1. Sheonath Sing v. CIT

37 ITR 220Reported decision1959#20743 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2018.

Judgments citing 1. Sheonath Sing v. CIT

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SUDEV INDUSTRIES LTD.

ITA/805/2005HC Delhi31 May 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 230A(1)Section 260ASection 282(2)

…r gone on technical triviality. Even in the litigation of private parties, the courts have shown a wide measure of forgiveness in similar acts of omission or failure as pointed out by learned counsel for the Revenue. (See Gouri Kumari Devi‟s case [1959] 37 ITR 220). At page 223 of the Reports, the Patna High Court has observed as follows: “With regard to the analogous provisions of Order 6, rule 14, there is authority for the view that the omission or failure on the part of the plaintiff to sign the plaint is a mere irregularity which can subsequently be rectified and the omission is not a vit…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S SUDEV INDUSTRIES LIMITED

ITA-805/2005HC Delhi31 May 2018
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 230A(1)Section 260ASection 282(2)

…r gone on technical triviality. Even in the litigation of private parties, the courts have shown a wide measure of forgiveness in similar acts of omission or failure as pointed out by learned counsel for the Revenue. (See Gouri Kumari Devi‟s case [1959] 37 ITR 220). At page 223 of the Reports, the Patna High Court has observed as follows: “With regard to the analogous provisions of Order 6, rule 14, there is authority for the view that the omission or failure on the part of the plaintiff to sign the plaint is a mere irregularity which can subsequently be rectified and the omission is not a vit…

M/S ELECTRONICS & CONTROLS POWER SYSTEMS PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 914/BANG/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri. Gurunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2008-09 M/s. Electronics & Controls Power Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Systems Pvt. Ltd., of Income Tax, SPL-B, 168, 3rd Cross, 1st Stage, Circle-11(3), Peenya Indl. Estate, Bengaluru. Bengaluru-560058. PAN : AAACE3200F APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. Gurunathan, Advocate Revenue by : Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR Date of hearing : 31.10.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 03.11.2017 O R D E R Per Sunil Kumar Yadav, JM : This appeal is preferred…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITA/7/2006HC Delhi08 Feb 2012
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 260A

…r gone on technical triviality. Even in the litigation of private parties, the courts have shown a wide measure of forgiveness in similar acts of omission or failure as pointed out by learned counsel for the Revenue. (See Gouri Kumari Devi‟s case [1959] 37 ITR 220). At page 223 of the Reports, the Patna High Court has observed as follows: “With regard to the analogous provisions of Order 6, rule 14, there is authority for the view that the omission or failure on the part of the plaintiff to sign the plaint is a mere irregularity which can subsequently be rectified and the omission is not a vit…

1. Sheonath Sing v. CIT (37 ITR 220) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax