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

Thoughtspot India Private Limited, Bengluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 493/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2022AY 2019-20

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

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

…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 Page 7 of 9 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…

Commercial Auto Sales Pvt. Ltd., Allahabad vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is in ITA No

ITA 15/ALLD/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad20 Jan 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Sh.S K Jaiswal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)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…

Shahi Exports Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 843/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Delhi17 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Shah, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 37Section 40A(2)Section 80ISection 92BSection 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘I-2’ BENCH, NEW DELHI (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING] BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 843/DEL/2021 [A.Y 2016-17] M/s Shahi Exports Pvt. Ltd Vs. The Addl.C.I.T F – 88, Okhla Industrial Area New Delhi Phase – 1, New Delhi PAN: AAJCS 1175 L (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.P. Rastogi, Adv Shri Deepak Malik, Adv Department By : Shri Mahesh Shah, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 11.01.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 17.01.2022 ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- This appeal by the assessee is…

Vidhi Clothing Company, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 424/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2022AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sankarganesh K, JCIT (DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234ASection 250Section 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…

Genworks Health Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 469/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore03 Jan 2022AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri K.R Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT (DR)
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 6

…which provision has come into force, with effect from April Page 7 of 10 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…

Shand Pipe Industry Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (CPC), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 412/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri H Ananda, Addl.CIT (DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234BSection 250Section 36Section 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…

Stirred Creative Advertising Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 594/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore13 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Smt. Susan Mathew, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT (DR)
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 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…

Adyar Ananda Bhavan Sweets India P Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

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

ITA 403/CHNY/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 402 & 403/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 M/S. Adyar Ananda Bhavan Vs The Acit, Sweets India P Ltd., Central Cirlce - 3(4), No.9, Shastri Nagar, Chennai – 34. M.G. Road, Besant Nagar, Chennai – 600 020. Pan: Aaica 3787F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओ रसे/Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate & Shri Arjunraj, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Durgesh Sumrott, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 30.11.2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.12.2021

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Durgesh Sumrott, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(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…

Adyar Ananda Bhavan Sweets India P Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

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

ITA 402/CHNY/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 402 & 403/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 M/S. Adyar Ananda Bhavan Vs The Acit, Sweets India P Ltd., Central Cirlce - 3(4), No.9, Shastri Nagar, Chennai – 34. M.G. Road, Besant Nagar, Chennai – 600 020. Pan: Aaica 3787F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओ रसे/Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate & Shri Arjunraj, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Durgesh Sumrott, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 30.11.2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.12.2021

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Durgesh Sumrott, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(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…

Flying Fabrication, Gurgaon vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengalurur

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

ITA 1407/DEL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Ms. Swati Talwar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mrinal Kumar Das, Sr.D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 244ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(v)

…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…

Flying Fabrication, New Delhi vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1049/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Ms. Swati Talwar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mrinal Kumar Das, Sr.D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 244ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(v)

…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…

Arco Lab Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 455/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariandshri George George Kassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT (DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

…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…

Sony India Software Centre Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 398/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Nov 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Smt Beena Pillai

For Appellant: AdvocateFor Respondent: JCIT (DR)
Section 10ASection 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(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…

M/S. J K Foot Wear, Bengaluru vs. Centralized Processing Center, Benaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 395/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Oct 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Sunaina Bhatia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139(1)Section 154Section 36Section 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. J K Foot Wear, Bengaluru vs. Centralized Processing Center, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 394/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Oct 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Sunaina Bhatia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139(1)Section 154Section 36Section 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…

Equipment Fabricators, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 386/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2021AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K. Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 234BSection 23ASection 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. Jana Urban Services for Transformation Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 307/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh S Gaddi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri I.C Prabhakar, JCIT(DR)
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 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…

Indian Geotechnical Services, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 61(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 622/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Brij Kishor Anand, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Anima Barnwal, Sr.D.R

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.622/DEL/2018 Assessment Year 2014-15 Indian Geotechnical Services, v. ACIT, Circle-61(1), C-91, G.F. Shivalik, Malviya E-2, Pratyakshakar Bhawan, Nagar, Civic Centre, New Delhi. New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AAAFI2029M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Brij Kishor Anand, C.A. Respondent by: Ms. Anima Barnwal, Sr.D.R. Date of hearing: 24 08 2021 Date of pronouncement: 27 08 2021 O R D E R PER VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against…

DCIT, Circle-II, Allahabad vs. Bharat Pumps & Compressors Ltd, Allahabad

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue for ay: 2007-08 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 148/ALLD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad12 Aug 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Ms. Tanu Singhal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Shantanu Dhamija, CIT (DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(va)

…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…

DCIT, Circle-II, Allahabad vs. Bharat Pumps & Compressors Ltd, Allahabad

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue for ay: 2007-08 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 147/ALLD/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad12 Aug 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Ms. Tanu Singhal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Shantanu Dhamija, CIT (DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(va)

…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…