Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 120 (5.07 seconds)
Documents citing Uday Mistanna Bhandar And Complex, Tej ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax And Ors. on 2 July, 1996

S.A. Waisingh Laxmansnvgh Rajfut vs Ito on 23 January, 2003

In view of above facts and circumstances and the discussion I am of the opinion that the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Ghaswala (supra), has neither overruled nor changed the provisions of law held by the apex court in case of Ranchi Club Ltd. (supra) and, therefore, the proposition of law that "Interest under sections 234A and 234B can't be charged without passing a specific order by the assessing officer in the assessment order", still holds good.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Panji Cites 40 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Motorola Inc., Erisson Radio Systems ... vs Deputy C.I.T. on 22 June, 2005

This, in our humble understanding, is a declaration of the law. It follows therefrom that if form ITNS 150 specifies the section under which the interest is charged, it is as if the assessment order itself has specified the particular section under which interest is charged. The conclusion that follows from this is that the requirement that the assessment order should contain a direction to charge interest specifying the section under which interest is charged stands satisfied. This declaration of the law does not appear to have been brought to the notice of the Patna High Court in Ranchi Club Ltd. v. CIT, 222 ITR 45(supra) which was affirmed in appeal by the Supreme Court in 247 ITR 209.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 237 - Cited by 82 - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S.Computer Graphics Ltd on 6 February, 2006

e) From the above judgment, it is clear that there was no specific charge of interest for the assessment order and hence the Patna High Court had taken a view that the levy of interest under Sections 234A, 234B and 234C is not valid in law. A similar view was also taken in the judgment of Patna High Court reported in 217 ITR 72 in the case of Ranchi Club Ltd. Vs. C.I.T. and in the judgment of Delhi High Court reported in 276 ITR 164 in the case of C.I.T. Vs. Gold Tex Furnishing Industries.
Madras High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 19 - P P Raja - Full Document

The Principal Commissioner Of Income ... vs Manoj Kapoor on 16 August, 2023

"10. We may here also point out that the provisions of Section 234B which were inserted by the Direct Tax Law (Amendment) Act, 1987 with effect from 1.4.89 underwent further amendments after the decision of the Supreme Court in Ranchi Club Limited case (supra) by further adding an Explanation in the said provisions with retrospective effect from 1.4.1989 by the Finance Act, 2001 which reads as under:
Jharkhand High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 0 - R Mukhopadhyay - Full Document

Surendra M. Khandhar vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 3 December, 1999

55. It is argued that in the Ranchi Club case relied on by the learned counsel for the assessee (supra), there was no default in filing of the return of income or in payment of advance tax/self-assessment tax and in the assessee's case, the return of income had been filed belatedly and so the facts of the assessee's case are distinguishable from those of the Ranchi Club case considered by the Hon'ble Patna High Court.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 65 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Ddit (E), New Delhi vs National Association Of Software And ... on 20 September, 2019

In Ranchi Club (supra) and Standing Conferecne of Public Enterprises (supra), it is held that merely because the assessee had entered into transactions with non members and earned profits out of transactions held with them, it is right to claim exemption on the principle of mutuality in respect of transactions held by it with its members is not lost. The principle of establishing identity between the contributors and participators would apply only in respect of contributions made by the members. Hon'ble court concluded that the assessee being a mutual concern, the income derived from the property let out to its members and their guests and sale of liquor etc. to its members would not be taxable.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

United Phosphorus Limited vs Joint Cit on 22 May, 2001

3.2. For this proposition reliance is placed upon the recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Ranchi Club Ltd. (2000) 164 CTR (SC) 200 wherein the court has upheld the decisions of the Patna High Court in the case of Ranch Club Ltd. v. CIT (1996) 131 CTR (Pat) 368 : (1996) 217 ITR 72 (Pat) and Uday Mistan Bhandar & Complex & Ors. v. CIT & Ors. (1997) 137 CTR (Pat) 376 : (1997) 222 ITR 44 (Pat) wherein the High Court had directed that in the absence of any specific mention by the assessing authority in the assessment order in respect of charging interest under sections 234A and 234B, no interest could be recovered merely by way of demand notice.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 223 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

United Phosphorus Ltd. vs Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 22 May, 2001

3.2 For this proposition reliance is placed upon the recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Ranchi Club Ltd. [2001] 247 ITR 209 wherein the Court has upheld the decisions of the Patna High Court in the case of Ranchi Club Ltd. v. CIT [1996] 217 ITR 72 and Uday Mistanna Bhandar & Complex v. CIT [1996] 222 ITR 44 wherein the High Court had directed that in the absence of any specific mention by the assessing authority in the assessment order in respect of charging interest under Sections 234A and 234B, no interest could be recovered merely by way of demand notice.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 196 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next