108 ITR 335 (SC); Barendra Prasad Ray v. ITO

166 ITR 93Supreme Court of India1987#23107 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2021.

Judgments citing 108 ITR 335 (SC); Barendra Prasad Ray v. ITO

AJAY ARORA,KANPUR vs. ADDL. CIT, KANPUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 90/LKW/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora

Section 143(3)Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…uity in law, being well settled by the Apex Court, even as apparent from the cited decisions, to which others by it, as in Carborandum Co. v. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 335 (SC); Barendra Prasad Ray v. ITO [1981] 129 ITR 295 (SC); CIT v. T.I. and M. Sales Ltd. [1987] 166 ITR 93 (SC); and GVK Industries Ltd. v. ITO [2015] 371 ITR 453 (SC) could be added with profit, and it is only the facts of each case which are thus determinative of a decision either way, even as apparent from the reading of the said decisions.The matter, in view of the foregoing, would merit being restored to the file of the AO for undertaking the nece…

KOTA JAYAPAUL, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-6(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 1406/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Jun 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2011-12 Kota Jayapaul, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad – 18. Ward-6(2), Pan: Amjpk 7023 L Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri K.C. Devdas Revenue By: Sri Sunil Kumar Pandey, Dr Date Of Hearing: 28/01/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 18/06/2020 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.:

For Appellant: Sri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Sri Sunil Kumar Pandey, DR
Section 143(3)Section 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “B”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 Kota Jayapaul, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad – 18. Ward-6(2), PAN: AMJPK 7023 L Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sri K.C. Devdas Revenue by: Sri Sunil Kumar Pandey, DR Date of hearing: 28/01/2020 Date of pronouncement: 18/06/2020 ORDER PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM.: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-6, Hyderabad in appeal No. 1317/2014-15/CIT(A)/16-17, dated 15/07/2016…

MITSUBISHI CORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 16(2), NEW DELHI

ITA 5184/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143Section 144CSection 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘I-2’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.5184/Del./2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14) M/s. Mitsubishi Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., vs. DCIT, Birla Tower, 5th Floor, Circle 16 (2), 25, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 001. (PAN : AAACM4764G) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Tarandeep Singh, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 12.09.2017 Date of Order : 22.09.2017 O R D E R PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : The Appellant, M/s. Mitsubishi Corp…

108 ITR 335 (SC); Barendra Prasad Ray v. ITO (166 ITR 93) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax