Uday Mistanna Bhandar & Co. v. Commissioner of Income Tax

222 ITR 44High Court1996#19937 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,487 Indian tax judgments — from 2002 to 2024.

Judgments citing Uday Mistanna Bhandar & Co. v. Commissioner of Income Tax

M/S Pallipuram Service Co-Op Bank Ltd, Ernakulam vs. The ITO Non Corp Ward 2(5), Kochi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed, and it’s stay petition, dismissed as infructuous

ITA 322/COCH/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Alan P Dev, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)Section 154Section 156Section 234ASection 234A(1)

…its of no two views; the charging of interest u/s.234A, as indeed u/ss. 234B and 234C, mandatory and compensatory in nature, is automatic. Decisions, holding to the contrary, viz. Tej Kumari v. CIT [2001] 247 ITR 210 (Pat) (FB); CIT v. Ranchi Club Ltd. [1996] 222 ITR 44 (Pat), do not represent good law. That being the case, the AO has no discretion in the matter. His failure, therefore, in not issuing the direction to charge interest in the assessment order, is to no consequence, and clearly a mistake, rectifiable u/s. 154. Finally, we consider the aspect of computation of interest, on which, again, no issue was…

ITO (Exemption), Sambalpur vs. M/S. Sri Satyasai Socio Educatioal Trust, Rourkela

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

ITA 465/CTK/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack14 Jul 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year :2010-2011

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR
Section 10Section 12ASection 133(6)Section 234A

…o€ Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax versus S.K. Pate/ Family Trust (Tax Appeal No. 84 of 2000 decided on 19.06.2012) and in the decision of the Patna High Court in case of Uday Mistanna Bhandar & Co. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in 137 CTR 376; 222 ITR 44 (1996). Asse ssment Year :20 10- 201 1 e) No reasons or directions of the nature required as have been provided or recorded by the AO in his Assessment order. As this has not been done and since the substantive amount added of Rs. 45.99 lakhs has already been deleted above, the interest levied of Rs. 5,82,651 u/s 234A and 234B is held to be unlaw…

Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/119/2002HC Delhi22 Jan 2010
Section 143Section 208Section 234Section 234B

…this reason, the Tribunal held that since there was no specific direction to charge interest under Section 234B, levy of interest was not permissible under the provision in view of the judgment of Patna High Court in the case of CIT v.Ranchi Club Limited, 222 ITR 44 affirmed by the apex court in Smt. Tejkumari v. CIT, 247 ITR 210. Other reason for deleting the interest was that 2010:DHC:405-DB the assessee held bona fide belief that no advance tax was payable under Section 208 of the Act. 6. Mr. Sahni, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, submitted that interest under Section 234B was chargeab…

Commissioner of Income Tax IX vs. Kishan Lal H.U.F

ITA/155/2002HC Delhi21 Aug 2002
Section 234A

…..1ubLt.., (2001) 247 ITR 209 wherein two • ........L d decisions of the Patna High Court mR.... . • v.s .... ........c..o.mm.issionorofI.nçoro.Ta., (1996) 217 ITR 72 and U M.ks.•a .rina.....h.a..dora . d ..... Cornis... ..r I .tic.orneTa .x, ( 1996 ) 222 ITR 44 have been affirmed. In Uday Mistanna Bhandar and Complex (supra), while analysing the provisions of Section 234A, 2346 Divedi's-H.C.D.-07-02 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Signature Not Verified Sr. No1 .1 Date Orders and 234C vis-vis Section .156 of the Act, it was held that notice of demand claiming interest can be issued only when ther…

Uday Mistanna Bhandar & Co. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (222 ITR 44) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax