143 (1), CIT vs. Jagdish 51 ITR 266 (2), Prabhudas vs. CIT 62 ITR 621(3), CIT v. Chaganlal

127 ITR 491High Court#9376 most cited
11

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

Judgments citing 143 (1), CIT vs. Jagdish 51 ITR 266 (2), Prabhudas vs. CIT 62 ITR 621(3), CIT v. Chaganlal

JUBILANT BIOSYS LTD,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, NOIDA

In the result appeals filed by assessee in all the years under consideration before us stands partly allowed

ITA 2760/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Nk Saini & Smt. Beena A Pillai

For Appellant: Sh. KM Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, CIT,DR
Section 251(2)

…757 & 2758/Del/18 Jubilant Chemsys Ltd. 5. 44 ITR 891 6. 66 ITR 443 7. Sneh Lata vs. CIT 61 ITR 139, 143 (1), CIT vs. Jagdish 51 ITR 266 (2), Prabhudas vs. CIT 62 ITR 621(3), CIT vs. Chaganlal 148 ITR 7 (4), Lokenath vs. CIT 161 ITR 82 (5), CIT vs. Nirbheram 127 ITR 491 (6), 8. We also refer to decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Shapoorji Pallonji Mystery vs CIT (which has been affirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in 44 ITR 891, referred to herein above). Hon’ble Bombay High Court clarified that “Source” of income would not mean “source” in sense of head of income as used in the Income Tax Act, but wo…

JUBILANT BIOSYS LTD,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, NOIDA

In the result appeals filed by assessee in all the years under consideration before us stands partly allowed

ITA 2759/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Nk Saini & Smt. Beena A Pillai

For Appellant: Sh. KM Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, CIT,DR
Section 251(2)

…757 & 2758/Del/18 Jubilant Chemsys Ltd. 5. 44 ITR 891 6. 66 ITR 443 7. Sneh Lata vs. CIT 61 ITR 139, 143 (1), CIT vs. Jagdish 51 ITR 266 (2), Prabhudas vs. CIT 62 ITR 621(3), CIT vs. Chaganlal 148 ITR 7 (4), Lokenath vs. CIT 161 ITR 82 (5), CIT vs. Nirbheram 127 ITR 491 (6), 8. We also refer to decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Shapoorji Pallonji Mystery vs CIT (which has been affirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in 44 ITR 891, referred to herein above). Hon’ble Bombay High Court clarified that “Source” of income would not mean “source” in sense of head of income as used in the Income Tax Act, but wo…

JUBILANT CHEMSYS LTD.,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, NOIDA

In the result appeals filed by assessee in all the years under consideration before us stands partly allowed

ITA 2758/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Nk Saini & Smt. Beena A Pillai

For Appellant: Sh. KM Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, CIT,DR
Section 251(2)

…757 & 2758/Del/18 Jubilant Chemsys Ltd. 5. 44 ITR 891 6. 66 ITR 443 7. Sneh Lata vs. CIT 61 ITR 139, 143 (1), CIT vs. Jagdish 51 ITR 266 (2), Prabhudas vs. CIT 62 ITR 621(3), CIT vs. Chaganlal 148 ITR 7 (4), Lokenath vs. CIT 161 ITR 82 (5), CIT vs. Nirbheram 127 ITR 491 (6), 8. We also refer to decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Shapoorji Pallonji Mystery vs CIT (which has been affirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in 44 ITR 891, referred to herein above). Hon’ble Bombay High Court clarified that “Source” of income would not mean “source” in sense of head of income as used in the Income Tax Act, but wo…

JUBILANT CHEMSYS LTD.,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, NOIDA

In the result appeals filed by assessee in all the years under consideration before us stands partly allowed

ITA 2757/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Nk Saini & Smt. Beena A Pillai

For Appellant: Sh. KM Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, CIT,DR
Section 251(2)

…757 & 2758/Del/18 Jubilant Chemsys Ltd. 5. 44 ITR 891 6. 66 ITR 443 7. Sneh Lata vs. CIT 61 ITR 139, 143 (1), CIT vs. Jagdish 51 ITR 266 (2), Prabhudas vs. CIT 62 ITR 621(3), CIT vs. Chaganlal 148 ITR 7 (4), Lokenath vs. CIT 161 ITR 82 (5), CIT vs. Nirbheram 127 ITR 491 (6), 8. We also refer to decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Shapoorji Pallonji Mystery vs CIT (which has been affirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in 44 ITR 891, referred to herein above). Hon’ble Bombay High Court clarified that “Source” of income would not mean “source” in sense of head of income as used in the Income Tax Act, but wo…

JUBILANT CHEMSYS LTD.,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, NOIDA

In the result appeals filed by assessee in all the years under consideration before us stands partly allowed

ITA 1825/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Nk Saini & Smt. Beena A Pillai

For Appellant: Sh. KM Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, CIT,DR
Section 251(2)

…757 & 2758/Del/18 Jubilant Chemsys Ltd. 5. 44 ITR 891 6. 66 ITR 443 7. Sneh Lata vs. CIT 61 ITR 139, 143 (1), CIT vs. Jagdish 51 ITR 266 (2), Prabhudas vs. CIT 62 ITR 621(3), CIT vs. Chaganlal 148 ITR 7 (4), Lokenath vs. CIT 161 ITR 82 (5), CIT vs. Nirbheram 127 ITR 491 (6), 8. We also refer to decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Shapoorji Pallonji Mystery vs CIT (which has been affirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in 44 ITR 891, referred to herein above). Hon’ble Bombay High Court clarified that “Source” of income would not mean “source” in sense of head of income as used in the Income Tax Act, but wo…

JUBILANT CHEMSYS LTD.,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, NOIDA

In the result appeals filed by assessee in all the years under consideration before us stands partly allowed

ITA 1824/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Nk Saini & Smt. Beena A Pillai

For Appellant: Sh. KM Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, CIT,DR
Section 251(2)

…757 & 2758/Del/18 Jubilant Chemsys Ltd. 5. 44 ITR 891 6. 66 ITR 443 7. Sneh Lata vs. CIT 61 ITR 139, 143 (1), CIT vs. Jagdish 51 ITR 266 (2), Prabhudas vs. CIT 62 ITR 621(3), CIT vs. Chaganlal 148 ITR 7 (4), Lokenath vs. CIT 161 ITR 82 (5), CIT vs. Nirbheram 127 ITR 491 (6), 8. We also refer to decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Shapoorji Pallonji Mystery vs CIT (which has been affirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in 44 ITR 891, referred to herein above). Hon’ble Bombay High Court clarified that “Source” of income would not mean “source” in sense of head of income as used in the Income Tax Act, but wo…

JUBILANT BIOSYS LTD,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, NOIDA

In the result appeals filed by assessee in all the years under consideration before us stands partly allowed

ITA 1823/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Nk Saini & Smt. Beena A Pillai

For Appellant: Sh. KM Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, CIT,DR
Section 251(2)

…757 & 2758/Del/18 Jubilant Chemsys Ltd. 5. 44 ITR 891 6. 66 ITR 443 7. Sneh Lata vs. CIT 61 ITR 139, 143 (1), CIT vs. Jagdish 51 ITR 266 (2), Prabhudas vs. CIT 62 ITR 621(3), CIT vs. Chaganlal 148 ITR 7 (4), Lokenath vs. CIT 161 ITR 82 (5), CIT vs. Nirbheram 127 ITR 491 (6), 8. We also refer to decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Shapoorji Pallonji Mystery vs CIT (which has been affirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in 44 ITR 891, referred to herein above). Hon’ble Bombay High Court clarified that “Source” of income would not mean “source” in sense of head of income as used in the Income Tax Act, but wo…

JUBILANT BIOSYS LTD,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, NOIDA

In the result appeals filed by assessee in all the years under consideration before us stands partly allowed

ITA 1822/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Nk Saini & Smt. Beena A Pillai

For Appellant: Sh. KM Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, CIT,DR
Section 251(2)

…757 & 2758/Del/18 Jubilant Chemsys Ltd. 5. 44 ITR 891 6. 66 ITR 443 7. Sneh Lata vs. CIT 61 ITR 139, 143 (1), CIT vs. Jagdish 51 ITR 266 (2), Prabhudas vs. CIT 62 ITR 621(3), CIT vs. Chaganlal 148 ITR 7 (4), Lokenath vs. CIT 161 ITR 82 (5), CIT vs. Nirbheram 127 ITR 491 (6), 8. We also refer to decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Shapoorji Pallonji Mystery vs CIT (which has been affirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in 44 ITR 891, referred to herein above). Hon’ble Bombay High Court clarified that “Source” of income would not mean “source” in sense of head of income as used in the Income Tax Act, but wo…

JUBILANT BIOSYS LTD.,NOIDA vs. JCIT, RANGE- 1, NOIDA

In the result appeals filed by assessee in all the years under consideration before us stands partly allowed

ITA 7302/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Nk Saini & Smt. Beena A Pillai

For Appellant: Sh. KM Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, CIT,DR
Section 251(2)

…757 & 2758/Del/18 Jubilant Chemsys Ltd. 5. 44 ITR 891 6. 66 ITR 443 7. Sneh Lata vs. CIT 61 ITR 139, 143 (1), CIT vs. Jagdish 51 ITR 266 (2), Prabhudas vs. CIT 62 ITR 621(3), CIT vs. Chaganlal 148 ITR 7 (4), Lokenath vs. CIT 161 ITR 82 (5), CIT vs. Nirbheram 127 ITR 491 (6), 8. We also refer to decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Shapoorji Pallonji Mystery vs CIT (which has been affirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in 44 ITR 891, referred to herein above). Hon’ble Bombay High Court clarified that “Source” of income would not mean “source” in sense of head of income as used in the Income Tax Act, but wo…

SHRI SUNIL SOJATIA,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE -2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 312/IND/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 50CSection 54BSection 68

…- (a) CIT vs Sardari Lal & Co. 251 ITR 864 (Del.)(FB). CIT has not power to travel beyond the subject matter of the assessment. (b) CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria [1967] 66 ITR 443 (SC); (c) Prabhudas Ramji 62 ITR 621 (Guj.); CIT vs Nirbheram 127 ITR 491 (MP); (d) CIT vs Chaganlal Kailas & Co. 148 ITR 7 (Mad.). By the exercise of the power to assess fresh sources of income, the assessee is deprived of a finding by two tribunals and one right of appeal. (e) Jagarnath Therani vs CIT AIR 1925 Pat 408. Where the assessee objects validity of assessment, power of CIT(A) cannot extend to enhancing the a…

SHRI PRABHAT SOJATIA,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 310/IND/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 50CSection 54BSection 68

…- (a) CIT vs Sardari Lal & Co. 251 ITR 864 (Del.)(FB). CIT has not power to travel beyond the subject matter of the assessment. (b) CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria [1967] 66 ITR 443 (SC); (c) Prabhudas Ramji 62 ITR 621 (Guj.); CIT vs Nirbheram 127 ITR 491 (MP); (d) CIT vs Chaganlal Kailas & Co. 148 ITR 7 (Mad.). By the exercise of the power to assess fresh sources of income, the assessee is deprived of a finding by two tribunals and one right of appeal. (e) Jagarnath Therani vs CIT AIR 1925 Pat 408. Where the assessee objects validity of assessment, power of CIT(A) cannot extend to enhancing the a…

143 (1), CIT vs. Jagdish 51 ITR 266 (2), Prabhudas vs. CIT 62 ITR 621(3), CIT v. Chaganlal (127 ITR 491) — Cited in 11 Judgments | BharatTax