Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 405 (1.00 seconds)
Documents citing Sandvik Asia Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Pune & Ors on 27 January, 2006

Sanjeevkumar Biharilal Kabra And ... vs The Union Of India And Others on 22 April, 2022

38. The Delhi High Court in a case of G. L. Jain Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax - XI & Ors. (supra) after adverting to its earlier judgment in case of Ajay Gupta Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) and judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sandvik Asia Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of ::: Uploaded on - 22/04/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 23/04/2022 16:10:36 ::: (19) wp-4402-2021 Income Tax-1, Pune (supra) has held that there is no justification in refusing to pay compensation/damages for the delay caused by the respondents revenue in releasing the payment within the time prescribed due and payable to the petitioners and such interpretation cannot be accepted which would devoid the rights of the assessee. The Delhi High Court accordingly directed the revenue to pay interest at the rate of 12% p.a. on the balance amount for the subsequent period i.e. from the date of assessment order till the payment. In our view, the said judgment also would apply to the facts of this case.
Bombay High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 1 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

Mohan Meakins Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax on 31 March, 2006

Therefore, the ratio of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Sandvik Asia Ltd. v. CIT (supra) and the judgments of various other High Courts referred to above is applicable to the facts of the present case also. Thus, the assessee is also entitled to simple interest on interest from the dates when the refund of interest became due till the date when such refund of interest was granted or yet to be granted at the rate applicable and specified in the Act. However, the assessee would not be entitled to compound rate of interest. We, therefore, set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and direct the AO to grant interest on amount of interest due to the assessee from the dates when the interest became due till the date of granting refund of interest as per rates specified in the Act and after allowing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. We order accordingly. The grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed to the extent indicated above.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 24 - Cited by 15 - Full Document

Shri Rathi Steel Ltd vs Commissioner Central Excise & ... on 27 January, 2025

17. Since reliance was placed by the High Court on the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. and Anr., we must note that what arose for consideration in that case, was the constitutional validity of the Devika Rani Roerich Estate (Acquisition & Transfer) Act, 1996, and Section 110 of the Karnataka Lands Reforms Act, 1996 and certain notifications issued by the State Government. The questions which arose for consideration were set out in paragraph 25 of the decision as under :-
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 55 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Amkap Marketing Pvt Ltd vs Ce & Cgst Allahabad on 27 January, 2025

17. Since reliance was placed by the High Court on the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. and Anr., we must note that what arose for consideration in that case, was the constitutional validity of the Devika Rani Roerich Estate (Acquisition & Transfer) Act, 1996, and Section 110 of the Karnataka Lands Reforms Act, 1996 and certain notifications issued by the State Government. The questions which arose for consideration were set out in paragraph 25 of the decision as under :-
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 55 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next