How many judgments cite Vikrant Tyres Ltd. v. ITO?

32 judgments on BharatTax cite Vikrant Tyres Ltd. v. ITO (247 ITR 821), spanning 2009 to 2024.

Vikrant Tyres Ltd. v. ITO

247 ITR 821Supreme Court of India2001#3747 most cited

What is Vikrant Tyres Ltd. v. ITO authority for?

Courts must give a fair and reasonable construction to revenue statutes, adhering strictly to the statutory language without resorting to equitable interpretation. No tax can be levied without clear statutory intent.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Vikrant Tyres Ltd. v. ITO · 247 ITR 821 · SC · interpretation of statutes · equitable construction · tax levy · statutory language · revenue acts · fair and reasonable construction

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 17 section 143 person section 14 section 143(3)total income business document interest

Judgments citing Vikrant Tyres Ltd. v. ITO

DCIT, Cir, 4(2), Ahmedabad vs. Bharatkumar Babubhai Patel, Ahmedabad

ITA 1965/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 17Section 2(14)Section 54B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH Before: Smt. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member And Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member ITA No: 1965/Ahd/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 The DCIT, Circle-4(2), Shri Bharatkumar Ahmedabad Babubhai Patel Vs B-27, Shyam Satadhar (Appellant) Society, Sola Road, Ghatlodiya, Ahmedabad-380061 PAN: AJRPS7815B (Respondent) ITA No: 1963/Ahd/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 The DCIT, Circle-4(2), Shri Lalitbhai Ahmedabad Jayantibhai Patel Vs 9-Chanchal Baug (Appellant) Society, Ranna Park, Ghatlodiya, Ahmedabad-380061 PAN: ABCPP1881B (Respondent) Revenue R…

DCIT, Cir.4(2), Ahmedabad vs. Lalitbhai Jayantibhai Patel, Ahmedabad

ITA 1963/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 17Section 2(14)Section 54B

Continental Construction Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3662/DEL/2017[1983-84]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2023AY 1983-84

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 1983-84 Continental Constructions Acit Ltd., 28, Nehru Place Circle – 4 (2) New Delhi-110019 Vs. New Delhi Pan No.Aaacc2309R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. M.P. Rastogi, Advocate Respondent By Sh. T. James Singson, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 09/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 09/11/2023 Order Per N. K. Billaiya, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Preferred Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-2, New Delhi Dated 28-02-2017 Pertaining To A.Y.1983- 84. 2. The Grievance Of The Assessee Read As Under :- 1. On Facts & Circumstances & In Law, Learned Assessing Officer & Cit(A) Have Erred & Were Not Justified In Charging Of Interest U/S 220(2) In Respect Of The Impugned Amount Of Rs 14,15,99,180/- (Which Was Determined By Order U/S 220(7) Dated 05/01/2001) For Any Period Prior To The Date Of Revocation Of The Said Order U/S 220(7) I.E 12/06/2007. 2. Learned Assessing Officer Has Failed To Appreciate The Law That Interest U/S 220(2) Is Chargeable Only When There Is An Un-Discharged Demand Notice, Which In The Case Of Appellant Could Be Said To Have Arisen Only On 12/06/2007, Consequent To The Order Of Revocation & Thus Interest Should Have Been Chargeable Only On Default Of Payment Of Demand Stated In The Notice U/S 156 Dated 12/06/2007. 3. On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Learned Assessing Officer & Cit(A) Have Failed To Correctly Appreciate The Ratio Of The Judgement Of The Apex Court In The Case Of Vikrant Tyres Ltd Reported In 247 Itr 821 (Sc)

Section 154Section 156Section 220Section 220(2)Section 220(7)

…stated in the notice u/s 156 dated 12/06/2007. 3. On facts & circumstances of the case and in law, learned assessing officer & CIT(A) have failed to correctly appreciate the ratio of the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Vikrant Tyres Ltd reported in 247 ITR 821 (SC) 4. The above grounds of appeal are independent without prejudice to each other. 5. The assessee craves to add, modify any new ground of appeal or adduce any new evidence during the course of appeal, as may be necessary, for the disposal of appeal and discharge of due justice to the appellant. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are th…

Punjab National Bank, New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3041/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 2954/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Dcit, Vs M/S Punjab National Bank, Circle-20(1), Ho: Finance Division, 5, Sansad New Delhi Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp0165G

For Appellant: Sh. S. Krishnan, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT DR

Section 142(1)

…acting an enactment and consequently, such word or expression in the enactment should be understood in the same sense in which it was judicially defined. Reference can be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ahmed G.H Ariff vs. CWT 76 ITR 471 (SC) wherein it was observed as under: "It is well-settled that where the Legislature uses a legal term which has received judicial interpretation, the courts must assume that the term has been used in the sense in which it has been judicially interpreted." Similar view was taken by the apex court in the case of Keshavji Ravji and Company vs. CI…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Punjab National Bank, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2954/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2020AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. S. Krishnan, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT DR

Section 142(1)

Jaikishin Atalram Rupani, Mumbai vs. ACIT 23 (2), Mumbai

In the result, ground no.1

ITA 6856/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am)

Section 54Section 54F

…r the extinguishment of any rights therein. In our view the word 'property', is a term of widest import and signifying every possible interest which a person can clearly hold or enjoy, it has been held so by Hon’ble Apex Court in Ahmed GM. Ariff v. CWT [1970] 76 ITR 471 (SC). 8. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in PCIT vs. Vembu Vaidyanathan (supra) while considering the following question of law “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was justified in treating the gain arising from the sale of capital asset as Long Term Capital Gain without appreciating the fact that mere…

Morarjee Realities Ltd. (Now Known As Peninsula Land Ltd.), Mumbai vs. Dy.C.I.T. Circle 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee as well as of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2135/MUM/2009[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2019AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Gosain: A.Y : 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh SoparkarFor Respondent: Shri Sushilkumar Poddar

Section 143(3)Section 28Section 45

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : A.Y : 2004-05 M/s. Morarjee Realities Ltd., Vs. DCIT, Circle-6(3), (now known as M/s. Peninsula Mumbai. (Respondent) Land Ltd.) Peninsula Spenta, Mathuradas Mills Compound, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013. PAN : AAACT5173A (Appellant) : A.Y : 2004-05 DCIT, Circle-7(1), Vs. M/s. Morarjee Realities Ltd., Mumbai. (Appellant) (now M/s. Peninsula Land Ltd.) Peninsula Spenta, Mathuradas Mills Compound, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013. PAN :…

Narangs International Hotels P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, assessee appeal in ITA no

ITA 1383/MUM/2013[1994-95]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2019AY 1994-95

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm)

…of interest u/s 220(2) i) The Id. CIT(A) erred in not deleting interest levied u/s 220(2), insofar as interest u/s 220(2) is not leviable in a set-aside assessment and in not following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Vikrant Tyres Ltd. (2001) 247 ITR 821 (SC). ii) Without prejudice to the above, the appellant submits that in the absence of directions by the A.O. in the order dated 27.9.2007 to levy interest u/s 220(2) sought to be rectified, it is not capable of being rectified u/s 154 of the Act, now levying interest u/s 220(2), being a debatable issue. Gr. No. 4. Levy of interest u/s 234D: The…

Shri Girish P. Rupani, Mumbai vs. ACIT 23(1), Mumbai

In the result, ground no.1 of the appeal is

ITA 1028/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanshri Girish P. Rupani Acit-23(1) Room No. 122, 1St Floor, Makhija Chambers, 196, Turner Road, Bandra (W), Matru Mandir, Grant Road, Mumbai-400050. Mumbai-400007. Vs. Pan: Aaapr6723P Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri S.M. Makhija (C.A.) Respondent By : Shri S.K. Mishra (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing : 05.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.04.2019

For Appellant: Shri S.M. Makhija (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri S.K. Mishra (Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 54Section 54F

…view the word 'property', is a term of widest import and signifying every possible interest which a person can clearly hold or enjoy, it has been held so by 6 ITA No. 1028 Mum 2018-Shri Girish P. Rupani. Hon’ble Apex Court in Ahmed GM. Ariff v. CWT [1970] 76 ITR 471 (SC). 8. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in PCIT vs. Vembu Vaidyanathan (supra) while considering the following question of law “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was justified in treating the gain arising from the sale of capital asset as Long Term Capital Gain without appreciating the fact that mer…

Hazira Cryogenic Engineering & Construction Management P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 12(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 3324/MUM/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Hazira Cryogenic Engineering & Assistant Commissioner Of Construction Management Pvt. Income Tax, Circle-12(2)(2) Room No. 145, 1St Floor, Ltd., Tecnimont Icb House, Vs. Chincholi Bunder Plot No. 504, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Link Road, Malad (West) Mumbai- 400 020 Mumbai-400 064 Pan/Gir No. Aabch0272M (Assessee) .. (Revenue)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 220(2)Section 244A

…ns, wherein it has been held that interest under section 220(2) of the Act can be levied only where there is an outstanding demand in terms of the Notice of demand issued under section 156 of the Act: i) Vikrant Tyres Ltd. v/s. First Income-tax Officer [2001] 247 ITR 821 (SC); ii) Schloemann Siemag v/s. DCIT [2001] 250 ITR 97 (AP); iii) Muchhala N.V. v/s. ACIT [ITA Nos. 2591 and 2592/Mum/2012] 11. Further, with respect to the AO's observation [confirmed by the CIT(A)] that the refund of Rs. 2,91,19,186/-issued to the Assessee on 21.03.2006 will take character of excess amount refunded on regular assessment u/s 1…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Modipon Limited, Uttar Pradesh

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1210/DEL/2015[1987-88]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2018AY 1987-88

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 1987-88 Income-Tax Officer, Vs Modipon Ltd Ward 17(1), Hapur Road, Nagar Palika, New Delhi. Modinagar, Uttar Pradesh Pan: Aaacm2069E Revenue By Sh. Ravi Kant Gupta, Sr. Dr Assessee By Sh. Santosh Agarwal, Advocate Date Of Hearing 13.08.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 13.08.2018 Order Per K. Narasimha Chary, J.M. Revenue Preferred This Appeal Challenging The Order Dated 14/11/2014 In Appeal No. 0905/2014-15 & 0291/2014-15 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Viii, New Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, M/S. Modipon Ltd Is A Public Ltd Company & Is Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Selling

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 156Section 220Section 222Section 250

…er section 220 (2) of the Act is not chargeable. Assessee maintained that there was no notice of demand at any earlier stage. 5. Ld. CIT(A) by way of impugned order, while placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Vikrant Tyres Ltd vs. ITO 247 ITR 821 (SC) and the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdiction and High Court in the case of Bharat Commerce vs. CIT 210 ITR 13 (del) held that the Learned Assessing Officer was legally incorrect in charging interest under section 2220 (2) of the Act and interest in this matter has wrongly been charged. Ld. CIT(A), accordingly, directed the Assessing Officer…

Bhansali Infotech P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD) 10(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 426/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm M/S. Bhansali Infotech Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Office No. 5 & 6 Income Tax (Osd) 10(3) Shakti Arcade Aayakar Bhavan 4Th Floor, Plot No.5, Sector – 19D Vashi, Navi Mumbai - 400705 Room No.517, M.K. Road Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaccb7808E Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143Section 147

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B ”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM M/s. Bhansali Infotech Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Office No. 5 & 6 Income Tax (OSD) 10(3) Shakti Arcade Aayakar Bhavan 4th Floor, Plot No.5, Sector – 19D Vashi, Navi Mumbai - 400705 Room No.517, M.K. Road Mumbai – 400 020 PAN/GIR No.AACCB7808E Appellant) .. Respondent) Assessee by Ms. Ritika Agarwal Revenue by Shri Ramjirao Pantulu Date of Hearing 01/05/2018 Date of Pronouncement 06/06/2018 आदेश / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M): This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A…

DCIT Cen Cir 10, Mumbai vs. Ajmera Housing Corporation, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1201/MUM/2013[1990-91]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2018AY 1990-91

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhacit Central Circle-10, M/S Ajmera Housing Corporation Room No. 802, 8Th Floor, “Citi Mall”, Link Road, Vs. Old Cgo Annexe Bldg., M.K. Andheri (W), Mumbai-53. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan: Aaafa3654J (Appellant) ( Respondent) Revenue By : Shri R.P. Meena (Dr) Assessee By : Shri Prakash K. Jotwani (Ar) Date Of Hearing : 23.04.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.04.2018 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Revenue Under Section 253 Of Income Tax Act Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner (Appeals)-37, Mumbai Dated 14Th

For Appellant: Shri Prakash K. Jotwani (AR)For Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 220(2)Section 245DSection 245D(4)Section 253Section 254(1)

…upon the law settled in [2012] 209 taxman 456 / 23 Hon 'ble High Court of Bombay in case of Commissioner of Income Tax - 1 Vs. Chika Overseas (P.) Ltd. and CBDT Circular no.334, F. No.44018181 dated 03.04.1982 and Hon 'ble Supreme Court iii Vikrant Tyres Ltd. 247 ITR 821 and Carbon Ltd. & Ors Vs. [1997 (6) SCC 479. The contents of the above said authority as well as circular has already been mentioned in the order CIT(A) therefore, there is no need to repeat the same. Moreover, apparently the demand was raised in pursuance of order dated 17.11.1994 u/s. 2451)(1) of the Act and in pursuance of final order dated 24…

Sri Akber Ayub, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-5(2)(3), Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for asst

ITA 944/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Sept 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Jason P Boazsri Akber Ayub, No.04, Skyline Chalet, Dewan Madhavrao Road, Opp. Krishnarao Park, Bengaluru. . Appellant Vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(3), Bengaluru. . Respondent Pan - Abopa2599R. Appellant By : Shri P Dinesh, Advocate Respondent By : Shri M.K Biju, Jcit

For Appellant: Shri P Dinesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K Biju, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 54E

…s “in a financial year.” 9.8 The judicial decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the assessee also support the stand of the assessee. The Hon'ble Apex Court while deciding the case of Vikrant Tyres Ltd Vs. First ITO ITA No.944/B/17 10 reported in 247 ITR 821 have already laid down the law on interpreting of statutes by holding thereof that :- “ It is settled principle in law that the courts while construing Revenue Acts have to give a fair and reasonable construction to the language of a statute without leaning to one side or the other, meaning thereby that no tax or levy can be imposed on a subject…

Dci 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Jagdish U. Thackersay, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue stands dismissed and that of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1970/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Aug 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

For Appellant: Shri K.Gopal & Ms.Neha ParanjpeFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar

Section 54E

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ ‘SMC’, मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “SMC”, MUMBAI Before Shri Shamim Yahya, Accountant Member ITA No.1970/Mum/2017 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 Dy.Commissioner of Income-tax Shri Jagdish U.Thakersey बनाम/ Circle 2(1)(1) 213, Sir Vithaldas Chambers Mumbai. 16 Bombay Samachar Marg, Fort Vs. Mumbai – 400 001. PAN : AAFPT4701L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) ITA No.1444/Mum/2017 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 Shri Jagdish U.Thakersey Dy.Commissioner of Income-tax बनाम/ 213, Sir Vithaldas Chambers Circle 2(1)(1) 16 Bombay Samachar Marg, Fort Mumbai. Vs. Mumbai –…

Jagdish U. Thackersey, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue stands dismissed and that of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1444/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Aug 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

For Appellant: Shri K.Gopal & Ms.Neha ParanjpeFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar

Section 54E

Transcend Mt Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2136/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 2136/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Transcend Mt Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income B-4, Sagar Towers, Janakpuri, Tax, Circle-16(1), District Centre, New Delhi New Delhi-110058 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabch2275E Assessee By : Sh. Gaurav Gupta, Sh. Ankit Sahni & Sh. S. S. Tomar, Advs. Revenue By : Sh. Amrendra Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.02.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Dated 14.02.2014 U/S 154/254/143(3)/144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Act).

For Appellant: Sh. Gaurav Gupta, Sh. Ankit SahniFor Respondent: Sh. Amrendra Kumar, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 154Section 156Section 220Section 220(2)Section 234B

…service for demand when the assessment was re-framed (copy of the said Circular was furnished which is placed on the record). The reliance was also placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vikrant Tyres Ltd. Vs ITO reported at (2001) 247 ITR 821. 6. In his rival submissions the ld. DR supported the impugned order passed by the AO. 7. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the original assessment order, in compliance to the directions of 4 Transcend MT Servic…

Abott India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No 3472/Mum/2013 and ITA No

ITA 832/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Respondent: Shri Morya Pratap

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80

…itted that the only requirement is that the assessee should be engaged in the business of manufacturing which was satisfied by the assessee. In support, the assessee relied on the decision of the Hon’ble supreme Court in the case of Vikrant Tyres Ltd. v. ITO, 247 ITR 821 (SC) and in the case of Ahmed G.H. Ariff v. CWT, 76 ITR 471, 478 (SC). It was submitted that new plant or machinery acquired need not have operational connectivity to the article or thing that was manufactured and in support the assessee also relied on the decision in the case of CIT v. Hi tech Arai Ltd. (2010) 321 ITR 477 and CIT v. Texmo Precis…

Abbott India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No 3472/Mum/2013 and ITA No

ITA 3472/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Respondent: Shri Morya Pratap

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80

Standard Chartered Bank, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 834/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 834/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2003-04) Standard Chartered Bank Ddit (It)-2(1), बनाम/ 1St Floor, Scindia House, Taxation Department, 23-25, M. G. Road, 3Rd Floor, N. M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Vs. Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 038 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcs 4681 D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ankit Mehta ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vachaspati Tripathi

For Appellant: Shri Ankit MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Vachaspati Tripathi

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2Section 220(2)Section 234DSection 243DSection 245

…f interest is thus, in our view, barred on equitable grounds. When a demand is not raised, there is no question of the assessee being in default in respect thereof. Reference in this context may also be made to the decision in Vikrant Tyres Ltd. v. ITO [2001] 247 ITR 821 (SC). Interest u/s. 220(2), as levied, on this sum, is therefore not valid in law, and is accordingly deleted. We state this without prejudice to the fact that we have found the said charge and, thus, the said demand as not valid in law. That leaves us with the interest on the balance demand of Rs.2162.99 lacs, due for payment on 30.1.2009. We ma…