201 (SC) 4. Mathur Marketing (P) Ltd. v. CIT

110 ITR 786High Court1977#13238 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,356 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2023.

Judgments citing 201 (SC) 4. Mathur Marketing (P) Ltd. v. CIT

Bikash Deb, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 388/CTK/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita Nos.357 & 388/Ctk/2019 /2019 Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010 10 & 2010-11 Bikash Dev Bikash Dev, Flat No.101, Vs. Dcit, Circle Dcit, Circle-2(1), Haraprity Haraprity Apar Apartment, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Vivekananda Vivekananda Marg, Marg, Old Old Town, Bhubaneswar. Town, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Ahepd 0737 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.K.Bal, Adv K.K.Bal, Adv Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 17/01 01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/01 /01/2023 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri K.K.Bal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 21(5)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE BEFORE S/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.357 & 388/CTK/2019 /2019 Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010 10 & 2010-11 Bikash Dev Bikash Dev, Flat No.101, Vs. DCIT, Circle DCIT, Circle-2(1), Haraprity Haraprity Apar Apartment, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Vivekananda Vivekananda Marg, Marg, Old Old Town, Bhubaneswar. Town, Bhubaneswar. PAN/GIR No. PAN/…

Bikash Deb, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT Circle- 2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 357/CTK/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 Jan 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita Nos.357 & 388/Ctk/2019 /2019 Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010 10 & 2010-11 Bikash Dev Bikash Dev, Flat No.101, Vs. Dcit, Circle Dcit, Circle-2(1), Haraprity Haraprity Apar Apartment, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Vivekananda Vivekananda Marg, Marg, Old Old Town, Bhubaneswar. Town, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Ahepd 0737 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.K.Bal, Adv K.K.Bal, Adv Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 17/01 01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/01 /01/2023 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri K.K.Bal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 21(5)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE BEFORE S/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.357 & 388/CTK/2019 /2019 Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010 10 & 2010-11 Bikash Dev Bikash Dev, Flat No.101, Vs. DCIT, Circle DCIT, Circle-2(1), Haraprity Haraprity Apar Apartment, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Vivekananda Vivekananda Marg, Marg, Old Old Town, Bhubaneswar. Town, Bhubaneswar. PAN/GIR No. PAN/…

Shri Satya Narayan Bairwa, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Jaipur

In the result, both these appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 869/JPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 867 & 869/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Years :2008-09 & 2009-10 Cuke Shri Satya Narayan Bairwa, I.T.O., Vs. 97/77, Shipra Path, Ward-2(4), Mansarovar, Jaipur (Raj). Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Ahppb 0077 J Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shravan Kumar Gupta (Adv.) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 20/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order

For Appellant: Shri Shravan Kumar Gupta (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)
Section 147Section 151Section 234ASection 69A

…arged u/s 234B and liable to be deleted. 18. On the other hand, the ld. DR has vehemently supported the orders of the authorities below and also relied upon decisions in the case of CIT Vs Uttam Chand Nahar 295 ITR 403 (Raj) and ITO Vs Mahadeo Lal Tulsian, 110 ITR 786 (Kol). 19. We have considered the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. From perusal of the record, we observed that the A.O. has reopened the case of the assessee for escaping the income of Rs.1,15,00,500/- on account of cash deposit in his bank account and assessee has not filed his return of in…

Shri Satya Narayan Bairwa, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Jaipur

In the result, both these appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 867/JPR/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 867 & 869/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Years :2008-09 & 2009-10 Cuke Shri Satya Narayan Bairwa, I.T.O., Vs. 97/77, Shipra Path, Ward-2(4), Mansarovar, Jaipur (Raj). Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Ahppb 0077 J Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shravan Kumar Gupta (Adv.) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 20/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order

For Appellant: Shri Shravan Kumar Gupta (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)
Section 147Section 151Section 234ASection 69A

…arged u/s 234B and liable to be deleted. 18. On the other hand, the ld. DR has vehemently supported the orders of the authorities below and also relied upon decisions in the case of CIT Vs Uttam Chand Nahar 295 ITR 403 (Raj) and ITO Vs Mahadeo Lal Tulsian, 110 ITR 786 (Kol). 19. We have considered the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. From perusal of the record, we observed that the A.O. has reopened the case of the assessee for escaping the income of Rs.1,15,00,500/- on account of cash deposit in his bank account and assessee has not filed his return of in…

Swami Keshwanand Shikshan Sansthan, Sikar vs. ITO (Exemption), Ward-2, Jaipur

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 310/JPR/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 309 & 310/Jp/2020 Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Swami Keshwanand Sikshan Cuke I.T.O. (Exemption), Vs. Sansthan, Ward-2, N.H.11, Bhadhadhar, Sikar-332315 Jaipur (Rajasthan). (Raj) Pan No.: Aafts 2816 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shafi Mohammed (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Jcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 15/03/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 13/04/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. Both These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Jaipur Dated 17/09/2020 & 10/09/2020 For The A.Y. 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Shafi Mohammed (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)
Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…E) 2. Home Finders Housing Ltd. Vs ITO, Corporate Ward 2(3) (2018) 94 taxmann.com 84 (SC) 3. Thakorbhai Maganbhai Patel Vs ITO (2017) 78 taxmann.com 201 (SC) 4. Mathur Marketing (P) Ltd. Vs CIT (2019) 108 taxmann.com 118) (SC). 5. ITO Vs Mahadeo lal Tulsian 110 ITR 786 (Cal) 6. CIT Vs Uttam Chand Nahar (2007) 295 ITR 403 (Raj) 8. We have heard the ld. Counsels of both the parties and have perused the material placed on record. We have also deliberated upon the decisions cited in the orders passed by the authorities below as well as cited before us and we have also gone through the orders passed by the revenue…

Swami Keshwanand Shikshan Sansthan, Sikar vs. ITO (Exemption), Ward-2, Jaipur

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 309/JPR/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Apr 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 309 & 310/Jp/2020 Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Swami Keshwanand Sikshan Cuke I.T.O. (Exemption), Vs. Sansthan, Ward-2, N.H.11, Bhadhadhar, Sikar-332315 Jaipur (Rajasthan). (Raj) Pan No.: Aafts 2816 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shafi Mohammed (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Jcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 15/03/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 13/04/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. Both These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Jaipur Dated 17/09/2020 & 10/09/2020 For The A.Y. 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Shafi Mohammed (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)
Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…E) 2. Home Finders Housing Ltd. Vs ITO, Corporate Ward 2(3) (2018) 94 taxmann.com 84 (SC) 3. Thakorbhai Maganbhai Patel Vs ITO (2017) 78 taxmann.com 201 (SC) 4. Mathur Marketing (P) Ltd. Vs CIT (2019) 108 taxmann.com 118) (SC). 5. ITO Vs Mahadeo lal Tulsian 110 ITR 786 (Cal) 6. CIT Vs Uttam Chand Nahar (2007) 295 ITR 403 (Raj) 8. We have heard the ld. Counsels of both the parties and have perused the material placed on record. We have also deliberated upon the decisions cited in the orders passed by the authorities below as well as cited before us and we have also gone through the orders passed by the revenue…

Time Media & Entertainment LLP (Earlier Time Media & Entertainment Private Limited), Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 16(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 6534/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6534/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ Time Media & Income Tax Officer- Entertainment Llp (Earlier 16(1)(5) Time Media & R.No. 439, 4 Th Floor, V. Entertainment Private Aayakar Bhavan, Ltd.) M.K Marg, 104, Rachna, V.P Road, Mumbai-400020 Vile Parle (W), Mumbai-400056 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaact1581C (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Reepal G. Tralshawala Revenue By: Shri. D.G. Pansari (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 28.03.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.06.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 6534/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 31.07.2017, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”) In Appeal No. Cit(A)-4/It-89/Ito-16(1)(5)/2016-17, For Assessment Year 2010-11, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 30.03.2016 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2010-11. I.T.A. No.6534/Mum/2017

For Appellant: Shri. Reepal G. TralshawalaFor Respondent: Shri. D.G. Pansari (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…and he has not signed on the dotted line. If he approves the reasons he is not bound to reiterate the same. That would be an empty formality. Mr. Putney's reliance upon the following observations of the Calcutta High Court in ITO v. Mahadeo Lal Tulsian [1977] 110 ITR 786 is well founded :— "... He has contended that there had been no due compliance with the provisions of section 151 (2) of the said Act since the Commissioner of Income-tax had failed to arrive at a bona fide satisfaction or record the same. Here again, the issue has to be considered from the point of view of what the facts establish in substance.…

201 (SC) 4. Mathur Marketing (P) Ltd. v. CIT (110 ITR 786) — Cited in 7 Judgments | BharatTax