252 IT 8801 and Mathew Varghese v. Varghese vs. M. Amritha Kumar (Supreme Court) (5 SCC M. Amritha Kumar (Supreme Court)

5 SCC 610Reported decision2014#20993 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,001 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2023.

Judgments citing 252 IT 8801 and Mathew Varghese v. Varghese vs. M. Amritha Kumar (Supreme Court) (5 SCC M. Amritha Kumar (Supreme Court)

Dy CIT-1(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra State Co-Operative Bank Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3916/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr. Sushil LakhaniFor Respondent: Mrs. Riddhi Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 3Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s The Maharashtra State Co op. ITO-1(3)(3), Bank Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 9, Sir Vithaldas Thackersey Memorial Vs. M.K. Road, Bldg. Maharashtra Chamber of Mumbai-400020. Commerce Lane, Fort, Mumbai-400001. PAN No. AAAAT 4066 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dy. CIT-1(3)(2), M/s The Maharashtra State Co op. Room No. 540, 5th floor, Bank Ltd., Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 9, Sir Vithaldas Thackersey Mumbai-400020. Mem…

M/S the Maharashtra State Co. Op Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO-1(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3878/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr. Sushil LakhaniFor Respondent: Mrs. Riddhi Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 3Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s The Maharashtra State Co op. ITO-1(3)(3), Bank Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 9, Sir Vithaldas Thackersey Memorial Vs. M.K. Road, Bldg. Maharashtra Chamber of Mumbai-400020. Commerce Lane, Fort, Mumbai-400001. PAN No. AAAAT 4066 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dy. CIT-1(3)(2), M/s The Maharashtra State Co op. Room No. 540, 5th floor, Bank Ltd., Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 9, Sir Vithaldas Thackersey Mumbai-400020. Mem…

M/S Sree Jayalakshmi Textiles vs. M/S International Asset Reconstruction

WP/29362/2015HC Karnataka15 Dec 2015

Bench: The Date Fixed For Sale Of Transfer & In Such Event The Secured Asset Shall Not Be Sold & That Once The Auction Sale Process Is Commenced & The Property Is Auctioned & Sold On The Date Fixed For Sale & The Sale In Favour Of The Highest Bidder Is Confirmed & 25%

Section 13(8)

…d under sub-rule (6) shall specifically mention that whether the purchaser has purchased the immovable secured asset free from any encumbrances known to the secured creditor or not” In the case of Mathew Varghese vs. M.Amritha Kumar and others, (2014)5 SCC 610, the facts were as follows: The first and the second respondents therein were the guarantors in respect of a credit facility, granted by the bank, the fourth respondent therein, in favour of a company- JM. The guarantors had created an equitable mortgage in favour of the said bank, by depositing the title deeds pertaining to several items of…

M/S Sree Jayalakshmi Textiles vs. M/S International Asset Reconstruction

WP/22348/2015HC Karnataka15 Dec 2015

Bench: The Date Fixed For Sale Of Transfer & In Such Event The Secured Asset Shall Not Be Sold & That Once The Auction Sale Process Is Commenced & The Property Is Auctioned & Sold On The Date Fixed For Sale & The Sale In Favour Of The Highest Bidder Is Confirmed & 25%

Section 13(8)

…d under sub-rule (6) shall specifically mention that whether the purchaser has purchased the immovable secured asset free from any encumbrances known to the secured creditor or not” In the case of Mathew Varghese vs. M.Amritha Kumar and others, (2014)5 SCC 610, the facts were as follows: The first and the second respondents therein were the guarantors in respect of a credit facility, granted by the bank, the fourth respondent therein, in favour of a company- JM. The guarantors had created an equitable mortgage in favour of the said bank, by depositing the title deeds pertaining to several items of…

252 IT 8801 and Mathew Varghese v. Varghese vs. M. Amritha Kumar (Supreme Court) (5 SCC M. Amritha Kumar (Supreme Court) (5 SCC 610) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax