148 ITR 478 (Punj. & Har.), CIT v. Arun Textile

177 ITR 443High Court1989#9013 most cited
12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2000 to 2024.

Issues it is cited on

section 31(3)section 139(3)section 147(b)full and true disclosuresection 31indexed cost of acquisitionsection 139(5)section 36(1)(vii)kelvinatorsection 251(1)section 45section 251(1)(a)

Judgments citing 148 ITR 478 (Punj. & Har.), CIT v. Arun Textile

ACIT, CC - I (2),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. BALAJI HOTELS & ENTERPRISES LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 209/CHNY/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri V. Nandakumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri D. Anand, Advocate
Section 139Section 139(5)Section 143(3)

…him for making a claim for deduction other than by filing a revised return? 4. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) was right in allowing assessee's appeal by relying on the cases such as CIT Vs Shri Someshwvar Sahakari Karkhana Ltd [177 ITR 443(BOM), CIT Vs Mahendra Mills (243 ITR 56(SC) where cases relates to depreciation to be considered as per revised ROI filed whereas circumstances of the present case of the assessee is different as there is no revised return? 5. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the decision of Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai in the case of IO - 11(2)2), Mumbai Vs Dr.…

ACIT, CC - I (2),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. BALAJI HOTELS & ENTERPRISES LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 208/CHNY/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri V. Nandakumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri D. Anand, Advocate
Section 139Section 139(5)Section 143(3)

…him for making a claim for deduction other than by filing a revised return? 4. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) was right in allowing assessee's appeal by relying on the cases such as CIT Vs Shri Someshwvar Sahakari Karkhana Ltd [177 ITR 443(BOM), CIT Vs Mahendra Mills (243 ITR 56(SC) where cases relates to depreciation to be considered as per revised ROI filed whereas circumstances of the present case of the assessee is different as there is no revised return? 5. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the decision of Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai in the case of IO - 11(2)2), Mumbai Vs Dr.…

ACIT, CC - I (2),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. BALAJI HOTELS & ENTERPRISES LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 207/CHNY/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri V. Nandakumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri D. Anand, Advocate
Section 139Section 139(5)Section 143(3)

…him for making a claim for deduction other than by filing a revised return? 4. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) was right in allowing assessee's appeal by relying on the cases such as CIT Vs Shri Someshwvar Sahakari Karkhana Ltd [177 ITR 443(BOM), CIT Vs Mahendra Mills (243 ITR 56(SC) where cases relates to depreciation to be considered as per revised ROI filed whereas circumstances of the present case of the assessee is different as there is no revised return? 5. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the decision of Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai in the case of IO - 11(2)2), Mumbai Vs Dr.…

ACIT, NCC - 11 (1),, CHENNAI vs. SHRI ANIL KUMAR SHANTICHAND MEHTA,, CHENNAI

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

ITA 302/CHNY/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.302/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Anil Kumar Shantichand Mehta, Income Tax, No. 196, Govindappa Naicken Street, Non Corporate Circle 11(1), George Town, Chennai 600 001. Chennai 600 006. [Pan:Aavps4928E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Anand, Advdocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.08.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.09.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 13, Chennai, Dated 21.11.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2016-17. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: 1. The Order Of The Learned Cit (A) Is Contrary To Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Cit(A) Erroneously Held That The Assessee Had Not Claimed Exemption U/S.10(37) [P.8.2] Though The Assessee, Vide His Letter Dated 26-12-2018 Stated "The Compensation Of Rs.7,62,40,126/- Received Was Claimed Exempt U/S.10(37), However, It Was Erroneously Omitted To Be Mentioned In The Return Of Income Filed."

For Appellant: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCITFor Respondent: Shri D. Anand, Advdocate
Section 10(37)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 34Section 45Section 57

…and (iii). CIT vs. Ramco International [2009J 180 Taxman 584 (Punj. & Har.) (iv). Dattatraya Gopal Shette vs. CIT [1984J 150 ITR 460 (Bom) (v). Chokshi Metal Refinery vs. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 63 (Guj.); (vi). CIT vs. Shri. Someshwar Sahakari Karkhana Ltd. [1989]177 ITR 443 (Bom) (affirmed, by the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Mahendra Mills [2000J 243 ITR 56 (SC) (vii). ITO vs. Cosmic Engg. CO. [1984J 20 TTJ (Ahd.) 271, 273. All the aforesaid case laws also hold that the CIT has the power to allow fresh claim made by the assessee for the first time even if no revised return is filed as also the duty of CIT to allow dedu…

M/S. CLARIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT,(OSD) RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

ITA 498/AHD/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G D Agarwal, Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Rajpal Yadav] Assessment Year: 2008-09 Claris Life Sciences Limited ................................Appellant Corporate Towers, Near Parimal Crossing Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad 380006 [Pan: Aaacc6366Q] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd) Range 1, Ahmedabad …..……..….….....Respondent

Section 139Section 139(5)Section 140ASection 221Section 221(1)

…supra) have been confirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Mahendra Mills [(2000) 243 ITR 56 (SC)]. Learned counsel then refers to the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court, in the case of CIT vs Shri Someshwar Sahkari Sakar Kharana Ltd [(1989) 177 ITR 443 (Bom)] wherein, according to the learned counsel, it was held that once a valid revised return is filed, it cannot be open to the Assessing Officer to even look at the original income tax return. Learned counsel then turns to Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court’s judgment in the case of CIT Vs Arun Textile [(1991) 192 ITR 700 (Guj)], in support of…

ITO, WD-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S GOURANGALAL CHATTERJEE CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1429/KOL/2015[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Sept 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 1425- 1429/Kol/2015 Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2008-09 To 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Kalyan Nath, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri D.S. Damle, FCA
Section 144Section 147Section 44A

…e. Some of such decisions are CIT v. Friends Corporation [1989] 180 ITR 334 (Punj. & Har.), Beco Engg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1984] 148 ITR 478 (Punj. & Har.), CIT v. Arun Textile [1991] 192 ITR 700 (Guj.), CIT v. Shri Someshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. [1989] 177 ITR 443 (Bom.), CIT v. Bishambar Dayal & Co. [1994] 21O ITR 118 (All.), Chopra Bros. (India) (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [1993] 202 ITR 40 (Chd. Trib.), CIT v. Jain Construction Co. [2000] 110 Taxman 156 (Raj.) 10. As regards allowability of interest and bank charges the same is covered by the order of the Third Member ITAT Chandigarh in-the case of ITA No.760/Ko…

ITO, WD-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S GOURANGALAL CHATTERJEE CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1428/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Sept 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 1425- 1429/Kol/2015 Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2008-09 To 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Kalyan Nath, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri D.S. Damle, FCA
Section 144Section 147Section 44A

…e. Some of such decisions are CIT v. Friends Corporation [1989] 180 ITR 334 (Punj. & Har.), Beco Engg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1984] 148 ITR 478 (Punj. & Har.), CIT v. Arun Textile [1991] 192 ITR 700 (Guj.), CIT v. Shri Someshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. [1989] 177 ITR 443 (Bom.), CIT v. Bishambar Dayal & Co. [1994] 21O ITR 118 (All.), Chopra Bros. (India) (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [1993] 202 ITR 40 (Chd. Trib.), CIT v. Jain Construction Co. [2000] 110 Taxman 156 (Raj.) 10. As regards allowability of interest and bank charges the same is covered by the order of the Third Member ITAT Chandigarh in-the case of ITA No.760/Ko…

ITO, WD-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S GOURANGALAL CHATTERJEE CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1427/KOL/2015[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Sept 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 1425- 1429/Kol/2015 Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2008-09 To 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Kalyan Nath, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri D.S. Damle, FCA
Section 144Section 147Section 44A

…e. Some of such decisions are CIT v. Friends Corporation [1989] 180 ITR 334 (Punj. & Har.), Beco Engg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1984] 148 ITR 478 (Punj. & Har.), CIT v. Arun Textile [1991] 192 ITR 700 (Guj.), CIT v. Shri Someshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. [1989] 177 ITR 443 (Bom.), CIT v. Bishambar Dayal & Co. [1994] 21O ITR 118 (All.), Chopra Bros. (India) (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [1993] 202 ITR 40 (Chd. Trib.), CIT v. Jain Construction Co. [2000] 110 Taxman 156 (Raj.) 10. As regards allowability of interest and bank charges the same is covered by the order of the Third Member ITAT Chandigarh in-the case of ITA No.760/Ko…

ITO, WD-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S GOURANGALAL CHATTERJEE CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1426/KOL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 1425- 1429/Kol/2015 Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2008-09 To 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Kalyan Nath, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri D.S. Damle, FCA
Section 144Section 147Section 44A

…e. Some of such decisions are CIT v. Friends Corporation [1989] 180 ITR 334 (Punj. & Har.), Beco Engg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1984] 148 ITR 478 (Punj. & Har.), CIT v. Arun Textile [1991] 192 ITR 700 (Guj.), CIT v. Shri Someshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. [1989] 177 ITR 443 (Bom.), CIT v. Bishambar Dayal & Co. [1994] 21O ITR 118 (All.), Chopra Bros. (India) (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [1993] 202 ITR 40 (Chd. Trib.), CIT v. Jain Construction Co. [2000] 110 Taxman 156 (Raj.) 10. As regards allowability of interest and bank charges the same is covered by the order of the Third Member ITAT Chandigarh in-the case of ITA No.760/Ko…

ITO, WD-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S GOURANGALAL CHATTERJEE CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1425/KOL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Sept 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 1425- 1429/Kol/2015 Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2008-09 To 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Kalyan Nath, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri D.S. Damle, FCA
Section 144Section 147Section 44A

…e. Some of such decisions are CIT v. Friends Corporation [1989] 180 ITR 334 (Punj. & Har.), Beco Engg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1984] 148 ITR 478 (Punj. & Har.), CIT v. Arun Textile [1991] 192 ITR 700 (Guj.), CIT v. Shri Someshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. [1989] 177 ITR 443 (Bom.), CIT v. Bishambar Dayal & Co. [1994] 21O ITR 118 (All.), Chopra Bros. (India) (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [1993] 202 ITR 40 (Chd. Trib.), CIT v. Jain Construction Co. [2000] 110 Taxman 156 (Raj.) 10. As regards allowability of interest and bank charges the same is covered by the order of the Third Member ITAT Chandigarh in-the case of ITA No.760/Ko…

ACIT, CIRCLE-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S GOURANGALAL CHATTERJEE, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 760/KOL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri P.B. Pramanick, JCIT, ld. Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri D.S Damle, FCA
Section 143(3)Section 145Section 44A

…e. Some of such decisions are CIT v. Friends Corporation [1989] 180 ITR 334 (Punj. & Har.), Beco Engg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1984] 148 ITR 478 (Punj. & Har.), CIT v. Arun Textile [1991] 192 ITR 700 (Guj.), CIT v. Shri Someshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. [1989] 177 ITR 443 (Bom.), CIT v. Bishambar Dayal & Co. [1994] 21O ITR 118 (All.), Chopra Bros. (India) (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [1993] 202 ITR 40 (Chd. Trib.), CIT v. Jain Construction Co. [2000] 110 Taxman 156 (Raj.) 10. As regards allowability of interest and bank charges the same is covered by the order of the Third Member ITAT Chandigarh in-the case of ITA No.760/Kol…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MAHENDRA MILLS

The appeal is dismissed

C.A. No.-005394-005394 - 1994Supreme Court15 Mar 2000
For Respondent: MAHENDRA MILLS
Section 32Section 34Section 72Section 73

…Officer. In regard to the revised return High Court took the view that the original return could not be adverted to. http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 21 In CIT vs. Shri Someshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. [(1989) 177 ITR 443 (Bom.)] two issues were raised. One issue was whether the assessee had a choice in the matter of claiming a deduction on account of depreciation and the second issue was whether, having claimed in the original return, the Income-tax Officer was entitled to rely on the particulars furnished therein and allow a deduction on accoun…