47 ITR 586 (All.), Dr. Onkar Dutta Sharma v. CIT

73 ITR 466High Court1969#21325 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 344,197 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 148 Section 237 Section 249

Issues it is cited on

income-tax officer section 23 notice under section 148 reassessment proceedings section 148 section 147 section 250 section 14 section 143(3)

Judgments citing 47 ITR 586 (All.), Dr. Onkar Dutta Sharma v. CIT

Adonis Marketing (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 9(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1769/KOL/2024[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Feb 2025AY 2009-2010

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

…] 36 ITR 569 (SC), CIT v. S.RamanChettiar [19 65] 55 ITR 630 (SC), N.NaganathaIyer v. CIT [1966] 60 ITR 647 (Mad.), Ram Bilas Kedar Nath v. ITO [1963] 47 ITR 586 (All.), Dr. Onkar Dutta Sharma v. CIT [1967] 65 ITR 359 (All.), Sool Chand RamSewak v. CIT [1969] 73 ITR 466 (All.), S.P.Kochhar v. ITO [1 984] 145 ITR 2551 (All.) Trustees of H.E.H. Nizam’s Supplemental Family Trust v. CIT [2000] 242 ITR 3812 (SC) and CIT v. M.K.K.R. Muthu Karuppan Chettiar [1970] 78 ITR 69 (SC), etc. Page 5 of 6 I.T.A. No.: 1769/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Adonis Marketing Pvt. Ltd. 7. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme C…

ITO, WD.9(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 35/KOL/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.35/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata……………….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd……............…..........................…..…..... Respondent 69, Jamunalal Bajaj Street, Kolkata- 700007. [Pan: Aafcm6496E] C.O. No.6/Kol/2023 (A/O I.T.A. No.35/Kol/2021) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd……............…..........................…....... Cross-Objector 69, Jamunalal Bajaj Street, Kolkata- 700007. [Pan: Aafcm6496E] Vs Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata …………..….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 07, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 15, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: This Appeal By The Revenue & Corresponding Cross-Objection By The Assessee Have Been Preferred Against The Order Dated 08.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 263

…36 ITR 569 (SC), CIT v. S.RamanChettiar [ 1965] 55 ITR 630 (SC), N.NaganathaIyer v. CIT [1966] 60 ITR 647 (Mad.), Ram Bilas Kedar Nath v. ITO [1963] 47 ITR 586 (All.), Dr. Onkar Dutta Sharma v. CIT [1967] 65 ITR 359 (All.), Sool Chand Ram Sewak v. CIT [1969] 73 ITR 466 (All.), S.P.Kochhar v. ITO [19 84] 145 ITR 2551 (All.) Trustees of H.E.H. Nizam’s Supplemental Family Trust v. CIT [2000] 242 ITR 3812 (SC) and CIT v. M.K.K.R. Muthu Karuppan Chettiar [1970] 78 ITR 69 (SC), etc. 14. In the present case the petitioner filed a Supplementary Affidavit stating that against the order of the CIT (Appeals) an appeal was…

Sri.Parayarukandy Vettath Gangadharan, Calicut vs. The DCIT Circle-1(1), Calicut

In the result, the instant appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 157/COCH/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Apr 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasparayarukandy Vettath Gangadharan Dy. Cit, Circle - 1(1) Kerala Transport Company (Decd., Calicut Vs. Represented By Lrs.) K.T.C. Building, Ymca Calicut 673001 [Pan: Adhpg8318B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar C., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 150(1)Section 153Section 2(22)(e)Section 268A

…ssable in his hands. There are, apart from the several cited herein, decisions endorsing this by each of the Hon'ble Courts whose decisions stand cited before us, 13 Parayarukandy Vettath Gangadharan (Decd.) v. Dy. CIT viz. Sool Chand Ram Sevak v. CIT [1969] 73 ITR 466 (All); Dhiraj Mal v. CIT [1971] 79 ITR 242 (All); Ramkrishna Ramnath v. ITO [1970] 77 ITR 456 (Bom). 3.12 Before parting with our order, we may add that the assessee’s appeal for AYs. 2005-06 and 2008-09 (in ITA Nos. 156 & 158/Coch/2023), raising identical issue/s, came up before the Tribunal and was heard on 06.02.2024. Even as it was a common g…

DCIT 15(1)(1), Mumbai vs. A.J. Buildcon P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be partly allowed

ITA 6204/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6204/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) The Dy. Cit 15(1)(1), बिधम/ M/S. A. J. Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai Room No. 470, 4Th 514, Marathon Max, Opp, Vs. Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Nirmal Life Style, Lbs Maharshi Karve Road, Road, Mulund (W), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400080. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagca6548Q (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri M. V. Rajguru (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Dr. P. Daniel सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01.06.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29.06.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 22.07.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -24, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2009- 10. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. "On The Farts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Taw, The Ld. C1T(A) Erred Directing The Assessing Officer To Delete The Entire Disallowance Of Rs.67,99Hl3Q/-Mad Account Of Alleged Bogus Purchases, Without Appreciating The Fact That The Said Seller Pa Were Found To Be Hawala Operators/ Bogus Billers?, As Per Findings Given By (He Sales A.Y.2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Dr. P. DanielFor Respondent: Shri M. V. Rajguru (DR)

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 40A

…at from the books produced, the ITO may not on that account be produced from exercising the power to assess income which had escaped assessment" 2.4.14 To the same effect is the decision of the Supreme Court in Malegaon Electricity Co. (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (1970) 73 ITR 466 (SC) where the Court observed is true that if the ITO had made some investigation, particularly if he had looked into the previous assessment records, he would have been able to find out what the written down value of the assets sold was end consequently he would have been ableo find out the pnce in excess of their written down value realized by t…