← All Phrases

“Section 3(5)”

Section References (mined)Section 3Section 3(5)14 judgments

MAHALAXMI INFRACONTRACT LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1702/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Dhinal Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V Nandakumar, CIT DR & B.P. Srivastava
Section 10(2)(xv)Section 3(2)Section 3(3)Section 3(5)Section 37

cess will carry interest at the rate of six per cent per annum from the specified date to the date of payment. Section 3(5) of the 1956 Act is a very different provision. It does not deal with the interest paid on the arrear of cess but provides

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE)-1(4), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. MAHALAXMI INFRACONTRACT LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1578/AHD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Dhinal Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V Nandakumar, CIT DR & B.P. Srivastava
Section 10(2)(xv)Section 3(2)Section 3(3)Section 3(5)Section 37

cess will carry interest at the rate of six per cent per annum from the specified date to the date of payment. Section 3(5) of the 1956 Act is a very different provision. It does not deal with the interest paid on the arrear of cess but provides

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE) -1(4), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. MAHALAXMI INFRACONTRACT LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1577/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Dhinal Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V Nandakumar, CIT DR & B.P. Srivastava
Section 10(2)(xv)Section 3(2)Section 3(3)Section 3(5)Section 37

cess will carry interest at the rate of six per cent per annum from the specified date to the date of payment. Section 3(5) of the 1956 Act is a very different provision. It does not deal with the interest paid on the arrear of cess but provides

UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT LTU (2), MUMBAI

ITA 424/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2024AY 2015-16
Section 115JSection 211

referring to section 11 of the Acquisition Act, he\nsubmitted that it provides that a corresponding new bank shall\nbe a company and section 3(5) of the said Act provides that every\ncorresponding new bank shall carry on and transact the\nbusiness of banking as defined in section 5

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - 2(1)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 3740/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2024AY 2013-14
Section 115JSection 211

referring to section 11 of the Acquisition Act, he\nsubmitted that it provides that a corresponding new bank shall\nbe a company and section 3(5) of the said Act provides that every\ncorresponding new bank shall carry on and transact the\nbusiness of banking as defined in section 5

M/S.TAMILNADU STATE MARKETING CORPN. LTD.,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CC-3(1),, CHENNAI

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

ITA 1179/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1179/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 M/S. Tamilnadu State Marketing Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Corporation Limited, Cmda Tower Ii, Income Tax, Iv Floor, Gandhi Irwin Bridge Road, Corporate Circle 3(1), Egmore, Chennai 600 008. Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aaact2964P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate & Shri Saroj Kumar Parida, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax,Chennai-3, Chennai Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Ld. Pcit Initiated Proceedings Under Section 263 Of The Act On An Examination Of Books Of Account, Wherein, It Was Noted That The Assessee Had Debited A Sum Of ₹.14930,54,85,164/- As Vat Expenses

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 263Section 37Section 40

under the Entry No.54, List- II, Seventh Schedule, Constitution of India and the assessee pays the State Government VAT as per Section 3(5) of the TNVAT Act, 2006 read with the rate mentioned in Second Schedule to the TNVAT Act, 2006 and claims it as an expenditure u/s.37 r.w.s.43B

DCIT (LTU)-1, MUMBAI vs. ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 5935/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2024AY 2012-13
Section 10BSection 115JSection 14ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 37Section 40Section 43BSection 80I

Government for delay in the payment\nof cess. It was not by way of penalty for which provision has been separately\nmade by Section 3(5).\nFrom the above, we cannot agree with Mr. Agarwal, learned advocate for\nthe Revenue, that since the principle laid down in the said decision

ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD (SINCE AMALGAMATED WITH GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (LTU) 1, MUMBAI

ITA 5848/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2024AY 2012-13
Section 10BSection 115JSection 14ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 37Section 40Section 43BSection 80I

Government for delay in the payment\nof cess. It was not by way of penalty for which provision has been separately\nmade by Section 3(5).\nFrom the above, we cannot agree with Mr. Agarwal, learned advocate for\nthe Revenue, that since the principle laid down in the said decision

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD vs. MAHALAXMI INFRACONTRACT PRIVATE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

ITA 486/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 484, 485 & 486/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19) बनाम/ Assistant Commissioner Mahalaxmi Infracontract Of Income Tax Private Limited Vs. Central Circle-1(4), B-21, Corporate House, Ahmedabad Opp-Pakwan-Ii, S. G. Highway, Bodakdev, Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagcm4615E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S. N. Divatia & Shri B. K. Patel, A.Rs. Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit. Dr Revenue By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 22/01/2024 & Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 31/05/2024 Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Divatia & Shri B. K. Patel
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

payment of cess. It is not by way of penalty. The provision for penalty as a civil liability has been made under section 3(5) and for penalty as a criminal offence under section 4 of the Cess Act. 3. The High Court proceeded entirely on the basis that ... interest bore the character of a penalty and it was "penal interest It failed to notice sections 3(5) and 4 and the other provisions of the Gess Act. 4. The interest paid under section 3(3) of the Cess Act cannot be described as a penally paid

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), AHMEDABAD vs. MAHALAXMI INFRACONTRACT PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD

ITA 485/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 484, 485 & 486/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19) बनाम/ Assistant Commissioner Mahalaxmi Infracontract Of Income Tax Private Limited Vs. Central Circle-1(4), B-21, Corporate House, Ahmedabad Opp-Pakwan-Ii, S. G. Highway, Bodakdev, Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagcm4615E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S. N. Divatia & Shri B. K. Patel, A.Rs. Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit. Dr Revenue By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 22/01/2024 & Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 31/05/2024 Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Divatia & Shri B. K. Patel
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

payment of cess. It is not by way of penalty. The provision for penalty as a civil liability has been made under section 3(5) and for penalty as a criminal offence under section 4 of the Cess Act. 3. The High Court proceeded entirely on the basis that ... interest bore the character of a penalty and it was "penal interest It failed to notice sections 3(5) and 4 and the other provisions of the Gess Act. 4. The interest paid under section 3(3) of the Cess Act cannot be described as a penally paid

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AHMEDABAD vs. MAHALAXMI INFRACONTRACT PRIVATE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

ITA 484/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 484, 485 & 486/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19) बनाम/ Assistant Commissioner Mahalaxmi Infracontract Of Income Tax Private Limited Vs. Central Circle-1(4), B-21, Corporate House, Ahmedabad Opp-Pakwan-Ii, S. G. Highway, Bodakdev, Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagcm4615E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S. N. Divatia & Shri B. K. Patel, A.Rs. Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit. Dr Revenue By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 22/01/2024 & Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 31/05/2024 Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Divatia & Shri B. K. Patel
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

payment of cess. It is not by way of penalty. The provision for penalty as a civil liability has been made under section 3(5) and for penalty as a criminal offence under section 4 of the Cess Act. 3. The High Court proceeded entirely on the basis that ... interest bore the character of a penalty and it was "penal interest It failed to notice sections 3(5) and 4 and the other provisions of the Gess Act. 4. The interest paid under section 3(3) of the Cess Act cannot be described as a penally paid

ASST CIT (LTU) 1, MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED (AS A SUCCESSOR TO ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1248/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Ms. A. Alankrutha, Sr. DR
Section 10BSection 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 37Section 40Section 43BSection 80I

Government for delay in the payment of cess. It was not by way of penalty for which provision has been separately made by Section 3(5). From the above, we cannot agree with Mr. Agarwal, learned advocate for the Revenue, that since the principle laid down in the said decision

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED (AS A SUCCESSOR TO ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT LTU, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1065/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Ms. A. Alankrutha, Sr. DR
Section 10BSection 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 37Section 40Section 43BSection 80I

Government for delay in the payment of cess. It was not by way of penalty for which provision has been separately made by Section 3(5). From the above, we cannot agree with Mr. Agarwal, learned advocate for the Revenue, that since the principle laid down in the said decision

M/S TAMILNADU STATE MARKETING CORPORATION LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT,CORPORATE CIRCLE 3 [1], CHENNAI

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

ITA 353/CHNY/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 353/Chny/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Tamilnadu State The Acit, Marketing Corporation Ltd., Vs. Corporate Circle 3(1), Cmda Tower, Ii, Iv Floor, Chennai. Gandhi Irwin Bridge Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. Pan: Aaact 2964P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri R.Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16.08.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Revision Order Passed U/S.263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-3 In Revision No.Pcit, Chennai-3/Revision-263/100000339483/2022 Dated 31.03.2022. The Assessment Was Framed By The Acit, Corporate Circle-3(1), Chennai For The Assessment Year 2014-15 U/S.143(3) Of The Act Vide Order Dated 30.12.2016. 2. The Only Issue In This Appeal Of Assessee Is As Regards To The Revision Order Passed By Pcit By Holding The Assessment Framed As Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue On Account Of Value Added Tax Paid By Assessee & Claimed As Deduction U/S.37 R.W.S. 43B Of The Act & Allowed.

For Appellant: Shri R.Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 40

under the Entry No. 54, List I, Seventh Schedule, Constitution of India and the Petitioner pays the Stale Govenment VAT as per Section 3(5) of the TNVATAct, 2006 read with the rate mentioned in Second Schedule to the TNVAT Act, 2006 and claims it as an expenditure u/s.37 ... collects from its customers (buyers of liquor) the sale price of the liquor bottle along with the Value Added Tax (VAT) as per Section 3(5) of the TamilNadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 read with the Second Schedule to said Act. Accordingly, the assessee remits the VAT so collected