42 ITR 25 (SC) 22 5 Moti Lal Chhadami Lal Jain v. CIT

62 ITR 323Supreme Court of India1966#25375 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,607 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2024.

Judgments citing 42 ITR 25 (SC) 22 5 Moti Lal Chhadami Lal Jain v. CIT

Loramitra Rath, Kairapari Kotsahi, Tangi vs. DCIT (Circle-1(1), Cuttack

The appeal is allowed

ITA 314/CTK/2023[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack05 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2015-16 Loramitra Loramitra Rath, Rath, Kairapari Kairapari Vs. Dcit, Circle Dcit, Circle-1(1), Kotsahi, Tangi, Cuttack Kotsahi, Tangi, Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. No.Aebpr 6065 H (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Purnendhu Bhusan Mohanty, Ca Purnendhu Bhusan Mohanty, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr

For Appellant: Shri Purnendhu Bhusan Mohanty, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr

Section 48

…35 ITR 298 (SC) 5 K. | P. Varghese vs. ITO 131 ITR 597(SC) 20 6 K.A. Ramachar v. CIT [1961] 42 ITR 25 (SC) 21 24 K.A. Ramachar v. CIT [1961] 42 ITR 25 (SC) 22 5 Moti Lal Chhadami Lal Jain vs. CIT [1991] 190 ITR 1 (SC) 23 16 Murlidhar Himatsingka v. CIT [1966] 62 ITR 323 (SC) 24 24 Nariman B. Bharucha’s case (1981) 130 ITR 863 (Bom) 25 9 P. C. Mullick vs. CIT [1938] 6 ITR 206 (SC) 26 13 Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1965] 57 ITR 521 (SC) 27 2 Raja Bejoy Singh Dudhuria vs. CIT [1933] 1 ITR 135 (SC) 28 13 29 Rajkot District Gopalak Co-op. Milk Producers' Union Ltd. vs. CIT 204 5 ITR 590 (Gujarat) RSM & Co.…

The Chief Accounts Officer, Mysore vs. ITO, Mysore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for all the three assessment years are allowed

ITA 188/BANG/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Mar 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Abraham P George

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.K. Shankar Prasad, JCIT(DR)

Section 133ASection 194ASection 196Section 201

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI ABRAHAM P GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.188 to 190/Bang/2013 (Assessment years: 2007-08 to 2009-10) The Chief Accounts Officer, Mysore City Corporation, Mysore. … Appellant PAN: BLRCO2977C Vs. Income-tax Officer (TDS), Mysore. … Respondent Appellant by: Shri Narendra Sharma, Advocate. Respondent by: Dr.K. Shankar Prasad, JCIT(DR). Date of hearing : 11/03/2015 Date of pronouncement: 31/03/2015 O R D E R Per Smt. P.MADHAVI DEVI, JM: These are assessee’s appeals against the common order dated…

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi vs. M/S D.T.T.D.C. Ltd. New Delhi

Appeals are disposed of

ITA/166/2001HC Delhi20 Mar 2012

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

For Respondent: ITAs 166/01, 161/04, 320/04 & ITR 30-33/1997

Section 256(1)Section 617

…at source. In the said decision, the Supreme Court noticed that cases of sub-partnership can be categorized as border line matters, for commercial compulsions that had resulted in formation of sub-partnerships. In Muralidhar Himatsingka vs. CIT, (1996) 62 ITR 323 (SC), it has been held that profits received under sub-partnership can represent diversion of income at source. The Supreme Court observed that this analogy cannot be extended to the cases like the said one. 16. We fail to understand how the assessee can plead diversion of income at source as in the present case, the amount received rema…