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

M/S. G.D. Marketing Private Limited, Guwahati vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Guwahati`

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

ITA 425/GTY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati28 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg

Section 2Section 2ASection 40ASection 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 92B

…ted and, according to Ld. AR, on account of its omission, the impugned transaction would not fall within the definition of specified domestic transaction and referred to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. General Finance Co. Vs. ACIT 257 ITR 338 (SC) in which the Apex Court has held that the principle underlying section 6 of General Clauses Act as saving the right to initiate proceedings for liabilities incurred during the currency of the Act will not apply to omission of a provision in an Act but only to repeal of the provision of the Act. The Ld. AR also referred to the decision of the…

Srinivasa Fashins Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. ITO Corporate Ward-6(4), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1396/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Duvvuru R.L.Reddy)नधा+रण वष+ /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Heard Through Video Conferencing V. M/S.Srinivasa Fashions Pvt. Ltd., The Income Tax Officer, No.57G, Sidco Industrial Estate, Corporate Ward-6(4), Ambattur, Chennai. Chennai-600 098. [Pan: Aaics 9511 R] (अपीलाथ./Appellant) (/0यथ./Respondent) : अपीलाथ. क1 ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.N.Vijay Kumar, Ca : Mr.Ar.V.Sreenivasan, Jcit /0यथ. क1 ओर से /Respondent By : 28.09.2020 सुनवाई क1 तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 28.09.2020 घोषणा क1 तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar:

For Respondent: 28.09.2020
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 68

…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…

Shree Sai Smelters (I) Limited, Byrnihat vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-Shillong, Shillong

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 228/GTY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati31 Jul 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.228/Gau/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2014-15) Shree Shai Smelters (I) Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle-Shillong

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Gupta, FCAFor Respondent: Shri T. Hunar, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40ASection 92B

…y omitted without a saving Clause in favour of pending proceedings therefore ld PCIT cannot exercise the jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. 14. Our view is also fortified by the judgment of the Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of General Finance Co. 257 ITR 338 (SC), wherein the Hon`ble 10 Shree Shai Smelters (I) Ltd. Assessment Year:2014-15 Supreme Court relied on its previous judgments in the case of Rayala Corporation (P) Ltd. & vs. Director of Enforcement 1969 (2) SCC 412, and Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd &Anr. vs. Union of India &Ors. 2000 (2) SCC 536, and held that an ‘omission’ of a provision is…

Shivani Ispat and Rolling Mill (P) Ltd., Byrnihat vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-Shillong, Shillong

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 227/GTY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati31 Jul 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.227/Gau/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2014-15) Shivani Ispatand Rolling Mill Vs. Acit, Circle-Shillong (P) Ltd. 13Th Mile, Tamulkuchi, Byrnihat, G.S. Road, Ri-Bhoi, Meghalaya "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aafcs 3465 B (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Shri J.P. Gupta, Fca Respondent By :Shri T. Hunar, Jcit, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 15/06/2020 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/07/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2014-15, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)- Shillong, In Appeal No. Cit(A)/Shg/10083/2018-19 Dated 17.04.2019, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) / 92C(4) / 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The ‘Act’) Dated 30/11/2018. 2.When This Appeal Was Called Out For Hearing, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Invited Our Attention To The Order Dated 10.06.2020, Passed By The Tribunal In The Case Of M/S Raipur Steel Casting India (P) Ltd. & Srinath Ji Furnishing Pvt. Ltd. In I.T.A. No. 895& 1035/Kol/2019, For Assessment Year 2014-15.Wherein Thetribunal Held That Effect Of Omission Of Clause (I) Of Section 92Ba W.E.F 01.04.2017 Had The Effect Of It Being Omitted From Its Inception Hence, Reference

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Gupta, FCAFor Respondent: Shri T. Hunar, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40ASection 92B

…y omitted without a saving Clause in favour of pending proceedings therefore ld PCIT cannot exercise the jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. 14. Our view is also fortified by the judgment of the Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of General Finance Co. 257 ITR 338 (SC), wherein the Hon`ble Supreme Court relied on its previous judgments in the case of Rayala Corporation (P) Ltd. & vs. Director of Enforcement 1969 (2) SCC 412, and 10 Shivani Ispat and Rolling Mill (P) Ltd. Assessment Year:2014-15 Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd &Anr. vs. Union of India &Ors. 2000 (2) SCC 536, and held that an ‘omission’ of a pr…

Firmenich Aromatics (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 4(2), Mumbai

In the result this ground of appeal is allowed

ITA 348/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman(Virtual Hearing In Virtual Court No.2)

For Respondent: Shri Bomi Daruwala with
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 254(1)Section 92C

….com 568 (Karnataka High Court), Mumbai Tribunal in Add.CIT Vs WNS Global (ITA No. 4520/Mum/2013 dated 19.02.2019, reported vide [2020] 116 taxmann.com 20 (Mumbai - Trib.) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in General Finance Company Vs ACIT [2002] 257 ITR 338(SC)/ [2002] 124 Taxman 432(SC). Accordingly, the ld. AR for the assessee 9 Firemenich Aromatics (India) Pvt Ltd, (AY 2009-10) ITA No. 348/Mum/2014 & 1732/Mum/2014 prayed for outright dismissal of the appeal filed by the revenue/ assessing officer. 12. On the other hand the ld. CIT-DR for the revenue submits that the assessee has not filed Cros…

M/S. Bhartia-Smsil(Jv), Guwahati vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Guwahati

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 117/GTY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati17 Jun 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.117/Gau/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Modi, FCAFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Dal, Addl. CIT, Sr. Dr
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 3Section 92BSection 92C

…y omitted without a saving Clause in favour of pending proceedings therefore ld PCIT cannot exercise the jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. 14. Our view is also fortified by the judgment of the Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of General Finance Co. 257 ITR 338 (SC), wherein the Hon`ble Supreme Court relied on its previous judgments in the case of Rayala Corporation (P) Ltd. & vs. Director of Enforcement 1969 (2) SCC 412, and Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd &Anr. vs. Union of India &Ors. 2000 (2) M/s. Bhartia-SMSIL (JV) Assessment Year:2014-15 SCC 536, and held that an ‘omission’ of a provision is differen…

DCIT Corporate Circle 5(1), Chennai vs. Repco Home Finance P Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA no

ITA 2885/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jun 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: JCITFor Respondent: Shri M. Viswanathan, C.A
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 36(1)(viii)

…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 :- 58…

Raipur Steel Casting India (P)) Ltd., Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT-5, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees (In ITA No

ITA 895/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jun 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A.T, Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am M/S. Raipur Steel Casting India (P) Ltd. Vs. P.C.I.T.,-5, Kolkata Pan: Aaacg 8490M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Shankar, CIT, ld.DR
Section 263Section 92BSection 92C

…reme Court in the case of Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd. V Union of India (2002) 2 SCC 536 and in Royala Corporation P. Ltd. V Director of Enforcement (1969) 2 SCC 412. The above judgments were reiterated in the case of General Finance Co. Vs. Asstt CIT (2002) 257 ITR 338 (SC). 10. On the other hand, Shri Vijay Shankar, (CIT-DR), on behalf of the Revenue vehimently argued that clause (i) of section 92BA has been “repealed” and not “omitted.” Effect of such “Repeal” means the clause (i) of section 92BA was in existence till 01.04.2017 and it was removed by the Finance Act, 2017. In the assessee`s case under consid…

M/S Srinath Ji Furnishing Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT-5, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees (In ITA No

ITA 1035/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jun 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A.T, Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am M/S. Raipur Steel Casting India (P) Ltd. Vs. P.C.I.T.,-5, Kolkata Pan: Aaacg 8490M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Shankar, CIT, ld.DR
Section 263Section 92BSection 92C

…reme Court in the case of Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd. V Union of India (2002) 2 SCC 536 and in Royala Corporation P. Ltd. V Director of Enforcement (1969) 2 SCC 412. The above judgments were reiterated in the case of General Finance Co. Vs. Asstt CIT (2002) 257 ITR 338 (SC). 10. On the other hand, Shri Vijay Shankar, (CIT-DR), on behalf of the Revenue vehimently argued that clause (i) of section 92BA has been “repealed” and not “omitted.” Effect of such “Repeal” means the clause (i) of section 92BA was in existence till 01.04.2017 and it was removed by the Finance Act, 2017. In the assessee`s case under consid…

M/S. Skm-Umsl Jv, Bhubaneswar vs. ITO, Ward-4(3), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 229/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack13 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.229/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014 - 2015) M/S Skm-Umsl Jv, Vs. Ito, Ward-4(3), At-Imfa Building, Bomikhal, Bhubaneswar Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Aajas 2542 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Jena, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 28/01/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17/02/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 18.04.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015, On The Following Grounds :- A. For That The Learned Assessing Officer (Ld. Ao) Has Initiated Penalty Proceeding On The Behest Of Ld. Dcit (Tp)-Ii, Kolkata U/S.271Ba Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) In The Assessment Order Dated29.12.2017 Passed U/S. 143(3) Of The Act . The Impugned Order Of Imposing Penalty U/S.271Ba Of Act Has Been Passed On 25.06.2018 By The Ld. A.O Without Affording Reasonable Opportunity To The Appellant & Without Exercising His Discretion As Vested By The Statute. However Without Adjudicating The Appeal Despite The Fact That The Particular Provision Of Specified Domestic Transaction Has Been Omitted From Statute By The Finance Act, 2017 The Ld. Cit (A) Is Erred In Upholding The Penalty Order. Therefore Orders Of Forum Below Are Unsustainable & Impermissible Under Law.

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Jena, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR
Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 92CSection 92E

…7.2019, copy of which is placed on record, thereby deleting the quantum addition in the case of 5 the assessee following the above amendment in the provisions and relying on the decisions of Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd. (AIR 200 SC 811), General Finance Co. 257 ITR 338 (SC), M/s GE Thermometric India Pvt. Ltd., ITA No.424/2009, dated 22.03.2018(Karnataka High Court) and Textport Overseas Pvt. Ltd., ITA No.1722/Bang/2017, order dated 22.12.2017. Ld. DR also could not controvert the above findings of the CIT(A) before us. The coordinate bench in the case of Texport Overseas Private Limited (supra), has held…

M/S. Panem Coal Mines Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Central Circle - 3(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2432/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 143(3)Section 144C(4)Section 40ASection 6Section 92Section 92BSection 92C

…ted and, according to Ld. AR, on account of its omission, the impugned transaction would not fall within the definition of specified domestic transaction and referred to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. General Finance Co. Vs. ACIT 257 ITR 338 (SC) in which the Apex Court has held that the principle underlying section 6 of General Clauses Act as saving the right to initiate proceedings for liabilities incurred during the currency of the Act will not apply to omission of a provision in an Act but only to repeal of the provision of the Act. The Ld. AR also referred to the decision of the…

M/S. Bengal Emta Coal Mines Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Central Circle - 3(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2431/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 143(3)Section 144C(4)Section 40ASection 6Section 92Section 92BSection 92C

…ted and, according to Ld. AR, on account of its omission, the impugned transaction would not fall within the definition of specified domestic transaction and referred to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. General Finance Co. Vs. ACIT 257 ITR 338 (SC) in which the Apex Court has held that the principle underlying section 6 of General Clauses Act as saving the right to initiate proceedings for liabilities incurred during the currency of the Act will not apply to omission of a provision in an Act but only to repeal of the provision of the Act. The Ld. AR also referred to the decision of the…

M/S. Dvc Emta Coal Mines Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Central Circle - 3(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2430/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 143(3)Section 144C(4)Section 40ASection 6Section 92Section 92BSection 92C

…ted and, according to Ld. AR, on account of its omission, the impugned transaction would not fall within the definition of specified domestic transaction and referred to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. General Finance Co. Vs. ACIT 257 ITR 338 (SC) in which the Apex Court has held that the principle underlying section 6 of General Clauses Act as saving the right to initiate proceedings for liabilities incurred during the currency of the Act will not apply to omission of a provision in an Act but only to repeal of the provision of the Act. The Ld. AR also referred to the decision of the…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dewan Sugar Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5784/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2008-09 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Dewan Sugar Ltd., Circle-10(1), New Delhi Surya Plaza, 1St Floor, K- 185, Sarai Jullena, New Friends Colony, New Delhi Pan :Aaacd3465H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)Section 36

…nch of the Supreme Court in the case of Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd vs. Union of India (2000) 2 SCC 536 and Rayala Corporation (P) Ltd vs. Director of Enforcement (1969) 2 SCC 412 and General Finance Co. & Anr. vs. Asstt. CIT (2002) 176 CTR (SC) 569 : (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 vs. Assam Tribune (2002) 253 ITR 93 (Gau) and CIT vs. Bharat Bamboo & Timber Suppliers (1998) 146 CTR (Gau) 487 : (1996) 219 ITR 212 (Gau) the Division Bench dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. It tra…

Brijbasi Art Press Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6165/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. Dcit, Circle-3(1), New Delhi M/S. Brijbasi Art Press Ltd., E- 46/11, Okhla Indl. Area, Phase- Ii, New Delhi Pan :Aaacb0044L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 36(1)(vi)Section 43B

…nch of the Supreme Court in the case of Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd vs. Union of India (2000) 2 SCC 536 and Rayala Corporation (P) Ltd vs. Director of Enforcement (1969) 2 SCC 412 and General Finance Co. & Anr. vs. Asstt. CIT (2002) 176 CTR (SC) 569 : (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 vs. Assam Tribune (2002) 253 ITR 93 (Gau) and CIT vs. Bharat Bamboo & Timber Suppliers (1998) 146 CTR (Gau) 487 : (1996) 219 ITR 212 (Gau) the Division Bench dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. It tra…

ACIT 8(1), Mumbai vs. Celetronix India P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross-objection filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5433/MUM/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.5433/Mum/2009 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2003-04) बनधम/ Celetronix India Pvt Ltd, Asstt. Commissioner Of Income C/O Jabil Circuit (I) Pvt.Ltd., Tax -8(1), Vs. Arena House, 3Rd Floor, Plot No.103, Room No.210, 2Nd Floor, Road No.12, Opp Tunga Paradise, Aayaker Bhavan, Marol, Midc, Andheri (E), M K Road, Mumbai-400093 Mumbai-400020 स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan : Aaact7548K (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. Cross-Objection No.81/Mum/2010 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.5433/Mum/2009 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2003-04) Celetronix India Pvt Ltd, बनधम/ Asstt.Commissioner Of Income Tax 8(1), Vs. Mumbai-400020 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Ms.Radha K NarangFor Respondent: S/Shri Sanjiv Shah, Shailesh
Section 10ASection 10A(9)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…on never existed This contention is also accepted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decisions rendered in the cases of Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd. And Another, Appellants V. Union Of India And Others (2 SCC 536) and General Finance Co and Another V/s ACIT(257 ITR 338) I have also considered the decision of Hon'ble Bangalore Tribunal in the case of GE Thermometrics India P Ltd (ITA 257 and 258jBangj08) cited by the appellant in support of its above argument. I find that the case of the appellant is covered by the aforesaid Bangalore Tribunal decision since the provision of sub- section 9 to section 10B and sub…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. AIMIL Limited

ITA-1063/2006HC Delhi23 Dec 2009
Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…e 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 matte…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Modipon Ltd

ITA - 78 / 2009HC Delhi23 Dec 2009
Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 438Section 43B

…on the judgment of a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd v. Union of India: (2OOO) 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 (tC). The said submissions found favour with the Division Bench of the Cuahati High Court and relying on earlier decisions of its own Court in CIT v. Assam Tribune: (2OO2) 253 ITR 93 and CIT v, Bharat Bamboo and Tiber Suppliers: (1996) 219 ITR 212 the Division Bench dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. [t transpires that the aforesaid matter was…

Commissioner of Income Tax V vs. P.M.Electronics Ltd

ITA - 475 / 2007HC Delhi03 Nov 2008
Section 1Section 139Section 143(1)(A)Section 143(2)Section 2(24)(x)Section 260ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

…he 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 matte…

The Commissioner of Income Tax-V vs. P M Electronics Ltd

ITA/475/2007HC Delhi03 Nov 2008
Section 1Section 139Section 143(1)(A)Section 143(2)Section 2(24)(x)Section 260ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

…he 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 matte…