114 ITR 853 (Kar.), CIT v. Sugauli Sugar Works (P.) Ltd.

81 ITR 400High Court1971#21426 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 346,713 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 41(1)

Judgments citing 114 ITR 853 (Kar.), CIT v. Sugauli Sugar Works (P.) Ltd.

Saket Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 2(3) Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 646/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Satwika Jhan, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam (CIT) a
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 41(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 646/JPR/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2014-15 Saket Agarwal cuke The ITO, 27, Everest Vihar, Kings Road, Vs. Ward-2(3), Jaipur. Nirman Nagar, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AEKPA9319Q vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Ms. Satwika Jhan, Adv. jktLo dh vksj ls@ Rev…

Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata Xix, Kolkata vs. M/S Sanderson and Morgans

ITA/155/2011HC Calcutta07 Feb 2024

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 7Th February, 2024 Appearance: Mr. Vipul Kundalia, Adv. Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. ...For The Appellant. Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ananda Sen, Adv. Ms. Swapna Das, Adv. Mr. Asit Kumar De, Adv. ...For The Respondent. 1. Heard Sri Vipul Kundalia, Learned Senior Standing Counsel Along With Sri Soumen Bhattacharjee, Learned Junior Standing Counsel For The Appellant/Department & Sri J. P. Khaitan, Learned Senior Counsel Assisted By Sri Ananda Sen, Smt. Swapna Das & Sri Asit Kumar De, Learned Advocates For The Respondent/Assessee.

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 260A

…this matter.” (Emphasis supplied) 18. The principle laid down in the above referred judgment of this Court in Sandersons & Morgans (supra) has been referred/followed by Allahabad High Court in Bijli Cotton Mill (P) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1971) 81 ITR 400 (All) and by Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Motor General Finance Ltd. (1974) ITR 582 (Del.) 19. In Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sundarm Iyengar & Sons Ltd. (1996) 6 SCC 294 (paras 13, 17) Hon’ble Supreme Court impliedly approved the principle laid down in Sandersons & Morgans (supra) as under:- “13. In the case of CIT v. San…

Commissioner of Income Tax, Central II, Kolkata vs. Haldiram Bhujiwala Limited

ITAT/155/2011HC Calcutta06 Jun 2022

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 7Th February, 2024 Appearance: Mr. Vipul Kundalia, Adv. Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. ...For The Appellant. Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ananda Sen, Adv. Ms. Swapna Das, Adv. Mr. Asit Kumar De, Adv. ...For The Respondent. 1. Heard Sri Vipul Kundalia, Learned Senior Standing Counsel Along With Sri Soumen Bhattacharjee, Learned Junior Standing Counsel For The Appellant/Department & Sri J. P. Khaitan, Learned Senior Counsel Assisted By Sri Ananda Sen, Smt. Swapna Das & Sri Asit Kumar De, Learned Advocates For The Respondent/Assessee.

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 260A

…this matter.” (Emphasis supplied) 18. The principle laid down in the above referred judgment of this Court in Sandersons & Morgans (supra) has been referred/followed by Allahabad High Court in Bijli Cotton Mill (P) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1971) 81 ITR 400 (All) and by Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Motor General Finance Ltd. (1974) ITR 582 (Del.) 19. In Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sundarm Iyengar & Sons Ltd. (1996) 6 SCC 294 (paras 13, 17) Hon’ble Supreme Court impliedly approved the principle laid down in Sandersons & Morgans (supra) as under:- “13. In the case of CIT v. San…

Anil Kumar Dangayach HUF, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 976/JPR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Mar 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar &For Respondent: Shri L.R. Meena (CIT)
Section 41(1)Section 44A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jkWo] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh HkkxpUnkno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 976/JP/2016 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2012-13. cuke Anil Kumar Dangayach HUF The Income Tax Officer, D-49, Hathi Babu Marg, Vs. Ward 3(2), Bani Park, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. AACHA 0340 R vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri S.L. Poddar & Ms Isha Kanungo (Advocates ) jktLo dh vksj ls@…

114 ITR 853 (Kar.), CIT v. Sugauli Sugar Works (P.) Ltd. (81 ITR 400) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax