ACED (1980) 126 ITR 356 (Ker); A\nSociedade de Fomento Industrial Pvt. Ltd. v. Lahiri (KC)

91 ITR 529Reported decision1973#25867 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2025.

Judgments citing ACED (1980) 126 ITR 356 (Ker); A\nSociedade de Fomento Industrial Pvt. Ltd. v. Lahiri (KC)

Brand India Real Estate Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 6(1), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 514/JPR/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2025AY 2012-2013

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Ranka, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Dharam Singh Meena, JCIT

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

…TR (Mad) 103; CIT v. VimladenBhagwandas Patel (Smt.) (1979) 118 ITR 134 (Guj); Gangadharan Pillai (P) v. ACED (1980) 126 ITR 356 (Ker); A Sociedade de Fomento Industrial Pvt. Ltd. v. Lahiri (KC) (1983) Tax LR 2664 (Goa); MallappaKallappaUgare v. Ag ITO (1973) 91 ITR 529 (Mys); State Bank of Patiala v Union of India (1973) 91 ITR 630 (P&H); CIT v Sham Lal (1981) 127 ITR 816 (P&H); Jai Prakash Singh v CIT (1978) 111 ITR 507 (Gau); Thomakutty (MO) v CIT (1958) 34 ITR 501 (Ker); Koyammankutty v ITO (1965) 58 ITR 871 (Ker); Menon (TCN) v ITO (1974) 96 ITR 148 (Ker.). As we understand and as appears from the assessment…

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Shri Prateek Kothari, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 552/JPR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Nov 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: The Hon’Ble High Court.”

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA)For Respondent: Prithviraj Meena (Addl. CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 132(4)Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh dqy Hkkjr] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 552/JP/2017 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2013-14 cuke Dy. Commissioner of Shri Prateek Kothari Vs. H-12, Sukh Jeevan, Jacob Income-tax, Road, Circle-2, Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN No.: ABIPK8090R vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by : Prithviraj Meena (Addl. CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri Vijay…

M/S Staples Future Office Products Pvt Ltd vs. Local Vat Officer-090

WP/15976/2012HC Karnataka29 May 2012

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrjustice B.S.Patil W.P.Nos. 15976-987/2012 (T-Res) Between: M/S. Staples Future Office Products Pvt.Ltd., No.18/I, 3Rd Floor, 10Th Main, Ashoka Pillar Road, Jayanagar, 1St Block, Bangalore -560011. Represented By Its Senior Manager-Commercial Sri. Chetan Chaturvedi Aged About 35 Years. ... Petitioner (By Sri. Indrakumar, Sr. Counsel For M/S. E.I.Sanmathi) And: 1. Local Vat Officer-090 Malal Mahadeshwara Buildings, 1St Main Road, Chamarajpet, Bangalore —560 018. 2. The Deputy Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes (Audit-35) Dvo—3, 7Th Floor, Commercial Taxes Buildings, Gandhinagar, Bangalore - 560 009. ... Respondents (By Sri. K.M.Shivayogiswamy, Aga) These Writ Petitions Are Filed Under Articles 226 & 227 Of The Constitution Of India, Praying To Issue Writ Of Certiorari Or Directions In The Nature Of Certiorari Quashing The Order Dated

…nded to disagree with the details furnished, he ought to have provided an opportunity by issuing a notice. In this connection, he places reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of MALLAPPA KALLAPPA UGARE vs. AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX OFFICER - (1973) 91 ITR 529 (MYS). 5. The prayer made in the writ petition is resisted by the learned Additional Government Advocate. He contends that the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy of 5 preferring an appeal and therefore this Court should not interfere in the matter in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for bot…