1. Union of India v. British India Corporation

268 ITR 481Supreme Court of India2004#9637 most cited
11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2024.

Issues it is cited on

section 44afsection 262trade creditorsinadequate enquiryrevision u/s 263non application of mindsection 263(1)lack of enquirymalabar industrialsection 194asection 44asection 40a(3)

Judgments citing 1. Union of India v. British India Corporation

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

ITA 148/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

…hereon after deduction of TDS. Now, evidently, the department cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate, as has wrongly been done in the present case. The following are some of the decisions on this issue : 1. Union of India Vs British India Corporation 268 ITR 481 (S.C) 2. 217 Taxmann 247 (Guj) CIT vs. Jayantkumar Motichand Doshi 3. 217 Taxman 29 (All) CIT vs. Mohan Lai Agarwal 4. ITA No. 564/2012 (Guj) CIT vs. Ulaben Jayant Kumar Doshi 5. CIT Vs H.P. Stock Holdings Ltd. 325 ITR 316 (Del) 28. In view of the above discussion, we find that the assessee is justified in contending that the ld. PCIT has gone w…

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

ITA 147/CHANDI/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

…hereon after deduction of TDS. Now, evidently, the department cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate, as has wrongly been done in the present case. The following are some of the decisions on this issue : 1. Union of India Vs British India Corporation 268 ITR 481 (S.C) 2. 217 Taxmann 247 (Guj) CIT vs. Jayantkumar Motichand Doshi 3. 217 Taxman 29 (All) CIT vs. Mohan Lai Agarwal 4. ITA No. 564/2012 (Guj) CIT vs. Ulaben Jayant Kumar Doshi 5. CIT Vs H.P. Stock Holdings Ltd. 325 ITR 316 (Del) 28. In view of the above discussion, we find that the assessee is justified in contending that the ld. PCIT has gone w…

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

ITA 146/CHANDI/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

…hereon after deduction of TDS. Now, evidently, the department cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate, as has wrongly been done in the present case. The following are some of the decisions on this issue : 1. Union of India Vs British India Corporation 268 ITR 481 (S.C) 2. 217 Taxmann 247 (Guj) CIT vs. Jayantkumar Motichand Doshi 3. 217 Taxman 29 (All) CIT vs. Mohan Lai Agarwal 4. ITA No. 564/2012 (Guj) CIT vs. Ulaben Jayant Kumar Doshi 5. CIT Vs H.P. Stock Holdings Ltd. 325 ITR 316 (Del) 28. In view of the above discussion, we find that the assessee is justified in contending that the ld. PCIT has gone w…

ACIT, CIRCLE- 34(1), NEW DELHI vs. MADHUR JAIN, DELHI

In the result, the solitary ground of appeal of the learned AO is dismissed

ITA 176/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Acit, Madhur Jain, Vs. Circle-34(1), C-2/4, Community Centre- New Delhi I, Ashok Vihar, Phase-Ii, New Delhi Pan: Agrpj0254C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S. S. Negi, Sr. DR
Section 142Section 143

…if the figure of opening stock is correct. Once the profit is accepted. The opening stock ought to have been accepted. The appellant has relied on the decision of the Hon‗ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. British India Corporation reported in 268 ITR 481. The portion of the judgment quoted is as under: …… 10.15 Besides the above, the appellant has relied on three more decisions quoted on page 11 of the submission. These decisions are not being repeated here for the sake of brevity. 10.16 In the written submission, the appellant has submitted that he furnished the copy of the bank statements 4 bo…

PROVIDENT INV. & INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 5 of the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1003/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiprovident Inv & Industries P Ltd, Vs. Ito, Ward-14(2), 4Th Floor, Ito, A-49, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi Cr Building, New Delhi Pan:Aabcj4816P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Venugopal Nair, CAFor Respondent: Sh. FR Meena, Sr. DR
Section 142Section 144Section 69

…nt submitted as under; "On behalf of M/s Provident Investment & Industries P Ltd we address you and request to adjudicate Grounds 3 & 5 to determine the question of limitation as Supreme Court in UOI & Another with British India Corporation And Others [(2004) 268 ITR 481 (SC) holds "Question of limitation is a mandate to the forum and irrespective of the fact whether it was raised or not, the forum must consider and apply if there is no dispute to the facts. a) Audit U/s 142(2A) not ordered as per Board Circular in this respect-Ground 3 b) Assessment framed beyond the period of Limitation after permitted exclusio…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. SANJAY JAIN, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the department are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee’s are allowed as indicated above

ITA 5325/DEL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. A. T. Varkey, Jm

Section 132Section 153A

…ssments are barred by limitation. He submitted that the issue pertaining to limitation is a question which can be taken at any point of time before the Bench during the pendency of the litigation in this regard. He placed reliance on the following decisions:- 268 ITR 481 (SC) CIT Vs. Md. Iqbal 221 ITR 481 (MP) Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Vs. DCIT 313 ITR 263 All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. Vs. DCIT 16 ITR (Trib.) 380. 5. The Ld. DR opposed the application. He submitted that additional ground does not disclose as to on which specific date the order was passed, which goes to indicate that the assessee has not approach…

SH. SANJAY JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the department are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee’s are allowed as indicated above

ITA 5024/DEL/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2015AY 2002-03

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. A. T. Varkey, Jm

Section 132Section 153A

…ssments are barred by limitation. He submitted that the issue pertaining to limitation is a question which can be taken at any point of time before the Bench during the pendency of the litigation in this regard. He placed reliance on the following decisions:- 268 ITR 481 (SC) CIT Vs. Md. Iqbal 221 ITR 481 (MP) Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Vs. DCIT 313 ITR 263 All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. Vs. DCIT 16 ITR (Trib.) 380. 5. The Ld. DR opposed the application. He submitted that additional ground does not disclose as to on which specific date the order was passed, which goes to indicate that the assessee has not approach…

JCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SURYA VINAYAK INDUSTRIES LTD. AMALGAMATED COMPANY OF AMALGAMATING COMPANY M/S. RIM ZIM VALLEY PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the department are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee’s are allowed as indicated above

ITA 3170/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. A. T. Varkey, Jm

Section 132Section 153A

…ssments are barred by limitation. He submitted that the issue pertaining to limitation is a question which can be taken at any point of time before the Bench during the pendency of the litigation in this regard. He placed reliance on the following decisions:- 268 ITR 481 (SC) CIT Vs. Md. Iqbal 221 ITR 481 (MP) Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Vs. DCIT 313 ITR 263 All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. Vs. DCIT 16 ITR (Trib.) 380. 5. The Ld. DR opposed the application. He submitted that additional ground does not disclose as to on which specific date the order was passed, which goes to indicate that the assessee has not approach…

JCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SURYA VINAYAK INDUSTRIES LTD. AMALGAMATED COMPANY OF AMALGAMATING COMPANY M/S. RIM ZIM VALLEY PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the department are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee’s are allowed as indicated above

ITA 3167/DEL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2015AY 2003-04

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. A. T. Varkey, Jm

Section 132Section 153A

…ssments are barred by limitation. He submitted that the issue pertaining to limitation is a question which can be taken at any point of time before the Bench during the pendency of the litigation in this regard. He placed reliance on the following decisions:- 268 ITR 481 (SC) CIT Vs. Md. Iqbal 221 ITR 481 (MP) Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Vs. DCIT 313 ITR 263 All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. Vs. DCIT 16 ITR (Trib.) 380. 5. The Ld. DR opposed the application. He submitted that additional ground does not disclose as to on which specific date the order was passed, which goes to indicate that the assessee has not approach…

JCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SURYA VINYAK INDUSTRIES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the department are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee’s are allowed as indicated above

ITA 3162/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. A. T. Varkey, Jm

Section 132Section 153A

…ssments are barred by limitation. He submitted that the issue pertaining to limitation is a question which can be taken at any point of time before the Bench during the pendency of the litigation in this regard. He placed reliance on the following decisions:- 268 ITR 481 (SC) CIT Vs. Md. Iqbal 221 ITR 481 (MP) Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Vs. DCIT 313 ITR 263 All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. Vs. DCIT 16 ITR (Trib.) 380. 5. The Ld. DR opposed the application. He submitted that additional ground does not disclose as to on which specific date the order was passed, which goes to indicate that the assessee has not approach…

JCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SURYA VINYAK INDUSTRIES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the department are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee’s are allowed as indicated above

ITA 3158/DEL/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2015AY 2001-02

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. A. T. Varkey, Jm

Section 132Section 153A

…ssments are barred by limitation. He submitted that the issue pertaining to limitation is a question which can be taken at any point of time before the Bench during the pendency of the litigation in this regard. He placed reliance on the following decisions:- 268 ITR 481 (SC) CIT Vs. Md. Iqbal 221 ITR 481 (MP) Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Vs. DCIT 313 ITR 263 All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. Vs. DCIT 16 ITR (Trib.) 380. 5. The Ld. DR opposed the application. He submitted that additional ground does not disclose as to on which specific date the order was passed, which goes to indicate that the assessee has not approach…

1. Union of India v. British India Corporation (268 ITR 481) — Cited in 11 Judgments | BharatTax