400 ITR 566 (SC); Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. v. CIT

304 ITR 61Supreme Court of India2008#4185 most cited

What is 400 ITR 566 (SC); Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

The Revenue's right to question the correctness of an earlier adverse order is not precluded, even if it failed to challenge it, especially when the issue involves a question of law.

28

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2023.

Also referred to as

Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. v. CIT · 400 ITR 566 · CIT vs. Goodwill Theatres · question of law · Revenue's right to question · estoppel against law · adverse order

Issues it is cited on

section 2(1a)section 56(1)section 268asection 64section 153a proceedingssection 10(37)written down valuesection 139(4)put to usesection 69bsection 292csection 50

Judgments citing 400 ITR 566 (SC); Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. v. CIT

Smt. Harvinder Kaur, Kapurthala vs. A.C.I.T, Central Circle-I, Jalandhar

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 328/ASR/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar29 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi. T. A. No. 328/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Alok Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

…tated to have accepted the said order, may have been constrained u/s. 268A to appeal there-against, so that that by itself has no precedent value. Reference in this context, further, be made to the decision by the Apex Court in C.K. Gangadharan vs. CIT [2008] 304 ITR 61 (SC). We decide accordingly. 8. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on October 29, 2018 (N. K. Choudhry) (Sanjay Arora) Judicial Member Accountant Member Date: 29.10.2018 /GP/Sr. Ps. Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Appellant: Harvinder Kaur, 35, Gopal Park,…

Everest Industires Ltd, New Delhi vs. JCIT RG 1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is treated as allowed and the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

ITA 3804/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Ramlal Negi (Jm)

…ars 2008/2009, it was not brought to the notice of Honble jurisdictional High Court. We further notice that the Honble Supreme Court has modified the decision rendered in the case of Berger Paints (supra) in its subsequent decision in the case of Gangadharan (304 ITR 61). The operative part of the said decision reads as under:- “In answering the reference, we hold that merely because in some cases the Revenue has not preferred appeal that does not operate as a bar for the Revenue to prefer an appeal in another case where there is just cause for doing so or it is in public interest to do so or for a pronouncement…

ITO, Namakkal vs. Tiruchengode Agricultural Producers Co-Operative Marketing Society Limited, Namakkal

In the result, the Revenues’ appeals are allowed and the assessee’s COs, dismissed

ITA 363/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: 02.08.2017
Section 80P(1)Section 80P(2)(a)

…proportionate expenses into account, is seeking to claim deduction u/s. 80P on other, assessable income. As regards the assessee’s COs, the same were not pressed and, besides, there is no estoppel against law (also refer: C.K.Gangadharan & Anr. v. CIT [2008] 304 ITR 61 (SC)). We, accordingly, have no hesitation in, setting aside the impugned order, restoring that of the AO. We decide accordingly. 4. In the result, the Revenues’ appeals are allowed and the assessee’s COs, dismissed. Order pronounced on September22, 2017 at Chennai. (धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी) (संजय अरोड़ा) (Duvvuru RL Reddy) (Sanjay Arora) "या"यक सद"य/…

ITO, Namakkal vs. Tiruchengode Agricultural Producers Co-Operative Marketing Society Limited, Namakkal

In the result, the Revenues’ appeals are allowed and the assessee’s COs, dismissed

ITA 362/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: 02.08.2017
Section 80P(1)Section 80P(2)(a)

…proportionate expenses into account, is seeking to claim deduction u/s. 80P on other, assessable income. As regards the assessee’s COs, the same were not pressed and, besides, there is no estoppel against law (also refer: C.K.Gangadharan & Anr. v. CIT [2008] 304 ITR 61 (SC)). We, accordingly, have no hesitation in, setting aside the impugned order, restoring that of the AO. We decide accordingly. 4. In the result, the Revenues’ appeals are allowed and the assessee’s COs, dismissed. Order pronounced on September22, 2017 at Chennai. (धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी) (संजय अरोड़ा) (Duvvuru RL Reddy) (Sanjay Arora) "या"यक सद"य/…

The Commissioner of Income Tax- V vs. Dr. M.Venkataramana

ITTA/259/2010HC Telangana16 Jun 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Steel Authority of India Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are dismissed with no costs

ITA/41/2010HC Delhi30 Mar 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 43(1)

…tion considered and dealt with in the judgment of the Supreme Court èited above, we havegrave doubts whether the ratio of the ruling would apply. The Revenue cited the judgment of the Supreme Court in CII. Gangadharan Vs. omrnissioner of Income Tax (2008) 304 ITR 61 in which the earlir judgment in Kaurnudini Narayan Dalal And Anr. (supra) was consklered and it was held that the non-filing by the department of the apeal in one case would not • operate as a bar on the department to fi1ean appeal in another case where there is just cause for doing so or r is in the public interest to do so or for pronouncem…

Steel Authority of India Ltd vs. Comissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are dismissed with no costs

ITA-37/2010HC Delhi30 Mar 2012
Section 260ASection 43(1)

…on considered and dealt with in the judgment of the Supreme Court cited above, we have grave doubts whether the ratio of the ruling would apply. The Revenue cited the judgment of the Supreme Court in C.K. Gangadharan Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2008) 304 ITR 61 in which the earlier judgment in Kaumudini Narayan Dalal And Anr. (supra) was considered and it was held that the non-filing by the department of the appeal in one case would not operate as a bar on the department to file an appeal in another case where there is just cause for doing so or it is in the public interest to do so or for pronounce…

Steel Authority of India Ltd vs. Comissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are dismissed with no costs

ITA/37/2010HC Delhi30 Mar 2012
Section 260ASection 43(1)

…on considered and dealt with in the judgment of the Supreme Court cited above, we have grave doubts whether the ratio of the ruling would apply. The Revenue cited the judgment of the Supreme Court in C.K. Gangadharan Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2008) 304 ITR 61 in which the earlier judgment in Kaumudini Narayan Dalal And Anr. (supra) was considered and it was held that the non-filing by the department of the appeal in one case would not operate as a bar on the department to file an appeal in another case where there is just cause for doing so or it is in the public interest to do so or for pronounce…