer Vs. Custodian Appointed Under The Special Court, reported in the case of 211 CTR 369 (SC) and the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vasisth Chay Vyapar Ltd., reported in 238 CTR 142 (Delhi), were also taken into consideration and thereafter it was concluded that in view of the Instruction No.1 of 2006, dated 24- 3-2006 as modified by Instruction No.4 of 2006, dated 24- 5-2006 issued by the Ministry o…

Diamonds ' R'Us, Mumbai vs. CIT -III, Mumbai

In the result, CO No. 276/Mum/2014 as well as ITA No

ITA 2793/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Respondent: Shri A.K. Srivastava
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 1OSection 263

…he Tribunal has discussed the issue in detail. The provisions of Section 51 of SEZ Act were also considered. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tax Recovery Officer Vs. Custodian Appointed Under The Special Court, reported in the case of 211 CTR 369 (SC) and the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vasisth Chay Vyapar Ltd., reported in 238 CTR 142 (Delhi), were also taken into consideration and thereafter it was concluded that in view of the Instruction No.1 of 2006, dated 24- 3-2006 as modified by Instruction No.4 of 2006, dated 24- 5-2006 issued by the Ministry o…

Tax Recovery Officer v. Custodian Appointed Under The Special Court (211 CTR 369) — Cited in 15 Judgments | BharatTax