HERO FINCORP LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 11(1), DELHI, C.R. BUILDING

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

154 rectifying the\nassessment order wherein erroneous addition was made under section 56(2)(viib)\nof the Act despite the said section being not applicable to issuance of shares to non-\nresident investors.\n16. That the NFAC grossly erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that, since the\nshares were issued to non-residents, the provisions of section

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. NOKIA INDIA LTD.

The appeals are dismissed

154 of the said Act. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the revenue on CIT v. Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd: 253 ITR 791 (Ker) and Nicco Corporation Ltd v. CIT: 272 ITR 58 (Cal). 15. Lastly, it was argued that hardship or inequity is no ground for not charging interest under sections 234B and 234C before allowing

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. C.J.INTERNATIONAL HOTELS LTD.

The appeals are dismissed

154 of the said Act. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the revenue on CIT v. Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd: 253 ITR 791 (Ker) and Nicco Corporation Ltd v. CIT: 272 ITR 58 (Cal). 15. Lastly, it was argued that hardship or inequity is no ground for not charging interest under sections 234B and 234C before allowing

C.I.T vs. INDIAN SUGAR EXIM CORPORATION LTD

The appeals are dismissed

154 of the said Act. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the revenue on CIT v. Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd: 253 ITR 791 (Ker) and Nicco Corporation Ltd v. CIT: 272 ITR 58 (Cal). 15. Lastly, it was argued that hardship or inequity is no ground for not charging interest under sections 234B and 234C before allowing

CIT vs. OCL INDIA LTD

The appeals are dismissed

154 of the said Act. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the revenue on CIT v. Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd: 253 ITR 791 (Ker) and Nicco Corporation Ltd v. CIT: 272 ITR 58 (Cal). 15. Lastly, it was argued that hardship or inequity is no ground for not charging interest under sections 234B and 234C before allowing

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI I vs. ANANT RAJ INDUSTRIES P. LTD.

The appeals are dismissed

154 of the said Act. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the revenue on CIT v. Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd: 253 ITR 791 (Ker) and Nicco Corporation Ltd v. CIT: 272 ITR 58 (Cal). 15. Lastly, it was argued that hardship or inequity is no ground for not charging interest under sections 234B and 234C before allowing

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL vs. M/S JINDAL EXPORTS LTD.

The appeals are dismissed

154 of the said Act. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the revenue on CIT v. Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd: 253 ITR 791 (Ker) and Nicco Corporation Ltd v. CIT: 272 ITR 58 (Cal). 15. Lastly, it was argued that hardship or inequity is no ground for not charging interest under sections 234B and 234C before allowing

CIT vs. NEGOLICE INDIA PVT LTD

The appeals are dismissed

154 of the said Act. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the revenue on CIT v. Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd: 253 ITR 791 (Ker) and Nicco Corporation Ltd v. CIT: 272 ITR 58 (Cal). 15. Lastly, it was argued that hardship or inequity is no ground for not charging interest under sections 234B and 234C before allowing

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. NEHRU PLACE HOTELS LTD.

The appeals are dismissed

154 of the said Act. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the revenue on CIT v. Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd: 253 ITR 791 (Ker) and Nicco Corporation Ltd v. CIT: 272 ITR 58 (Cal). 15. Lastly, it was argued that hardship or inequity is no ground for not charging interest under sections 234B and 234C before allowing

THE COMMISSIONR OF INCOME TAX vs. NIS SPARTA LTD

The appeals are dismissed

154 of the said Act. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the revenue on CIT v. Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd: 253 ITR 791 (Ker) and Nicco Corporation Ltd v. CIT: 272 ITR 58 (Cal). 15. Lastly, it was argued that hardship or inequity is no ground for not charging interest under sections 234B and 234C before allowing

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI II vs. LEROY SOMER & CONTROLS INDIA P.LTD.

The appeals are dismissed

154 of the said Act. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the revenue on CIT v. Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd: 253 ITR 791 (Ker) and Nicco Corporation Ltd v. CIT: 272 ITR 58 (Cal). 15. Lastly, it was argued that hardship or inequity is no ground for not charging interest under sections 234B and 234C before allowing

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. BRIJBASI ART PRESS LIMITED

The appeals are dismissed

154 of the said Act. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the revenue on CIT v. Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd: 253 ITR 791 (Ker) and Nicco Corporation Ltd v. CIT: 272 ITR 58 (Cal). 15. Lastly, it was argued that hardship or inequity is no ground for not charging interest under sections 234B and 234C before allowing

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI I vs. ANANT RAJ INDUSTRIES P. LTD.

The appeals are dismissed

154 of the said Act. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the revenue on CIT v. Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd: 253 ITR 791 (Ker) and Nicco Corporation Ltd v. CIT: 272 ITR 58 (Cal). 15. Lastly, it was argued that hardship or inequity is no ground for not charging interest under sections 234B and 234C before allowing

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. BIOSEED RESEARCH (INDIA) PVT. LIMITED

The appeals are dismissed

154 of the said Act. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the revenue on CIT v. Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd: 253 ITR 791 (Ker) and Nicco Corporation Ltd v. CIT: 272 ITR 58 (Cal). 15. Lastly, it was argued that hardship or inequity is no ground for not charging interest under sections 234B and 234C before allowing

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-1 vs. ALLIED STRIPS LTD

The appeals are dismissed

154 of the said Act. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the revenue on CIT v. Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd: 253 ITR 791 (Ker) and Nicco Corporation Ltd v. CIT: 272 ITR 58 (Cal). 15. Lastly, it was argued that hardship or inequity is no ground for not charging interest under sections 234B and 234C before allowing

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. CADENCE DESIGN SYSTEMS I.P.LTD.

The appeals are dismissed

154 of the said Act. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the revenue on CIT v. Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd: 253 ITR 791 (Ker) and Nicco Corporation Ltd v. CIT: 272 ITR 58 (Cal). 15. Lastly, it was argued that hardship or inequity is no ground for not charging interest under sections 234B and 234C before allowing

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI I vs. CONTINENTAL PACKAGING P.LTD.

The appeals are dismissed

154 of the said Act. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the revenue on CIT v. Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd: 253 ITR 791 (Ker) and Nicco Corporation Ltd v. CIT: 272 ITR 58 (Cal). 15. Lastly, it was argued that hardship or inequity is no ground for not charging interest under sections 234B and 234C before allowing

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MITSUBISHI CORPORATION INDIA P

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

154 of the said Act. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the revenue on CIT v. Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd: 253 ITR 791 (Ker) and Nicco Corporation Ltd v. CIT: 272 ITR 58 (Cal). 15. Lastly, it was argued that hardship or inequity is no ground for not charging interest under sections 234B and 234C before allowing