255 ITR 573 (Ker); Raunaq Ram Nand Lal v. CIT

254 ITR 576High Court2002#20131 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,607 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 129 Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 194A Section 194C Section 2(24)Section 250 Section 253(3)

Judgments citing 255 ITR 573 (Ker); Raunaq Ram Nand Lal v. CIT

Kishor Rameshbhai Mehta, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-1(5), Bharuch

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 60/SRT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.60/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 (Hybrid Hearing) Kishor Rameshbhai Mehta Vs. Ito, Prop. Of Aditya Infrastructure, Ward - 1(5), 139, Maher Nagar, Opp. Baps Bharuch Hospital, Adajan Gam Circle, Surat - 395 009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Adepm 4458 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/11/2025

Section 194ASection 194CSection 2(24)Section 250Section 253(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40Section 68Section 69A

…114 ITR 689, (vii) Shreelekha Banerjee vs. CIT, 49 ITR 112, (viii) CIT vs. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad, 72 ITR 194 (SC), (ix) Bomin P. Ltd. vs. CIT, 160 ITR 477 (Guj.), (x) ITO vs. Diza Holdings (P.) Ltd., 255 ITR 573 (Ker.) and (xi) Smt Iva Gogoi vs. CIT, 254 ITR 576 (Gau.). The AO made total additions/disallowances of Rs.28,70,370/-, which is mentioned at para (i) to (ix) of the assessment order. He assessed the total income of Rs.48,50,300/- against the returned income of Rs.19,79,930/-. 7. Aggrieved by the addition made by AO, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). During the appellate proceedings, t…

Titan Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd., Durgapur vs. DCIT, Circle - 1(2), Kolkata

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 2250/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2012-13 Titan Engineering Co. Pvt. V/S. Dcit, Circle-1(2), Ltd., Sanjibi Sarani, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, 7Th Floor, Chowringhee Durgapur-713210 [Pan No.Aabct 4321 K] Square, Kolkata-69 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri H.V. Bhardwaj, Fca अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shrishankar Halder, Jcit-Sr-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 07-05-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 17-05-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Kolkata’S Order Dated 05.09.2018 Passed In Case No.18161/Cit(A)-1/Kol./Cir.-1(2)/2015-16, Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. Learned Counsel Representing Assessee Does Not Press For First Substantive Ground Raised In The Instant Appeal Challenging Liquidated Damage Disallowance Of ₹85,099/- Made In Both The Lower Proceedings Keeping In Mind Smallness Of The Amount. 3. This First Substantive Ground Is Rejected As Not Pressed. 4. Next Comes The Estimated Ad Hoc Disallowance Of Site Expense Amounting To ₹4,74,241/- In Both The Lower Proceedings. The Cit(A)’S Detailed Discussion To This Effect Reads As Follows:-

Section 143(3)

…rcumstances. The Income-tax authorities are entitled to look at the reality of the transaction. Moreover, the decisions in ITO v. Diza Holdings P. Ltd. [2002] 255 ITR 573 (Ker); Raunaq Ram Nand Lal v. CIT [2002] 254 ITR 617 (P&H); Smt. Iva Gogoi v. CIT [2002] 254 ITR 576 (Gauhati); CIT v. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd. [1994] 208 ITR 465 (Cal); Rajshree Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [2002] 256 ITR 331 (Raj); R. B. Mittal v. CIT [2000] 246 ITR 283 (AP) ; CIT v. United Commercial and Industrial Co. P. Ltd. [1991] 187 ITR 596 (Cal); M. A. UnneeriKutty v. CIT [1992] 198 ITR 147 (Ker); Nemi Chand Kothari v. CIT [2003] 264…

DCIT, Circle-3(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Lal Baba Seamless Tubes Pvt. Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes, while the appeal of the Revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1637/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 68

…cumstances. The Income-tax authorities are entitled to look at the reality of the transaction. Moreover, the decisions in ITO v. Diza Holdings P. Ltd. [2002] 255 ITR 573 (Ker); Raunaq Ram Nand Lal v. CIT [2002 254 ITR 617 (P & H); Smt. Iva Gogoi v. CIT [2002] 254 ITR 576 (Gauhati); CIT v. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd. [1994] 208 ITR 465 (Cal); Rajshree Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [2002] 256 ITR 331 (Raj); R. B. Mittal v. CIT [2000] 246 ITR 283 (AP) ; CIT v. United Commercial and Industrial Co. P. Ltd. [1991] 187 ITR 596 (Cal); M. A. Unneeri Kutty v. CIT [1992] 198 ITR 147 (Ker); Nemi Chand Kothari v. CIT [2003] 264…

Lal Baba Seamless Tubes (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes, while the appeal of the Revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1033/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 68