Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 1051 (2.65 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income Tax,Mumbai vs Anjum M.H.Ghaswala & Ors on 18 October, 2001

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

64. It was pointed out on behalf of the assessees more than once before us that the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ranchi Club Ltd. (supra) should be followed in preference to the judgment in the case of Anjum Ghaswala (supra) because the former judgment is a direct judgment on the issue before us. It was also pointed out that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kalyankumar Ray's case (supra) was rendered while dismissing a Special Leave Petition under Article 136, though with reasons, but nevertheless it cannot be preferred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ranchi Club Ltd. (supra), because the latter is a judgment rendered in a Civil Appeal.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 237 - Cited by 82 - Full Document

Chandra Prabha,, Faridabad vs Assessee

Since we have held that the entire capital gain is chargeable to tax in the year in which sale deed was registered, the capital gain has accrued in the relevant year and, therefore, interest will be chargeable under section 234A/B/C in assessment year 2007-08 in view of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anjum M. H. Ghaswala (supra). The assessees himself have admitted capital gains in the year under consideration. They have disputed levy of interest on the ground that entire sale consideration was not received. Therefore, the appeal filed before the ld. CIT (A) denying the payment of interest is maintainable being a legal issue. Therefore, it is held that the ld. CIT (A) had jurisdiction under section 246A to decide the appeal relating to levy of interest.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Asstt. Cit vs Adani Export Ltd. on 31 May, 2007

23. The liability to interest, it may be stated, is not a penal one but compensatory in view of the decisions of Supreme Court in CIT v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala and Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v. CIT as also various High Courts decisions i.e., Pentagon Engg. (P) Ltd. v. CIT , CIT v. Dhanalakshmy Weaving Works , CIT v. Prem Nath Motors (P) Ltd. , Kanoi Industries (P) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT , West Bengal State Electricity Board v. Dy. CIT and Anr. and Emakulam District Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT and Anr. . Therefore the bona fide belief of the assessee, even if was there, would not be of any help and on compensatory ground the assessee had to pay interest as the money due to Government was utilized by the assessee until paid.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 75 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vijay Shankar Pandey vs Union Of India Through on 20 December, 2013

119. Learned counsel for the applicant had cited the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Anjum M.H.Ghaswala (supra) and used it against the actions of the respondents of having passed the impugned order. But the same judgment would apply with equal force against the actions of the previous Inquiry Officer also, and the abuse by him of the inherent power vested in him, in a manner which was contrary to the provisions of Rule 8 (6) and 8 (24) of the 1969 Rules. Therefore, the applicant cannot be allowed to derive any benefit from the said cited judgment also.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Lucknow Cites 98 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Alcatel Lucent Bell Nv, New Delhi vs Department Of Income Tax

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to withdraw interest u/s 234B by relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court dated 30.08.2010 in the case of Jacob Civil Incorporated, without appreciating that the levy of interest u/s 234B is mandatory as held in the case of CIT Vs. Anjum Ghaswala & Others reported in 252 ITR 1 (SC)."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smriti Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs Settlement Commission (It And Wt) And ... on 13 September, 2004

33. By the impugned order it is observed held that the ratio laid down in the case of Gulraj Engineering Construction Co. [SB] has been upset by necessary implication by the Supreme Court judgment rendered in the case of CIT v. Anjum M. H. Ghaswala and also by the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court expressly in the case of Hindustan Bulk Carriers [2003] 259 ITR 449. It is an admitted position that the aforesaid two decisions were not rendered when the previous order was passed. Now the question is whether the Supreme Court pronouncement can be applicable retrospectively in the cases, which have been decided already. The Full Bench decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court quoted above, has granted relief to the Revenue, giving retrospective operation to the aforesaid decision of the jurisdictional High Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court) in a case disposed of under Section 154 of the said Act within one year from the date of passing order.
Calcutta High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 3 - K J Sengupta - Full Document

Aop Of Sanjaybhai R. Patel & 11 Ors. vs Assessing Officer on 15 January, 2004

The petitioners have approached the Settlement Commission for settlement of their cases in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XIX-A of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Settlement Commission had passed orders on 31-3-1999 under section 245D(4) in respect of each of the petitioners, inter alia, waiving and/or reducing interest under sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act in accordance with the state of law at the relevant point of time. After a period of little less than four years, the petitioners received notices dated 21-2-2003, from the Settlement Commission stating that in view of the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Anjum MH Ghaswala & Ors. (2001) 252 ITR 1 (SC) the orders passed on 31-3-1999, required rectification and the petitioners were asked to file their objections latest by 7-3-2003 and to attend the hearing on 11-3-2003. Since the time-granted was very short, the petitioners have asked for further time to file their reply and hence, the Settlement Commission had issued another notice dated 7-3-2003, for rectification of the order dated 31-3-1999. The petitioners have filed their reply on 8-3-2003, stating inter alia that the Settlement Commission has no power to rectify its order under section 154 of the Act as it is not an Income Tax Authority referred to in section 116 of the Act. The Settlement Commission after having, considered the said reply had passed orders on 20-3-2003, withdrawing the reduction or waiver of interest granted by it vide its order dated 31-3-1999.
Gujarat High Court Cites 55 - Cited by 0 - K A Puj - Full Document

The Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs Adani Export Limited And Adani Wilmar ... on 28 December, 2006

(ii) The decision of Third Member was rendered prior to the decision of Hon. Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala 252 ITR 1 (SC) as upto that date the issue of chargeability of interest under Section 234B was debatable and that decision of Tribunal did not have the benefit of later pronouncement of Hon. Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala (supra).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 60 - Cited by 9 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next