238 ITR 867 (Mad); CIT v. Export House

259 ITR 386High Court2003#20166 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,487 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2022.

Judgments citing 238 ITR 867 (Mad); CIT v. Export House

Techno Tracom Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir.1(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 205/KOL/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am]

Section 153ASection 263

…rt in the case of CIT Vs. Shreeman Junathesware Packing Products & Camphor Works 231 ITR 53 (SC) as well as the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High court in CIT Vs. Arunben Sumankumar order dated 03.07.2002 reported in 10 Techno Tracom Pvt. Ltd., AY: 2009-10 259 ITR 386 (Guj.). The Ld. Counsel brought to our notice the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. S. M. Oil Extraction Pvt. Ltd. (1991) 190 ITR 404 (Cal) wherein the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court taking note of the Explanation to section 263(1) of the Act held that ‘ In our view the record contemplated in section 263(1) does no…

Sh. Nittan Aneja, Sbs Nagar vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar

In the result, both the assessee’s appeal and the Revenue’s C

ITA 288/ASR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 288/(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Joshi (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Bhawani Shankar (D.R.)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…iar vs. CIT [1996] 220 ITR 657 (Mad); CIT v. Kohinoor Tobacco Products (P.) Ltd. [1998] 234 ITR 557 (MP); Mofussil Warehouse & Trading Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1999] 238 ITR 867 (Mad); CIT vs. Export House [2002] 256 ITR 603 (P&H); CIT vs. Arunaben Sumankumar [2003] 259 ITR 386 (Guj); Pt. Lashkari Ram vs. CIT [2005] 272 ITR 309 (All); CIT vs. Deepak Kumar Garg [2008] 299 ITR 435 (MP); CIT vs. Toyota Motor Corpn. [2008] 306 ITR 49 (Del) (affirmed by the apex court vide its judgment at [2008] 306 ITR 52 (SC)), on some of which reliance stands placed by the ld. Pr. CIT as well (refer para 6, pgs. 12-13 of his order) (also…

Lally Motors India Pvt. Ltd, Jalandhar vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Jalandhar

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 218/ASR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 218(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Sameer Bhatia (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Bhawani Shankar (D. R.)

Section 119Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…CIT [1996] 220 ITR 657 6 ITA No.218 (Asr)/2017(AY 2012-13) Lally Motors India P. Ltd. v. Pr.CIT (Mad); Mofussil Warehouse & Trading Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1999] 238 ITR 867 (Mad); CIT vs. Export House [2002] 256 ITR 603 (P&H); CIT vs. Arunaben Sumankumar [2003] 259 ITR 386 (Guj); Pt. Lashkari Ram vs. CIT [2005] 272 ITR 309 (All); CIT vs. Deepak Kumar Garg [2008] 299 ITR 435 (MP); CIT vs. Toyota Motor Corpn. [2008] 306 ITR 49 (Del) (affirmed by the apex court, vide its judgment at [2008] 306 ITR 52 (SC)). (also refer: Rajalakshmi Mills Ltd. v. ITO [2009] 121 ITD 343 (Ch.)(SB)). 4.2 The second, equally relevant, asp…

Ayyazuddin J, Khan, Navi Mumbai vs. CIT- 22

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2881/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2881/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ayyazuddin J. Khan Ito-22(3)-1, Block No. 103, Aggarwal Upavan, Tower No. 6, Vashi Railway बनाम/ Plot No. 11, Sector – 19, Nerul, Station, Complex, Vashi, Vs. Navi Mumbai-400 706 Navi Mumbai-400 073 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Atxpk 4365 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Kishore K. Poddar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri H. N. Singh

For Appellant: Shri Kishore K. PoddarFor Respondent: Shri H. N. Singh

Section 143(3)Section 263

…ashkari Ram vs. CIT [2005] 272 ITR 309 (All.); CIT vs. Deepak Kumar Garg [2008] 299 ITR 435 (MP); CIT vs. Toyota Motor Corpn. [2008] 306 ITR 49 (Del) (affirmed by the apex court, vide its judgment at [2008] 306 ITR 52 (SC)); CIT vs. Arunaben Sumankumar [2003] 259 ITR 386 (Guj); besides by the larger bench of the tribunal in Rajalakshmi Mills Ltd. vs. ITO [2009] 121 ITD 343 (Chen) (SB), signifying the application of the concept in a variety of fact situations. Coming to the facts of the case, it is not clear if the loan confirmations were filed by the loan creditors; while the assessment order records the assessee…