• Follow
Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com   

Income Tax Case Laws - Section: 211

Home Case Index Income Tax Sections List
Cases for Section: 211
Showing 1 to 15 of 31 Records


The CIT, Jaipur Versus M/s Maharaja Shree Umaid Mills Ltd., Jaipur

Rectification of mistake - whether on an application under section 154 of the Income-tax Act interest under section 214 of the Income-tax Act could be granted on advance tax payments, made after the prescribed dates but within the financial year? - Held that - On a perusal of section 210 r.w.s 211 it is clear that the due dates are prescribed to mean that advance tax is required to be paid by an assessee within the prescribed dates and credit is given of the amount paid as advance tax. Tax can be paid up to the end of the financial year, i.e., 31st March and is also to be treated as an advance ....... - .......

2014 (1) TMI 1030 - ITAT MUMBAI

M/s. General Insurance Corporation of India Versus Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

Profits on sale of investments - Held that - The taxability of income of insurance companies under the head income from business and profession as governed by provisions of section 44 read with first schedule to the Income tax Act, does not extend to taxability of profits on sale of investments for the assessment years under consideration - Decided in favour of assessee. - Interest on tax free bonds and dividend income - Held that - Decision in General Insurance Corporation of India, Mumbai Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 1(3) Mumbai & Anr. 2011 (12) TMI 70 - BOMBAY HIGH COUR ....... - .......

2012 (7) TMI 183 - ITAT, DELHI

M/s Airline Allied Services Ltd., Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle-1(1),

Dis allowance of Prior Period Expenses - Held that - the assessee is following mercantile system of accounting. It is well settled that accrual of a statutory liability depends upon the terms of the relevant statute and the quantification or ascertainment cannot postpone its accrual to the extent of admitted liability - the assessee did not furnish any evidence before the AO or CIT(A) that the liability for the expenses shown as prior period expenses crystallized in the respective years under consideration. In the absence of any basis dis allowance is warranted - against assessee. - Disallowan ....... - .......


Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Coimbatore Versus M/s Mani Spinning Mills P. Ltd.

Whether ITAT was right in holding that for purposes of computation of interest under Section 234B and 234C, tax credit u/s 115JAA has to be first set off against the tax payable and the interest under the said sections have to be computed after taking into consideration the tax credit carried forward u/s 115JAA even though there is no legal sanction for such adjustment u/s 208 to 211, u/s 234B or 234C or under any other provisions of the Act - question of la ....... - .......

2007 (9) TMI 190 - DELHI HIGH COURT


Since assessee was assessed to a loss for the A.Y. 1976-77 to 1978-79, thus for the AY 1979-80, assessee was not required to compute advance tax as per sec. 209(1)(a) or file a statement of advance tax interest levied for non-furnishing of statement is not justified


KISHORE LAL (Legal heir of late Ram Rattan Dohra) Versus CIT

Delay of one day in filing the estimate of advance tax - reasons for delay was totally beyond the control of the assessee as his main source of income was share from B and filing of estimate of advance tax was dependent upon the intimation by the said firm - Once a reasonable explanation is available, there ....... - .......

2006 (9) TMI 302 - ITAT DELHI

Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Cir. 9(1), New Delhi Versus SREI International Finance Ltd.

Expenditure incurred in relation to income not includible in total income, Minimum Alternate Tax, Bad debts

2006 (6) TMI 135 - ITAT BOMBAY-E

Nitin Murli Raheja. Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income-tax, Circle 18 (3), Mumbai.

....... - ...... In this view of the matter, the Assessing Officer is directed to exclude Rs. 8,30,000 paid by the assessee on 30-6-2000 while calculating interest under section 234A for the year under appeal. In taking the aforesaid view, we are ably guided by the decision of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in Dr. Prannoy Roy v. CIT 2005 254 ITR 755, which squarely covers the issue in hand. 11. In view of the foregoing, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

2004 (9) TMI 78 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA High Court

Punjab Small Industries And Export Corporation Ltd. Versus Inspecting Assistant Commissioner Of Income-tax (Assessment) And Another.

Whether interest u/s 214 could be denied to the assessee-corporation who had failed to pay the instalment of advance tax in accordance with the date specified u/s 211 held that the Legislature intended to provide that the dates given in section 210(1) were not mandatory as long as two conditions were satisfied, namely, that the entire amount of advance tax was paid up and it was paid up before the end of the financial year. Therefore, there is no controversy on the first question raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that interest on the second instalment at the rate of 12 , is payable ....... - .......

1997 (3) TMI 40 - KERALA High Court

Commissioner Of Income Tax Versus Kerala State Co-operative Marketing Federation Limited

....... - ...... he assessee will be entitled to all consequential reliefs. In the light of the above discussion, we answer question No. 1 in the negative, against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. We answer the second question in the affirmative, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. A copy of this judgment under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.

1995 (12) TMI 32 - MADHYA PRADESH High Court

Ganga Cut Piece Centre Versus Commissioner Of Income-Tax

....... - ...... decided by this court against the assessee and the Tribunal having followed the decision of this court, we hold that no referable questions arise in this case. That being so, we reject the application leaving the applicant free to resort to appropriate remedy when the occasion so arises, as noted above, if permissible under the law. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Counsel fee on either side shall, however, be Rs. 750, if certified.

1995 (4) TMI 22 - RAJASTHAN High Court

Jai Drinks Private Limited Versus Commissioner Of Income-Tax

Advance Tax, Appellate Orders, Financial Year, Interest Payable By Government On Excess Payment, Rectification Proceedings

1994 (7) TMI 73 - MADHYA PRADESH High Court

Commissioner Of Income-Tax Versus Indian Aluminium Industries

....... - ...... aken into consideration by the Income-tax Officer in deciding whether he should reduce the rate of interest payable. This aspect of the matter has not been considered by the Tribunal. The Tribunal will consider this aspect of the matter while giving effect to the order in this reference. A copy of this order under the signature of the Registrar and the seal of the High Court shall be forwarded to the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs.

1991 (5) TMI 37 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA High Court

Commissioner Of Income-Tax Versus Roadmaster Industries Of India Pvt. Limited

....... - ...... dment) Act, 1987, it clearly does not warrant the interpretation as was sought to be put upon it by counsel for the Commissioner of Income-tax as it was evidently clarificatory in nature and must thus be construed as such. Such being the settled position in law, we hereby answer the reference in the negative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. This reference is disposed of accordingly. There will, however, be no order as to costs.

1989 (4) TMI 27 - CALCUTTA High Court

Commissioner Of Income-Tax Versus Ajoy Paper Mills Limited

....... - ...... to be taken into account. For the reasons aforesaid, we are of the opinion that the assessee is entitled to interest if the conditions stated in section 214 are satisfied even though the assessee might not have paid the advance tax by instalments on the due date(s). We, therefore, answer the question referred to this court in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE J. -I agree.


what is new what is new

Latest Updates




More Options


|| About us || Contact us || Feed Back || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map || ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Website