25-: ITA Nos. 1593, 1828 & 1829& 1803/Mds/2016 Bharat Rice Mill v. CIT (All)

278 ITR 599Reported decision2005#13914 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2022.

Judgments citing 25-: ITA Nos. 1593, 1828 & 1829& 1803/Mds/2016 Bharat Rice Mill v. CIT (All)

Associated Machinery Corp. Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 4735/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(24)(x)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)

…old Storate& General Mills (All) 136 ITR 435. CIT vs. Chandra Vilas Hotel (Guj) 291 ITR 202 If the assessment order became final, it was binding on both parties and neither party could seek to reopen it in a penalty proceedings Bharat Rice Mill Vs. CIT (All) 278 ITR 599 S.S. RatanchandBholanathVs. CIT (MP) 210 ITR 682 CIT Vs. Ram NiwasAgarwal (All) 125 ITR 432 Mere offering explanation, is not sufficient – Explanation to be substantiated by cogent and reliable evidence. CIT Vs. LalchandTirath Ram (P&H) 225 ITR 675 5.4.2 Apart from the above cases, I would also like to place reliance on two recent case laws:-…

M/S. Yachio Engineering Co. Ltd., [Represented by Hooghly River Bridge Commissioners], Kolkata vs. ADIT (International Tax) - II, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 337/KOL/2018[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 May 2019AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am] I.T.A. No. 337/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2001-02

Section 271(1)(c)Section 44D

…ngs for the A.Y.2001-02 which have attained finality. Hon'ble Courts have held that once the assessment order becomes final, it was binding on both parties, and neither party could seek to reopen matters in a penalty proceedings • Bharat Rice Mill vs CIT(All) 278 ITR 599 • CIT vs Ram Nivas Agarwal (All) 126 ITR 432 4. Therefore. after examining the factual matrix., I am of the considered view that the Ld.AO in the reassessment proceedings, detected the incorrect claims as made by appellant and that it was ineligible claim any deductions of any expenditure as the profits were to be determined u/s 44AD of the Inco…

DCIT, CC -3(4), Cr-3, Mumbai vs. Supreme Infrastructure (I) Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2852/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 35Section 35DSection 80Section 801ASection 80I

…ment relied on various judicial pronouncements as under: (a) Price Waterhouse Coopers (P) Ltd 348 ITR 306, V/s Rural Electrical Co-op Society Ltd [2006) 152 Taxrnan 237 Pandit Gouind Prasad Mishra v/s CIT [1999] 238 (c) ITR 338 Bharat Rice Mill V/s CIT [2005] 278 ITR 599 (d) CIT v/s JKA Subramanian Chettiar [56012009] (e) (f) CIT V/s Harshavardhan Chemicals & Minerals Ltd [2003] 259 ITR 212 CIT V/s Reliance Petroproducts P LTd [2010] 322 (g) ITR 158 KC Builders v/sACIT [2004] 135 Taxman 461 (h) Cement Marketing Co of India V/s ACIT [1980] 124 (i) 6. I have considered the submissions of the assessee and have gone…

D.Shantha, Villupuram vs. ITO, Villupuram

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 1829/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Nataraja, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

…t is consequently wrong. In this regard, the CIT(A) held that since the assessee has not filed any quantum appeal, the assessment order has become final. As held in the cases of :-25-: ITA Nos. 1593, 1828 & 1829& 1803/Mds/2016 Bharat Rice Mill Vs CIT (All) 278 ITR 599, S.S. RatanchandBholanathVs CIT (MP) 210 ITR 682, and CIT Vs Ram NiwasAgarwal (All) 125 ITR 432, if the assessment order became final, it was binding on both parties and neither party could seek to reopen it in a penalty proceedings. Hence, this contention of the AR was also held as not tenable. 14. We have considered the above observation of…

D.Shantha, Villupuram vs. ITO, Villupuram

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 1828/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Nataraja, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

…t is consequently wrong. In this regard, the CIT(A) held that since the assessee has not filed any quantum appeal, the assessment order has become final. As held in the cases of :-25-: ITA Nos. 1593, 1828 & 1829& 1803/Mds/2016 Bharat Rice Mill Vs CIT (All) 278 ITR 599, S.S. RatanchandBholanathVs CIT (MP) 210 ITR 682, and CIT Vs Ram NiwasAgarwal (All) 125 ITR 432, if the assessment order became final, it was binding on both parties and neither party could seek to reopen it in a penalty proceedings. Hence, this contention of the AR was also held as not tenable. 14. We have considered the above observation of…

DCIT, Villupuram vs. D.Santha, Kallakurichi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 1803/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Nataraja, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

…t is consequently wrong. In this regard, the CIT(A) held that since the assessee has not filed any quantum appeal, the assessment order has become final. As held in the cases of :-25-: ITA Nos. 1593, 1828 & 1829& 1803/Mds/2016 Bharat Rice Mill Vs CIT (All) 278 ITR 599, S.S. RatanchandBholanathVs CIT (MP) 210 ITR 682, and CIT Vs Ram NiwasAgarwal (All) 125 ITR 432, if the assessment order became final, it was binding on both parties and neither party could seek to reopen it in a penalty proceedings. Hence, this contention of the AR was also held as not tenable. 14. We have considered the above observation of…

D.Shantha, Villupuram vs. ITO, Villupuram

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 1593/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Nataraja, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

…t is consequently wrong. In this regard, the CIT(A) held that since the assessee has not filed any quantum appeal, the assessment order has become final. As held in the cases of :-25-: ITA Nos. 1593, 1828 & 1829& 1803/Mds/2016 Bharat Rice Mill Vs CIT (All) 278 ITR 599, S.S. RatanchandBholanathVs CIT (MP) 210 ITR 682, and CIT Vs Ram NiwasAgarwal (All) 125 ITR 432, if the assessment order became final, it was binding on both parties and neither party could seek to reopen it in a penalty proceedings. Hence, this contention of the AR was also held as not tenable. 14. We have considered the above observation of…

25-: ITA Nos. 1593, 1828 & 1829& 1803/Mds/2016 Bharat Rice Mill v. CIT (All) (278 ITR 599) — Cited in 7 Judgments | BharatTax