68 ITR 177 (SC), Rameswar Sirkar v. ITO

89 ITR 317High Court1973#21551 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,356 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2022.

Issues it is cited on

section 150(1)section 170section 153(3)section 150section 17section 260asection 153creassessment proceedingssearch and seizuresection 153section 15section 25

Judgments citing 68 ITR 177 (SC), Rameswar Sirkar v. ITO

Sri Rajkumar C(HUF), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1381/BANG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Deepesh Waghale, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Gudimella V..P. Pavan Kumar, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 150Section 153Section 153CSection 260A

…the proceedings were irregular and without jurisdiction. The following judicial pronouncements lays down the view as stated above: Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT [1968] 68 ITR 177 (SC), Rameswar Sirkar v. ITO [1973] 88 ITR 374 (Cal.), Shyam Sundar Bajaj v. ITO [1973] 89 ITR 317 (Cal.). Thus, we are of the view that the assessment made on 30.11.2006 on the assessee as HUF is not valid as on that date, the HUF was not in existence. Thus, we cancel the assessment made on the assessee in the status of HUF.” 9. In the instant case, the HUF was disrupted / partitioned as on the date of assessment (Assessment order in case of H…

Sri Rajkumar C(HUF), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1380/BANG/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Deepesh Waghale, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Gudimella V..P. Pavan Kumar, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 150Section 153Section 153CSection 260A

…the proceedings were irregular and without jurisdiction. The following judicial pronouncements lays down the view as stated above: Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT [1968] 68 ITR 177 (SC), Rameswar Sirkar v. ITO [1973] 88 ITR 374 (Cal.), Shyam Sundar Bajaj v. ITO [1973] 89 ITR 317 (Cal.). Thus, we are of the view that the assessment made on 30.11.2006 on the assessee as HUF is not valid as on that date, the HUF was not in existence. Thus, we cancel the assessment made on the assessee in the status of HUF.” 9. In the instant case, the HUF was disrupted / partitioned as on the date of assessment (Assessment order in case of H…

Sri Rajkumar C(HUF), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1379/BANG/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Deepesh Waghale, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Gudimella V..P. Pavan Kumar, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 150Section 153Section 153CSection 260A

…the proceedings were irregular and without jurisdiction. The following judicial pronouncements lays down the view as stated above: Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT [1968] 68 ITR 177 (SC), Rameswar Sirkar v. ITO [1973] 88 ITR 374 (Cal.), Shyam Sundar Bajaj v. ITO [1973] 89 ITR 317 (Cal.). Thus, we are of the view that the assessment made on 30.11.2006 on the assessee as HUF is not valid as on that date, the HUF was not in existence. Thus, we cancel the assessment made on the assessee in the status of HUF.” 9. In the instant case, the HUF was disrupted / partitioned as on the date of assessment (Assessment order in case of H…

Sri K.Ramesh Reddy (HUF), Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(2)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1057/BANG/2017[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2021AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2002-03 Shri. K. Ramesh Reddy, Huf, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.144, 10Th Cross, Indiranagar I Stage, Circle -1(2)(2), Bengaluru – 560 038. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaghk 4712 F Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. V. Srinivasan, Advocate Respondent By : Shri. Sankar Ganesh, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 08.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.09.2021 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…the proceedings were irregular and without jurisdiction. The following judicial pronouncements lays down the view as stated above: Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT [1968] 68 ITR 177 (SC), Rameswar Sirkar v. ITO [1973] 88 ITR 374 (Cal.), Shyam Sundar Bajaj v. ITO [1973] 89 ITR 317 (Cal.). Thus, we are of the view that the assessment made on 30.11.2006 on the assessee as HUF is not valid as on that date, the HUF was not in existence. Thus, we cancel the assessment made on the assessee in the status of HUF. 18. The Tribunal in Assessee’s own case for AY 2003-04, has also taken same view. For the reasons given above and in th…

68 ITR 177 (SC), Rameswar Sirkar v. ITO (89 ITR 317) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax