125 ITR 596& and CIT v. Narpat Singh Malkhan Singh ITR 596& and CIT v. Narpat Singh Malkhan Singh

128 ITR 777Reported decision#22311 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,001 Indian tax judgments — from 2023 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 148 Section 263 Section 270A

Judgments citing 125 ITR 596& and CIT v. Narpat Singh Malkhan Singh ITR 596& and CIT v. Narpat Singh Malkhan Singh

Mahaveer Singh, Ahmedabad vs. The PCIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 840/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234FSection 263(1)Section 270ASection 270A(2)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 44A

…radesh High Court has taken a contrary view in the case of Addl. CIT v.Indian Pharmaceuticals (19801_123 ITR 874. Addl. CIT v. Kantilal Jain [19801 125 ITR 3735, Addl. CWT v. Nathoolal Bala Ram (1980). 125 ITR 596& and CIT v. Narpat Singh Malkhan Singh (19811 128 ITR 777 12. This Court in the case of Saraiva Distillery (supra) has held that an order can be said to be erroneous either when it does not decide a point or record a finding on an issue which ought to have been done or decides it wrongly. In the aforesaid case the Assessing Officer had not charged interest while passing the assessment order. This Court…

Vikas Vijay Gupta, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby

ITA 404/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar, Vice President\nAnd Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member\nITA No. 404/Ahd/2024\nAssessment Year 2017-18\nVikas Vijay Gupta\nPrincipal Commissioner\n604 Sarap,\nof Income Tax,\nOpp. Navjivan Press Vs Ahmedabad-1,\nP.O. Navjivan,\nAhmedabad\nAhmedabad-380014,\nGujarat\n(Respondent)\nPAN: AEOPG6723L\n(Appellant)\nAssessee Represented: Shri Jaimin Shah, A.R.\nRevenue Represented: Shri R. N. Dsouza, CIT-DR\nDate of hearing : 27-02-2025\nDate of pronouncement : 27-05-2025\nआदे

Section 115BSection 147Section 263Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274Section 69A

Anjis Developers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle CIT-5, Mumbai

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

ITA 959/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Anjis Developers Private Limited, Pcit-5, 2Nd Floor, Soham Apartments, Room No. 515, 5Th Floor, 208, Walkeshwar Road, Teen Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mk. Batti, Road, Mumbai-400006. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaaca 6022 H Appellant Respondent : Assessee By S. Sriram/Dinesh Kukreja/Ssnyaknavedie Revenue By : Shri Chetan Kacha, Dr : Date Of Hearing 25/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/02/2023

For Respondent: Assessee by S. Sriram/Dinesh

Section 270A

…35, Addl. CWT v.NathoolalBala Ram Jain [19801 125 ITR 3735, Addl. CWT v.NathoolalBala Ram Jain [19801 125 ITR 3735, Addl. CWT v.NathoolalBala Ram [1980). 125 ITR 596& and CIT v. Narpat Singh Malkhan Singh ITR 596& and CIT v. Narpat Singh Malkhan Singh (19811 128 ITR 777 (19811 128 ITR 777 12. This Court in the case of Saraiva Distillery (supra) has held 12. This Court in the case of Saraiva Distillery (supra) has held 12. This Court in the case of Saraiva Distillery (supra) has held that an order can be said to be erroneous either when it does that an order can be said to be erroneous either when it does that an…