Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 41 (1.53 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs Bharat Machinery And Hardware Mart on 16 March, 1981

Sarabhai Chemicals (P) Ltd. vs Cit on 6 February, 2002

5.2. As regards the ground on which the interest charged under section 215 was challenged, the Tribunal in para 23 of its judgment observing that, though it had rejected the assessee's claim that on the basis of resolution dated 30-6-1978, it had modified its original arrangement and, therefore, there was no accrual of income and hence, no liability to advance tax was rejected by it, "it cannot be said that the assessee could predicate the said assessment based on estimate of notional income from interest. The question of determining accrual of income is a highly complex issue and the fact that a decision is reached against the assessee cannot be determinative of its liability to pay advance tax which arises in accordance with the statutory date fixed in the Act." Relying upon the decision of this court in CIT v. Bharat Machinery & Hardware Mart (supra), the Tribunal held that levy of interest under section 215 of the Act, on the facts of the case, was not justified for the assessment years 1979-80. The assessee's appeal was accordingly partly allowed on the question of interest under section 215 of the Act.
Gujarat High Court Cites 78 - Cited by 15 - Full Document

Sarabhai Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. (Now Known ... vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 6 February, 2002

5.2 As regards the ground on which the interest charged under Section 215 was challenged, the Tribunal in paragraph 23 of its judgment observing that, though it had rejected the assessee's claim that on the basis of resolution dated 30th June 1978 it had modified its original arrangement and therefore, there was no accrual of income and hence, no liability to advance tax was rejected by it, "it cannot be said that the assessee could predicate the said assessment based on estimate of notional income from interest. The question of determining accrual of income is a highly complex issue and the fact that a decision is reached against the assessee cannot be determinative of its liability to pay advance tax which arises in accordance with the statutory date fixed in the Act." Relying upon the decision of this Court in C.I.T. v. Bharat Machinery & Hardware Mart, reported in (1982) 136 ITR 875, the Tribunal held that levy of interest under Section 215 of the Act, on the facts of the case, was not justified for the Assessment Year 1979-80. The assessee's appeal was accordingly partly allowed on the question of interest under Section 215 of the Act.
Gujarat High Court Cites 81 - Cited by 16 - K A Puj - Full Document

Income Tax Officer vs Neelam Cine Enterprises (Also Neelam ... on 4 October, 1996

14. We have considered the facts and rival contentions. We find that the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court is on payment of interest under s. 214 and as such the facts thereof are different and distinguishable from the facts of the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Bharat Machinery & Hardware (supra) and as such the ratio of that decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case. We, however, note that the interest under s. 215 became leviable on account of various additions made in the returned income and that having not been anticipated at the time of payment of advance tax the interest is not leviable in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case cited supra. In this view of the matter, the interest charged on account of the additions made which could not be anticipated at the time of payment of advance tax is directed to be deleted.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 13 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Prabhat Oil Mills. on 3 April, 1995

14. The last grievance of the Revenue is that the CIT(A) is not justified in directing not to charge interest under S. 215 of the Act. This ground is consequential in nature and does not survive after taking into consideration the relief given by the CIT(A). Even otherwise the assessee could not have foreseen, the addition to its income and accordingly the CIT(A) is justified in giving his directions following the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bharat Machinery & Hardware Mart (1982) 136 ITR 875 (Guj).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 9 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Madhusudan Vegetable Products Co. Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer on 29 August, 1986

7. The assessee-company is now in appeal and the learned counsel reiterated the arguments as had been advanced before the Commissioner (Appeals). We accordingly do not repeat them here. The learned departmental representative, on the other hand, supported the orders of the ITO and the Commissioner (Appeals) and urged that the penalty be confirmed. A reference was also made to the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Bharat Machinery & Hardware Mart [1982] 136 ITR 875.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 10 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Income-Tax Officer vs Thanmal Mohanlal. on 23 November, 1987

The demand notice is the culmination of the various steps. On a clear reading of the facts as contained in the order, as already mentioned above, the ITO is totally silent in respect of any default on the part of the assessee. The working sheet made by the clerks of the Income-tax Department cannot be said to be an order passed by the ITO. It is on these lines that the Calcutta High Court in 139 ITR 946 (sic), CIT v. Bharat Machinery & Hardware Mart (1982) 136 ITR 875 (Guj.)
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 21 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Surat Tennis Club vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax on 22 December, 1999

13. The other remaining two grounds relate to charging of interests under sections 139 and 215. Since these grounds are consequential in nature, depending on the computation of income for taxable purpose as indicated above, we direct the assessing officer to consider the issue of levy of interest while doing the recomputation of income and the charging of tax under section 164(2), keeping also in mind the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Bharat Machinery & Hardivare Mart (1982) 136 ITR 875 (Guj).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next