163/Nag./2019 2. CIT v. Hackbridge Hewittic & Easun Ltd (220 Taxman 171) (Mad HC) ITO v. Volkart Brothers (

298 ITR 53High Court2008#20356 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Judgments citing 163/Nag./2019 2. CIT v. Hackbridge Hewittic & Easun Ltd (220 Taxman 171) (Mad HC) ITO v. Volkart Brothers (

Dy. C.I.T. Central Cir.-1(3), Nagpur vs. M/S Spacewood Furnishers Pvt. Ltd, Nagpur

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 163/NAG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur11 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 143(3)Section 154

…he purview of section 154. [Para 17]" (Emphasis Supplied) M/s. Spacewood Furnitures Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.163/Nag./2019 2. CIT v. Hackbridge Hewittic & Easun Ltd (220 Taxman 171) (Mad HC) ITO v. Volkart Brothers (82 ITR 50) (SC). 4. CIT v. R. K. Shrivastav (HUF) (298 ITR 53) (Delhi HC). 5.7 Considering the facts and circumstances and judicial precedents cited, the appellant deserves to succeed as the disallowance of prior-period expenses of Rs.17,65,162/- cannot be subject matter of rectification under section 154 of the Act. Therefore, the AO is directed to delete the addition of Rs.17,65,162/-. Therefore, Ground No…

ACIT, Circle - 2(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Ixia Technologies Pvt. Limited, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2292/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2009-10 Assistant Commissioner Of Ixia Technologies Pvt. Income-Tax, Circle-2(1), Limited (Now Merged With Kolkata. Keysight Technologies India Vs. Pvt. Limited) Infinity Tower-Ii, Block-Gp, Sector-V, 8Th Floor, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700091. (Pan: Aaccc5468K) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 154

…or reconsider an order already passed. The aforesaid principles find support from the decision of the Hon'ble Chandigarh Tribunal in City Clinic Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT (ITA No. 112/Chd/2017) and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. R.K. Shrivastav (HUF) (2008) 298 ITR 53. 4.2. It was further contended that the issue whether service tax refund would be considered as ‘profits/gains derived from the eligible undertaking’ is a subject matter of debate, in respect of which two views are possible. Therefore, refund of service tax could not be a subject matter of rectification u/s 154 for the purpose of disallowing claim…

Smt. Nirmala Goyal, Ajmer vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ajmer

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 920/JPR/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Nikhalesh Kataria (CA)For Respondent: Shri A. K. Mahala (JCIT)

Section 154Section 154(2)Section 154(7)Section 155Section 54F

…or the ld. AO to initiate any sort of rectification proceedings. Further, reliance was placed on the following decision:- • CIT vs. Ramchandra Hatcheries 305 ITR 117 (Chennai) • Rajputana Mining Agencies vs. ITO 118 ITR 1 (Raj HC) • Utkal Galvanizers vs. ACIT 298 ITR 53 (Orissa HC) 4 Smt. Nirmala Goyal, Ajmer Vs. The ACIT, Ajmer • Bhagwandas Associates vs. ITO 119 ITD 1 (Pune ITAT) 8. It was further submitted that the even in the reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 147, the AO has allowed the deduction to the tune of Rs. 1,20,50,000/- vide its order dated 25.03.2013 and same has since been confirmed by the l…

Nhpc Ltd., Faridabad vs. ACIT, Faridabad

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 433/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu, Judicialmember & Sh. Prashant Maharishi

Section 115JSection 154Section 234B

…as whether AO can do that when on the same item of expenditure debited in the books of accounts CIT (A) has decided the issue. In our opinion it is only CIT (A) who is competent to assume jurisdiction u/s 154 of the act. Honourable Orissa High court In [2008] 298 ITR 53 (Ori) in UTKAL GALVANIZERS P. LTD. v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND ANOTHER has held that :- :9. In the case of India Tin Industries P. Ltd. [1987] 166 ITR 454 their Lordships of the Karnataka High Court came to hold that sub-section (1A) of section 154 specifically provides that any matter which has not been considered and decided in…