1 SCC 46, Mohammad Gazi v. State of MP

2 SCC 459Reported decision1996#10560 most cited
10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2019.

Judgments citing 1 SCC 46, Mohammad Gazi v. State of MP

THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI KOUNDINYA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY

ITTA/179/2019HC Andhra Pradesh29 Oct 2019

Bench: C.PRAVEEN KUMAR,CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

…6) 3 SCC 643 154. (2001) 3 SCC 609 155. 1963 SC 1241 156. AIR 1961 AP 50 157. AIR 1967 SC 944 158. AIR 2005 SC 862 159. (1992) 73 CLT 567 160. 1982) 3 SCC 519 161. (2016) 8 SCC 509 162. (2002) 8 SCC 228 163. (2018) 14 SCC 408 164. (2002) 2 SCC 459 165. (2015) 14 SCC 327 166. (2016) 11 SCC 31 CJ, MSM,J and DVSS,J W.P.Nos.13203 of 2020 & batch 6 167. (1990) 1 SCC 328 168. (1971) 2 SCC 261 169. AIR 1957 Madras 196 170. (2006) 1 ALD 468 171. (1996) ILLJ 1082 AP (FB) 172. 2000 (6) ALD 609 173. (1970) 2 W.LR. 1264 = (1970) A.C. 1136 174. (2003) 5 SCC 134 175. 1963 S…

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MANTEC CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the department stands

ITA 5392/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri B.B. Bhagat, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40aSection 9Section 9(1)

…eption in the consideration of particular cases - UP SRTC v. Imiiaz Hussain [2006] 1 SCC 380, Shaikh Salim Haji Abdul Khagumsab v. Kumar [2006] 1 SCC 46, Mohammad Gazi v. State of MP [2000] 4 SCC 342 and Gvrsharan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee [1996] 2 SCC 459." 9 Assessment year 2010-11 5.1.1 As no distinguishing fact has been brought to our notice by the Ld. Sr. DR on this issue, respectfully following the order of the Coordinate Bench in assessee’s own case as aforementioned, we dismiss ground nos. 3 and 4 of the department’s appeal. 5.2 Ground no. 5 challenges the action of the Ld. Commissioner…

DCIT 14(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. CHEMICAL PROCESS PIPING P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1503/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm Dcit 14(1)(2) Vs. M/S. Chemical Process Room No.470, 4Th Floor Piping Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan Cpe Plots, Bsd Marg Maharshikarve Road Off. Sion Trombay Road Mumbai – 400 020 Govandi, Mumbai – 400 088 Pan/Gir No. Aaccc6212D Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9Section 9(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM DCIT 14(1)(2) Vs. M/s. Chemical Process Room No.470, 4th Floor Piping Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan CPE Plots, BSD Marg Maharshikarve Road Off. Sion Trombay Road Mumbai – 400 020 Govandi, Mumbai – 400 088 PAN/GIR No. AACCC6212D Appellant) .. Respondent) Revenue by Shri Ashish K V Assessee by Shri V. Chandrasekhar & Shri Ashok Sutar Date of Hearing 14/06/2018 Date of Pronouncement 24/07/2018 आदेश / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M): This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of CIT(A)- 56, Mumbai…

ITO, CHENNAI vs. A.L.HOMES, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1427/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: 31.10.2017
Section 801BSection 801B(10)Section 80ISection 8O

…sideration of particular cases. [see U. P. S. R. T. C. v. Imtiaz Hussain [2006] 1 SCC 380, Shaikh Salim Haji Abdul Khayumsab v. Kumar [2006] 1 SCC 46, Mohammed Gazi v. State of M. P. [2000] 4 SCC 342 and Gursharan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee [1996] 2 SCC 459]. 21. Further the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Revathi Equipment Ltd., 298 ITR 67 (Mad.) while considering the issue of retrospective amendment introduced in relation to the levy of interest under sections 234A and 234B of the Act observed as under: “held, dismissing the appeal, that the assessee had paid advance tax after ded…

DCIT 10(2), MUMBAI vs. UNITED HELICHARTERS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6917/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. United Helicharters Tax-10(2), Pvt Ltd Room No.432, 4Th Floor, 238, Hindustan Ayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Khohinoor Complex, Mumbai 400 020 Lbs Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai 400 064. Pan: Aaacu 3352N Appellant .. Respondent

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 40Section 44ASection 9(1)(vii)

…U.P.5.R. T.e v. Imtiaz Hussain [2006J 1 SCC 380, 8 DCIT Vs. M/s. United Helicharters P.Ltd. Shaikh Salim Ha;i Abdul Khagumsab v. Kumar [2006J 1 SCC 46, Mohammad Gazi v. State of MP [2000J 4 SCC 342 and Gursharan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee [1996J 2 SCC 459." Similarly, while dealing with a question as to whether an assessee can be penalized for failure to carry out an act prior to its incorporation the Apex Court in the case of Lite Insurance Corporation of India v. c/T [1996J 219 ITR 410 made following observations. "11. It is obvious that in the surplus or deficit in any inter- valuation period re…

M/S. SHIVJI PALACE HOTEL & CLUB PVT. LTD.,SAHARANPUR vs. DCIT, UTTAR PRADESH

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5587/DEL/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Feb 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri A.T. Varkey

For Appellant: Shri Anil Chopra, FCA & Shri V.K. Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Anima Barnwal, Senior DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…ption in the consideration of particular cases - UP SRTC v. Imtiaz Hussain [2006J 1 SCC 380, Shaikh Salim Haji Abdul Khagumsab v. Kumar [2006J 1 SCC 46, Mohammad Gazi Vs. State of MP [2000J 4 SCC 342 and Gursharan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee [1996J 2 SCC 459. " “Broom Legal Maxims (Page 73 Tenth Edition) Actus Curle Neminem Gravabit- An act of the court shall prejudice no man. This maxim “ is founded upon justice and good sense; and affords a safe and certain guide for the administration of law”. In virtue of it, where a case stands over for argument an account of the multiplicity of business in court…

M/S. SHIVJI PALACE HOTEL & CLUB PVT. LTD.,SAHARANPUR vs. DCIT, UTTAR PRADESH

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5586/DEL/2014[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Feb 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri A.T. Varkey

For Appellant: Shri Anil Chopra, FCA & Shri V.K. Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Anima Barnwal, Senior DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…ption in the consideration of particular cases - UP SRTC v. Imtiaz Hussain [2006J 1 SCC 380, Shaikh Salim Haji Abdul Khagumsab v. Kumar [2006J 1 SCC 46, Mohammad Gazi Vs. State of MP [2000J 4 SCC 342 and Gursharan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee [1996J 2 SCC 459. " “Broom Legal Maxims (Page 73 Tenth Edition) Actus Curle Neminem Gravabit- An act of the court shall prejudice no man. This maxim “ is founded upon justice and good sense; and affords a safe and certain guide for the administration of law”. In virtue of it, where a case stands over for argument an account of the multiplicity of business in court…

M/S. SHIVJI PALACE HOTEL & CLUB PVT. LTD.,SAHARANPUR vs. DCIT, UTTAR PRADESH

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5584/DEL/2014[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Feb 2016AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri A.T. Varkey

For Appellant: Shri Anil Chopra, FCA & Shri V.K. Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Anima Barnwal, Senior DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…ption in the consideration of particular cases - UP SRTC v. Imtiaz Hussain [2006J 1 SCC 380, Shaikh Salim Haji Abdul Khagumsab v. Kumar [2006J 1 SCC 46, Mohammad Gazi Vs. State of MP [2000J 4 SCC 342 and Gursharan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee [1996J 2 SCC 459. " “Broom Legal Maxims (Page 73 Tenth Edition) Actus Curle Neminem Gravabit- An act of the court shall prejudice no man. This maxim “ is founded upon justice and good sense; and affords a safe and certain guide for the administration of law”. In virtue of it, where a case stands over for argument an account of the multiplicity of business in court…

M/S. SHIVJI PALACE HOTEL & CLUB PVT. LTD.,SAHARANPUR vs. DCIT, UTTAR PRADESH

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5583/DEL/2014[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Feb 2016AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri A.T. Varkey

For Appellant: Shri Anil Chopra, FCA & Shri V.K. Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Anima Barnwal, Senior DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…ption in the consideration of particular cases - UP SRTC v. Imtiaz Hussain [2006J 1 SCC 380, Shaikh Salim Haji Abdul Khagumsab v. Kumar [2006J 1 SCC 46, Mohammad Gazi Vs. State of MP [2000J 4 SCC 342 and Gursharan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee [1996J 2 SCC 459. " “Broom Legal Maxims (Page 73 Tenth Edition) Actus Curle Neminem Gravabit- An act of the court shall prejudice no man. This maxim “ is founded upon justice and good sense; and affords a safe and certain guide for the administration of law”. In virtue of it, where a case stands over for argument an account of the multiplicity of business in court…

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MANTEE CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 4497/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. P.Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. B. B. Bhagat Advocate
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40aSection 9

…eption in the consideration of particular cases - UP SRTC v. Imtiaz Hussain [2006] 1 SCC 380, Shaikh Salim Haji Abdul Khagumsab v. Kumar [2006] 1 SCC 46, Mohammad Gazi v. State of MP [2000] 4 SCC 342 and Gursharan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee [1996] 2 SCC 459.” 5 Page 6 of 6 13. In view of above observations we confirm the order of CIT (A) in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 7395110/- u/s 40a (i) of the Income tax Act. 14. In the result appeal of revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 15.01.2016. - - (H.S.SIDHU) (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated:15/01…