Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.29 seconds)
The Belgaum Industrial Co-Op. Bank ... vs Assessee on 15 January, 2015 cites

Ito vs Thodupuzha Urban Co-Operative Bank ... on 18 July, 2003

We do not agree with the finding of ITAT, Tribunal as Hon'ble Kerala High Court has occasioned to interpret Section194A(3)(v) and 194A(3)(viia) of the Act. The decision of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of ITO & Ors. vs. Thodupuzha Urban Co-operative Bank, wherein they have clearly defined and interpreted the Section it appears that the Bench did not consider the provision of section 194A(3)(viia). Therefore, when there is a specific provision, general provision cannot be applied in the case of the assessee otherwise the provision of section 194A(3)(viia) will become redundant. The section cannot be read in this manner. For the sake of clarity, we have analyse the Section 194A(3)(v) and (viia) which read as under:
Kerala High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Jalgaon District Central Co-Operative ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 5 September, 2003

The issue at hand with Bombay High Court in the Jalagaon District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd, Supra was the definition o the word ‗member' as appearing in clause (v) of section 194(3) and the powers of the Central Board of Direct Taxes to issue circulars u/s119 which override or detract from the provisions of sub-clause(v) to the co-operative societies engaged in the business of banking discussed specifically. Therefore, the said decision does not help the case of the appellant.
Bombay High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 71 - B B Vagyani - Full Document

C.I.T.,New Delhi vs Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. on 1 August, 2014

(iii) Since the appellant bank is covered by the provisions of sub-clause(b) of clause(i) of Section 194A(3) as well as the provisions of clause (viia) of the said action which are specific in nature, the appellant cannot put forth its claim under section 194(3)(v) which are general in nature. As the appellant is a co-operative society engaged in the business of banking, it is covered under these aforesaid specific clauses. As per AO there are a number of judicial pronouncements wherein it has been held that a specific provision override a general provision. For this purpose reliance has been placed by the AO on Kirloskar Pneumatic Company Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Surtax (1994) 210 ITR 485 (Bom) and CIT vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd (2002) 254 ITR 627(Del).
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

M/S The Bailhongal Urban Co-Op Bank ... vs The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 5 June, 2012

5.2.10 In view of the above discussion and taking into consideration the various arguments given by the A.O in her order, the legislature's intent behind the introduction of relevant provisions of Section 194A as explained in the explanatory notes to Finance (No.2) Act, 1991, Supra and respectfully following the decision of Hon'ble I.T.A.T. Panaji Bench in the case of Bailhongal Urban Co-op Bank Ltd, Supra, the disallowance made by the A.O under section 40(a)(ia) amounting to Rs.7,14,002/- is confirmed."
Karnataka High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 9 - M M Shantanagoudar - Full Document

Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Surtax on 9 December, 1993

(iii) Since the appellant bank is covered by the provisions of sub-clause(b) of clause(i) of Section 194A(3) as well as the provisions of clause (viia) of the said action which are specific in nature, the appellant cannot put forth its claim under section 194(3)(v) which are general in nature. As the appellant is a co-operative society engaged in the business of banking, it is covered under these aforesaid specific clauses. As per AO there are a number of judicial pronouncements wherein it has been held that a specific provision override a general provision. For this purpose reliance has been placed by the AO on Kirloskar Pneumatic Company Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Surtax (1994) 210 ITR 485 (Bom) and CIT vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd (2002) 254 ITR 627(Del).
Bombay High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 5 - S V Manohar - Full Document
1