Works Ltd v. Union of India: (2000) 2 SCC 536 and Rayala Corporation P. Ltd. v. Director of Enforcement

257 ITR 338Supreme Court of India2002#874 most cited

What is Works Ltd v. Union of India: (2000) 2 SCC 536 and Rayala Corporation P. Ltd. v. Director of Enforcement authority for?

An omission of a statutory provision is distinct from a repeal, and Section 6 of the General Clauses Act does not apply to omissions, meaning that pending proceedings are not saved by this section.

120

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2025.

Also referred to as

General Finance Co. · omission vs repeal · Section 6 General Clauses Act · pending proceedings · Section 92BA(i) · Section 263 · Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd · Rayala Corporation

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 263Section 40A(2)(b)Section 92BASection 92CA

Issues it is cited on

section 2(c)section 92ba(i)section 36(l)section 36(va)section 43b(b)section 92baextension of limitationsection 113section 2(24)(x)employees contribution to pfsection 2(24)specified domestic transaction

Judgments citing Works Ltd v. Union of India: (2000) 2 SCC 536 and Rayala Corporation P. Ltd. v. Director of Enforcement

Connect International Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO Ward 6(3), Delhi

In the result, the disallowance confirmed by the Appeal Centre is deleted

ITA 29/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Malav Goswami, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Radha Katyal Narang, Senior DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…on the judgment of a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd v. Union of India: (2000) 2 SCC 536 and Rayala Corporation P. Ltd v. Director of Enforcement (1969) 2 SCC 412 and General Finance Co. v. Asst. CIT: (2002) 257 ITR 338 (SC) . The said submissions found favour with the Division Bench of the Guahati High Court and relying on earlier decisions of its own Court in CIT v. Assam Tribune: (2002) 253 ITR 93 and CIT v. Bharat Bamboo and Tiber Suppliers: (1996) 219 ITR 212 the Division Bench dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. It transpires that the aforesaid matter was…

Multi Max Engineering Work Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. Circle 17(2), Delhi

In the result, the disallowance confirmed by the Appeal Centre is deleted

ITA 1/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: PendingITAT Delhi04 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Radha Katyal Narang, Senior DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…on the judgment of a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd v. Union of India: (2000) 2 SCC 536 and Rayala Corporation P. Ltd v. Director of Enforcement (1969) 2 SCC 412 and General Finance Co. v. Asst. CIT: (2002) 257 ITR 338 (SC) . The said submissions found favour with the Division Bench of the Guahati High Court and relying on earlier decisions of its own Court in CIT v. Assam Tribune: (2002) 253 ITR 93 and CIT v. Bharat Bamboo and Tiber Suppliers: (1996) 219 ITR 212 the Division Bench dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. It transpires that the aforesaid matter was…

M/S Balaji Aluminium Alloys Private Limited, Faridabad vs. DCIT CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the disallowance confirmed by the Appeal Centre is deleted

ITA 1190/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Jitender Jindal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Radha Katyal Narang, Senior DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…on the judgment of a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd v. Union of India: (2000) 2 SCC 536 and Rayala Corporation P. Ltd v. Director of Enforcement (1969) 2 SCC 412 and General Finance Co. v. Asst. CIT: (2002) 257 ITR 338 (SC) . The said submissions found favour with the Division Bench of the Guahati High Court and relying on earlier decisions of its own Court in CIT v. Assam Tribune: (2002) 253 ITR 93 and CIT v. Bharat Bamboo and Tiber Suppliers: (1996) 219 ITR 212 the Division Bench dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. It transpires that the aforesaid matter was…

Medopharmprivate Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 54/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.54/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Medopharm Private Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of 25, Puliyur 2Nd Main Road, Trustpuram, Vs. Income Tax, Cpc, Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024. Bengaluru 560 500. [Pan:Aadcm9459R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri M. Karunakaran, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21.03.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.03.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi Dated 15.12.2021 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2018-19 On 22.10.2018 Admitting Nil Income. The Cpc, Bengaluru Has Completed The Assessment Under 2

For Appellant: Shri M. Karunakaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 44A

…on the judgment of a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd v. Union of India: (2000) 2 SCC 536 and Rayala Corporation P. Ltd v. Director of Enforcement (1969) 2 SCC 412 and General Finance Co. v. Asst. CIT: (2002) 257 ITR 338 (SC). The said submissions found favour with the Division Bench of the Guahati High Court and relying on earlier decisions of its own Court in CIT v. Assam Tribune: (2002) 253 ITR 93 and CIT v. Bharat Bamboo and Tiber Suppliers: (1996) 219 ITR 212 the Division Bench dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. It transpires that the aforesaid matter was…

Ikon Labels Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 49/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Rajkamal Ganeriwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT) Bangalore
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 6

…nce Act 2003, which provision has come into force, with effect from April 1, 2004. The reliance placed upon the decision of the apex court in Allied Motors P. Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 224 ITR 677 and also on the decision in General Finance Co. v. CIT (Asst.) [2002] 257 ITR 338 (SC) in respect of applicability of section 43B(b) and also omission of clause (a) or (c) or (d ) or (e) or (B referred to above occurred in the first proviso to section 43B, supports the case of the assessees and also relevant paragraphs extracted from Allied Motor's case [1997] 224 ITR 677 and paragraph 59 referred to supra in this judgment fro…

Radius Engineering Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 45/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh, G., CAFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 6

…nce Act 2003, which provision has come into force, with effect from April 1, 2004. The reliance placed upon the decision of the apex court in Allied Motors P. Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 224 ITR 677 and also on the decision in General Finance Co. v. CIT (Asst.) [2002] 257 ITR 338 (SC) in respect of applicability of section 43B(b) and also omission of clause (a) or (c) or (d ) or (e) or (B referred to above occurred in the first proviso to section 43B, supports the case of the assessees and also relevant paragraphs extracted from Allied Motor's case [1997] 224 ITR 677 and paragraph 59 referred to supra in this judgment fro…

Technocon Builders, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2)(1) Represented by Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 42/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Rajagopal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 6

…which provision has come into force, with effect from Page 6 of 8 April 1, 2004. The reliance placed upon the decision of the apex court in Allied Motors P. Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 224 ITR 677 and also on the decision in General Finance Co. v. CIT (Asst.) [2002] 257 ITR 338 (SC) in respect of applicability of section 43B(b) and also omission of clause (a) or (c) or (d ) or (e) or (B referred to above occurred in the first proviso to section 43B, supports the case of the assessees and also relevant paragraphs extracted from Allied Motor's case [1997] 224 ITR 677 and paragraph 59 referred to supra in this judgment fro…

Sri Marigantu Narasimha Chari, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Director of Income Tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 38/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…nce Act 2003, which provision has come into force, with effect from April 1, 2004. The reliance placed upon the decision of the apex court in Allied Motors P. Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 224 ITR 677 and also on the decision in General Finance Co. v. CIT (Asst.) [2002] 257 ITR 338 (SC) in respect of applicability of section 43B(b) and also omission of clause (a) or (c) or (d ) or (e) or (B referred to above occurred in the first proviso to section 43B, supports the case of the assessees and also relevant paragraphs extracted from Allied Motor's case [1997] 224 ITR 677 and paragraph 59 referred to supra in this judgment fro…

The Etikoppaka Coop Agricultural Industrial Society Limited, Visakhapatnam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 260/VIZ/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru R L Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Balakrishnan, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Pandi, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)

…on the judgment of a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd v. Union of India: (2000) 2 SCC 536 and Rayala Corporation P. Ltd v. Director of Enforcement (1969) 2 SCC 412 and General Finance Co. v. Asst. CIT: (2002) 257 ITR 338 (SC) . The said submissions found favour with the Division Bench of the Guahati High Court and relying on earlier decisions of its own Court in CIT v. Assam Tribune: (2002) 253 ITR 93 and CIT v. Bharat Bamboo and Tiber Suppliers: (1996) 219 ITR 212 the Division Bench dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. It transpires that the aforesaid matter was…

Puyvast Maritime India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1) Represented by Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 30/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Rajgopal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 250Section 30Section 32Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…nce Act 2003, which provision has come into force, with effect from April 1, 2004. The reliance placed upon the decision of the apex court in Allied Motors P. Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 224 ITR 677 and also on the decision in General Finance Co. v. CIT (Asst.) [2002] 257 ITR 338 (SC) in respect of applicability of section 43B(b) and also omission of clause (a) or (c) or (d ) or (e) or (B referred to above occurred in the first proviso to section 43B, supports the case of the assessees and also relevant paragraphs extracted from Allied Motor's case [1997] 224 ITR 677 and paragraph 59 referred to supra in this judgment fro…

M/S Udvasit Berojgar Sahakari Shram Samvida Samiti Ltd., Sonbhadra vs. CIT (Exemption), Allahabad

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

ITA 27/ALLD/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad02 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 2Section 36(1)Section 43B

…the judgment of a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd. v. Union of India [2000] 2 SCC 536 and Rayala Corporation (P.) Ltd. v. Director of Enforcement [1969] 2 SCC 412 and General Finance Co. v. Asstt. CIT [2002] 257 ITR 338 (SC). The said submissions found favour with the Division Bench of the Guwahati High Court and relying on earlier decisions of its own Court in CIT v. Assam Tribune [2002] 253 ITR 93 and CIT v. Bharat Bamboo & Timber Suppliers [1996] 219 ITR 212 the Division Bench dismissed the appeal of the revenue. It transpires that the aforesaid matter was ta…

Pragati Fashions P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dycti (CPC), Bangalore

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 569/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalepragati Fashions P Ltd., Vs. Dycti (Cpc) F.P.No. 455, Shree 1 St Floor, Prestige Sadguru Heights, Alpha, Bhavani Shankar Road, Beratenagrahara, Dadar (W) Hosur Road, Uttahalli Mumbai-400028. Hobli,Bangalore- 560100 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp1730H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Girish Dave.Sr.Counsel Respondent By : Shri. S.G. Menon.Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21.02.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

For Appellant: Shri. Girish Dave.Sr.CounselFor Respondent: Shri. S.G. Menon.Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…on the judgment of a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd v. Union of India: (2000) 2 SCC 536 and Rayala Corporation P. Ltd v. Director of Enforcement (1969) 2 SCC 412 and General Finance Co. v. Asst. CIT: (2002) 257 ITR 338 (SC) . The said submissions found favour with the Division Bench of the Guahati High Court and relying on earlier decisions of its own Court in CIT v. Assam Tribune: (2002) 253 ITR 93 and CIT v. Bharat Bamboo and Tiber Suppliers: (1996) 219 ITR 212 the Division Bench dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. It transpires that the aforesaid matter was…

Franch Express Courier Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. The CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 523/CHNY/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.523/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S. Franch Express Courier Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant Director Of No. 199, Hariyan Street, C-Pallavaram, Vs. Income Tax, Cpc, Chennai 600 043. Bengaluru 560 500. [Pan:Aadcf3624P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Vandana Vyas, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 31.01.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.02.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi Dated 28.09.2021 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2019-20 On 30.10.2019 Declaring A Total Income Of ₹.39,17,200/-. The Cpc, Bengaluru Has Completed The 2

For Appellant: Ms. Vandana Vyas, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 44A

…on the judgment of a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd v. Union of India: (2000) 2 SCC 536 and Rayala Corporation P. Ltd v. Director of Enforcement (1969) 2 SCC 412 and General Finance Co. v. Asst. CIT: (2002) 257 ITR 338 (SC). The said submissions found favour with the Division Bench of the Guahati High Court and relying on earlier decisions of its own Court in CIT v. Assam Tribune: (2002) 253 ITR 93 and CIT v. Bharat Bamboo and Tiber Suppliers: (1996) 219 ITR 212 the Division Bench dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. It transpires that the aforesaid matter was…

Kasthuri Medias Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Additional Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 752/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 6

…nce Act 2003, which provision has come into force, with effect from April 1, 2004. The reliance placed upon the decision of the apex court in Allied Motors P. Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 224 ITR 677 and also on the decision in General Finance Co. v. CIT (Asst.) [2002] 257 ITR 338 (SC) in respect of applicability of section 43B(b) and also omission of clause (a) or (c) or (d ) or (e) or (B referred to above occurred in the first proviso to section 43B, supports the case of the assessees and also relevant paragraphs extracted from Allied Motor's case [1997] 224 ITR 677 and paragraph 59 referred to supra in this judgment fro…

C Krishniah Chetty & Sons Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 748/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Sachin Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 6

…6 of 8 2003, which provision has come into force, with effect from April 1, 2004. The reliance placed upon the decision of the apex court in Allied Motors P. Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 224 ITR 677 and also on the decision in General Finance Co. v. CIT (Asst.) [2002] 257 ITR 338 (SC) in respect of applicability of section 43B(b) and also omission of clause (a) or (c) or (d ) or (e) or (B referred to above occurred in the first proviso to section 43B, supports the case of the assessees and also relevant paragraphs extracted from Allied Motor's case [1997] 224 ITR 677 and paragraph 59 referred to supra in this judgment fro…

S & G Lifestyles, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 745/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Sridhar, V., ARFor Respondent: Shri Sri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…nce Act 2003, which provision has come into force, with effect from April 1, 2004. The reliance placed upon the decision of the apex court in Allied Motors P. Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 224 ITR 677 and also on the decision in General Finance Co. v. CIT (Asst.) [2002] 257 ITR 338 (SC) in respect of applicability of section 43B(b) and also omission of clause (a) or (c) or (d ) or (e) or (B referred ITA No.744 & 745/Bang/2021 Page 7 of 9 to above occurred in the first proviso to section 43B, supports the case of the assessees and also relevant paragraphs extracted from Allied Motor's case [1997] 224 ITR 677 and paragraph…

S & G Lifestyles, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 744/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Sridhar, V., ARFor Respondent: Shri Sri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…nce Act 2003, which provision has come into force, with effect from April 1, 2004. The reliance placed upon the decision of the apex court in Allied Motors P. Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 224 ITR 677 and also on the decision in General Finance Co. v. CIT (Asst.) [2002] 257 ITR 338 (SC) in respect of applicability of section 43B(b) and also omission of clause (a) or (c) or (d ) or (e) or (B referred ITA No.744 & 745/Bang/2021 Page 7 of 9 to above occurred in the first proviso to section 43B, supports the case of the assessees and also relevant paragraphs extracted from Allied Motor's case [1997] 224 ITR 677 and paragraph…

Transsys Solutions Pvt Ltd, Kodambakkam vs. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 489/CHNY/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.489/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S. Transsys Solutions Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant Director Of Plot. Super A 16-17, Rr Towers, Tvk Vs. Income Tax, Industrial Estate, Guindy, Cpc, Bengaluru 560 500. Chennai 600 032. [Pan:Aadct4603N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Pawan Bohra, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.01.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi Dated 21.09.2021 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2019-20 On 25.10.2019. The Cpc, Bengaluru Has Completed The Assessment Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Bohra, C.AFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 44A

…on the judgment of a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd v. Union of India: (2000) 2 SCC 536 and Rayala Corporation P. Ltd v. Director of Enforcement (1969) 2 SCC 412 and General Finance Co. v. Asst. CIT: (2002) 257 ITR 338 (SC). The said submissions found favour with the Division Bench of the Guahati High Court and relying on earlier decisions of its own Court in CIT v. Assam Tribune: (2002) 253 ITR 93 and CIT v. Bharat Bamboo and Tiber Suppliers: (1996) 219 ITR 212 the Division Bench dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. It transpires that the aforesaid matter was…

Ajith Padival, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(3)(1), Represented by Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 660/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Shankar D., CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankarganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 6

…nce Act 2003, which provision has come into force, with effect from April 1, 2004. The reliance placed upon the decision of the apex court in Allied Motors P. Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 224 ITR 677 and also on the decision in General Finance Co. v. CIT (Asst.) [2002] 257 ITR 338 (SC) in respect of applicability of section 43B(b) and also omission of clause (a) or (c) or (d ) or (e) or (B referred to above occurred in the first proviso to section 43B, supports the case of the assessees and also relevant paragraphs extracted from Allied Motor's case [1997] 224 ITR 677 and paragraph 59 referred to supra in this judgment fro…

Jayarama Reddy, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 657/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Shambu Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankarganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 6

…nce Act 2003, which provision has come into force, with effect from April 1, 2004. The reliance placed upon the decision of the apex court in Allied Motors P. Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 224 ITR 677 and also on the decision in General Finance Co. v. CIT (Asst.) [2002] 257 ITR 338 (SC) in respect of applicability of section 43B(b) and also omission of clause (a) or (c) or (d ) or (e) or (B referred Page 6 of 8 to above occurred in the first proviso to section 43B, supports the case of the assessees and also relevant paragraphs extracted from Allied Motor's case [1997] 224 ITR 677 and paragraph 59 referred to supra in this…