Additionally, in CIT v. A. Raman & Co.

67 ITR 11Supreme Court of India1968#241 most cited

What is Additionally, in CIT v. A. Raman & Co. authority for?

The mere lawful reorganization of a business transaction does not automatically imply an intent to evade tax, and genuine business adjustments should not be considered suppressive actions without clear evidence of such intent.

321

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. A. Raman & Co. · 67 ITR 11 · lawful reorganization of business · tax evasion · bona fide business practices · genuine business adjustments · intent to evade tax

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40(a)(i)Section 147Section 35DSection 80HHCSection 28(iiid)Section 142(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 153b(i)(a)section 132(8)section 132(9a)section 153(1)(a)section 145avaluation of sharessection 65bsection 65section 153(1)icdsdumb documentssection 153b

Judgments citing Additionally, in CIT v. A. Raman & Co.

M/S Superfine Knitters Ltd., Ludhiana vs. ACIT, Ludhiana

ITA 56/CHANDI/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Superfine Knitters Ltd., Vs. The Acit, 269, Industrial Area-A, Circle-7, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. Pan No. Aadcs4217P

For Appellant: Shri Lalit TakyarFor Respondent: Dr. Gulshan Raj, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…922, held the word "information" to mean not only facts or factual material but to include also information as to the true and correct state of the law and, therefore, information as to relevant judicial decisions. Thereafter, in CIT vs. A. Raman & Co. (1968) 67 ITR 11 (SC) : TC51R.423 the Court defined the expression "information" in s. 147(b) of the IT Act, 1961, as "instruction or knowledge derived from an external source concerning facts or particulars, or as to law, relating to a matter bearing on the assessment". That definition has been reaffirmed in subsequent cases, and with it as the point of departure…

Rajesh Prasad, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 110/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnsh Sainiita No. 110/Del./2018 Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. S.K.Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S.L.Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNSH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 110/Del./2018 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Rajesh Prasad Vs ITO, C-7/116, Keshav Puram, New Delhi, New Delhi Pin- 110035 PAN : ALHPP5132E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : Sh. S.K.Goyal, CA Revenue by : Sh. S.L.Anuragi, Sr. DR Date of Hearing :09.07.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 09 .07.2018 ORDER Per Bhavnesh Saini, Judicial Member : This appeal by the assessee has been directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A)12, New Delhi dated 13th October, 2017 for assessment year 2012-13, challenging th…

DCIT 7(1)-1, Mumbai vs. Goldmohur Design & Apparel Park Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 622/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit, M/S Goldmohur Design & Circle-7(1)-1, Apparel Park Ltd. बनाम/ Room No.23, Ground Floor, Goldmohur Textile Mill, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Dadasaheb Phalke Road, M.K. Road, Dadar (E), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400014 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aadcg1613M

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ssessment. In our opinion, an error discovered on a reconsideration of the same material (and no more) does not give him that power. That was the view taken by this court in Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh v. CIT [1959] 35 ITR 1 (SC), CIT v. A. Raman and Co. [1968] 67 ITR 11 (SC) and Bankipur Club Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 831 (SC), and we do not believe that the law has since taken a different course. Any observations in Kalyanji Mavji and Co. v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 287 (SC) suggesting the contrary do not, we say with respect, lay down the correct law." 2.12. In A. L. A. Firm (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court explained…

Mohd Rizwan Mohd Kallan Khan, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 26(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1141/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhmd. Rizwan Mohd Kallan Ito 26(3)(4) Room No. 711, 7Th Floor, Khan, Plot No. 603, Flat No.13, Bldg No. 7 D, Bombay Taxi C-11, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Men’S Co-Operative Society, Vs. Bandra (East), Mumbai-51. Lbs Marg, Kurla (West), Mumbai-400070 Pan: Agjpk2270K Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Vimal Punmiya (Ar) Respondent By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (Ar) Date Of Hearing :25.04.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2018 Order Per Pawan Singh; 1. The Instant Appeal By Assessee Under Section 253 Of The Income-Tax Act (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya (AR)For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (AR)
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 253Section 274Section 3

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Md. Rizwan Mohd Kallan ITO 26(3)(4) Room No. 711, 7th Floor, Khan, Plot No. 603, Flat No.13, Bldg No. 7 D, Bombay Taxi C-11, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Men’s Co-operative Society, Vs. Bandra (East), Mumbai-51. LBS Marg, Kurla (West), Mumbai-400070 PAN: AGJPK2270K Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Shri Vimal Punmiya (AR) Respondent by : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (AR) Date of Hearing :25.04.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 31.05.2018 ORDER PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. The insta…

Emson Tools Mfg Corp Ltd, Ludhiana vs. DCIT, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 845/CHANDI/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaemson Tools Mfg. Corpn. Ltd., Vs. The D.C.I.T.,(Cc-I), D-2, Focal Point, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. Pan: Aaace3698M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sarabjit GargFor Respondent: Smt.Chanderkanta, Addl.CIT
Section 132Section 142Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…e: assessment has not been framed under scrutiny. Only processing was done u/s 143(1). It is further to be noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also discussed about the meaning of information. In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. A. Raman and Co., 67 ITR 11 the Supreme Court held: ‘The expression 'information' in the context in which it occurs must, in our judgment, mean instruction or knowledge derived from an external source concerning facts, or particulars,, or as to law relating to a master bearing on the assessment.’ 14. The Supreme Court further held: ‘That information must, it is true, have co…

Rhythm Real Estates Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2325/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri V. Vidhyadhar
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…such presumption or statement, if any, is corroborated with material evidence. The ratio laid down in Dr. Anita Sahai vs DIT 266 ITR 597 (All.), Dheerajlal Girdharilal vs DCIT 26 ITR 734 (SC), CIT vs Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. 91 ITR 8(SC), CIT vs Raman & Co. 67 ITR 11 (SC), Modi Creations Pvt. Ltd. vs Income Tax Officer (2011) 13 taxman.com 114(Del.), CIT vs Shree Rama Multitech Ltd. (2013) 34 taxman.com 32 (Guj.) and CIT vs Devine Leasing and Finance Ltd. 158 taxman 440 (Del.) supports our view. Thus, we affirm the stand of the First Appellate Authority, resulting into dismissal of the impugned grounds, raised…

M/S Flipkart India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is allowed and the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 202/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Apr 2018AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Respondent: Shri C.H. Sundar Rao, CIT
Section 131

…needs to be noted that none of the transactions of the Assessee either purchase or sale is from or to a related party. 21. The learned counsel for the Assessee placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. A.Raman & Co. 67 ITR 11 (SC). The facts in the aforesaid decision was that the assessees, M/s A. Raman & Co., (a partnership firm) were dealers in "mill stores". In the course of their business they sell "mill stores" to other dealers including two concerns trading in the names of M/s A.M. Shah & Co. M/s R. Ambalal & Co., which are owned by the HUFs, managers of which are…

ITO 9(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Anchor Residency P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 4407/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 143(2)Section 36(1)(iii)

…ISED) I. NO TAX ON NOTIONAL INCOME: Income tax can be levied only on such income that is actually received. No tax on hypothetical income which, according to the Department, the assessee should have or would have received. 1. CIT v/s. A. Raman & Co. - [(1968) 67 ITR 11 (SC)] 2. K. P. Verghese v/s. ITO - [(1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC)] 3. India Finance & Construction Co. Ltd. v/s. B. N. Panda - [(1993) 200 ITR 710 (Bom)] [In the context of addition of notional interest income] 4. Smt. Geeta Devi v/s. ITO - [(2000) 68 TTJ (Jodh) 729] It is well settled law that tax can be levied only on real income and not on any hypothe…

Baijnath Melaram, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 14(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7000/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramt Kocharassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Baijnath Melaram, Acit, Range-14(3), C/O Mangaldas D. Shah & Co., बनाम/ Mumbai. 506, Lotus House, 5Th Floor, Vs. 33-A, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400 020 (याजस्व /Revenue) (यनधाारयती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaafb 2675 E याजस्व की ओर से / Assessee By Shri Dhirendra M. Shah - Ar यनधाारयती की ओर से / Revenue By Shri T.A. Khan - Dr ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 13/02/2018 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 13/02/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Joginder Singh ()

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154Section 194C

…ssessment. In our opinion, an error discovered on a reconsideration of the same material (and no more) does not give him that power. That was the view taken by this court in Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh v. CIT [1959] 35 ITR 1 (SC), CIT v. A. Raman and Co. [1968] 67 ITR 11 (SC) and Bankipur Club Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 831 (SC), and we do not believe that the law has since taken a different course. Any observations in Kalyanji Mavji and Co. v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 287 (SC) suggesting the contrary do not, we say with respect, lay down the correct law." 4.13. In A. L. A. Firm (supra), the Hon‟ble Apex Court explained t…

The ACIT, Eluru vs. M/S. the District Co - Operative Central Bank Ltd., Eluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 269/VIZ/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(v)Section 40A(7)(b)

…consider the issue of payment of gratuity. Hence, the Ld CIT(A) upheld the reopening of assessment and the issue of notice u/s 148 of the act. The Ld. CIT(A) relied on the decision of Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. Vs. ITO 236 ITR 34, CIT Vs. Raman A. & Company 67 ITR 11 and Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. 91 ITR 500 (SC) and Gangasharan & Sons Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO 130 ITR 1 of Hon’ble apex court. 3.3 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. In this case, the A.O. has reopened the assessment since the assessee has not taken the approval for gratuity fund/trust and the d…

The District Co-Operative Central Bank Ltd., Eluru vs. The ACIT, Eluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 524/VIZ/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(v)Section 40A(7)(b)

…consider the issue of payment of gratuity. Hence, the Ld CIT(A) upheld the reopening of assessment and the issue of notice u/s 148 of the act. The Ld. CIT(A) relied on the decision of Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. Vs. ITO 236 ITR 34, CIT Vs. Raman A. & Company 67 ITR 11 and Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. 91 ITR 500 (SC) and Gangasharan & Sons Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO 130 ITR 1 of Hon’ble apex court. 3.3 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. In this case, the A.O. has reopened the assessment since the assessee has not taken the approval for gratuity fund/trust and the d…

The District Co-Operative Central Bank Ltd., Eluru vs. The ACIT, Visakhapatnam

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 515/VIZ/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(v)Section 40A(7)(b)

…consider the issue of payment of gratuity. Hence, the Ld CIT(A) upheld the reopening of assessment and the issue of notice u/s 148 of the act. The Ld. CIT(A) relied on the decision of Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. Vs. ITO 236 ITR 34, CIT Vs. Raman A. & Company 67 ITR 11 and Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. 91 ITR 500 (SC) and Gangasharan & Sons Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO 130 ITR 1 of Hon’ble apex court. 3.3 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. In this case, the A.O. has reopened the assessment since the assessee has not taken the approval for gratuity fund/trust and the d…

The ITO, Ward-2, Eluru vs. M/S the District Co-Operative Central Bank Ltd., Eluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 78/VIZ/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(v)Section 40A(7)(b)

…consider the issue of payment of gratuity. Hence, the Ld CIT(A) upheld the reopening of assessment and the issue of notice u/s 148 of the act. The Ld. CIT(A) relied on the decision of Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. Vs. ITO 236 ITR 34, CIT Vs. Raman A. & Company 67 ITR 11 and Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. 91 ITR 500 (SC) and Gangasharan & Sons Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO 130 ITR 1 of Hon’ble apex court. 3.3 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. In this case, the A.O. has reopened the assessment since the assessee has not taken the approval for gratuity fund/trust and the d…

M/S the District Co-Operative Central Bank Ltd., Eluru vs. The ITO, Ward-2, Eluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 50/VIZ/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(v)Section 40A(7)(b)

…consider the issue of payment of gratuity. Hence, the Ld CIT(A) upheld the reopening of assessment and the issue of notice u/s 148 of the act. The Ld. CIT(A) relied on the decision of Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. Vs. ITO 236 ITR 34, CIT Vs. Raman A. & Company 67 ITR 11 and Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. 91 ITR 500 (SC) and Gangasharan & Sons Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO 130 ITR 1 of Hon’ble apex court. 3.3 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. In this case, the A.O. has reopened the assessment since the assessee has not taken the approval for gratuity fund/trust and the d…

M/S the District Co-Operative Central Bank Ltd., Eluru vs. The ITO, Ward-2, Eluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 49/VIZ/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(v)Section 40A(7)(b)

…consider the issue of payment of gratuity. Hence, the Ld CIT(A) upheld the reopening of assessment and the issue of notice u/s 148 of the act. The Ld. CIT(A) relied on the decision of Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. Vs. ITO 236 ITR 34, CIT Vs. Raman A. & Company 67 ITR 11 and Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. 91 ITR 500 (SC) and Gangasharan & Sons Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO 130 ITR 1 of Hon’ble apex court. 3.3 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. In this case, the A.O. has reopened the assessment since the assessee has not taken the approval for gratuity fund/trust and the d…

The ACIT., Circle - 1, Eluru vs. M/S the District Co-Operative Central Bank Ltd., Eluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 476/VIZ/2012[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jan 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(v)Section 40A(7)(b)

…consider the issue of payment of gratuity. Hence, the Ld CIT(A) upheld the reopening of assessment and the issue of notice u/s 148 of the act. The Ld. CIT(A) relied on the decision of Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. Vs. ITO 236 ITR 34, CIT Vs. Raman A. & Company 67 ITR 11 and Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. 91 ITR 500 (SC) and Gangasharan & Sons Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO 130 ITR 1 of Hon’ble apex court. 3.3 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. In this case, the A.O. has reopened the assessment since the assessee has not taken the approval for gratuity fund/trust and the d…

Maharashtra Stae Road Development Corporation Td, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(2), Mumbai

ITA 4900/MUM/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Years: 2002-03 Dcit-5(2), M/S Maharashtra State Road R. No.571, Development Corporation बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Limited, Vs. M.K. Road, Pwd Compound, Near Mumbai-400020 Priyadarshni Park, Nepeansea Road, Mumbai-400036 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacm6833C Assessment Years: 2002-03 M/S Maharashtra State Dcit-5(2), Road Development R. No.571, बनाम/ Corporation Limited, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Pwd Compound, Near M.K. Road, Priyadarshni Park, Mumbai-400020 Nepeansea Road, Mumbai-400036 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacm6833C "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri B.S. Sharma & Shri Dalpat Shah राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri Narendra Singh Janpangi-Dr

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148

…ssessment. In our opinion, an error discovered on a reconsideration of the same material (and no more) does not give him that power. That was the view taken by this court in Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh v. CIT [1959] 35 ITR 1 (SC), CIT v. A. Raman and Co. [1968] 67 ITR 11 (SC) and Bankipur Club Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 831 (SC), and we do not believe that the law has since taken a different course. Any observations in Kalyanji Mavji and Co. v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 287 (SC) suggesting the contrary do not, we say with respect, lay down the correct law." 2.15. In A. L. A. Firm (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court explained…

DCIT 5(2), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4519/MUM/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Years: 2002-03 Dcit-5(2), M/S Maharashtra State Road R. No.571, Development Corporation बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Limited, Vs. M.K. Road, Pwd Compound, Near Mumbai-400020 Priyadarshni Park, Nepeansea Road, Mumbai-400036 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacm6833C Assessment Years: 2002-03 M/S Maharashtra State Dcit-5(2), Road Development R. No.571, बनाम/ Corporation Limited, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Pwd Compound, Near M.K. Road, Priyadarshni Park, Mumbai-400020 Nepeansea Road, Mumbai-400036 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacm6833C "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri B.S. Sharma & Shri Dalpat Shah राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri Narendra Singh Janpangi-Dr

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148

…ssessment. In our opinion, an error discovered on a reconsideration of the same material (and no more) does not give him that power. That was the view taken by this court in Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh v. CIT [1959] 35 ITR 1 (SC), CIT v. A. Raman and Co. [1968] 67 ITR 11 (SC) and Bankipur Club Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 831 (SC), and we do not believe that the law has since taken a different course. Any observations in Kalyanji Mavji and Co. v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 287 (SC) suggesting the contrary do not, we say with respect, lay down the correct law." 2.15. In A. L. A. Firm (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court explained…

Wallace Sports and Research Foundation, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 3, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2057/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Dec 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Respondent: Mr.B.Sagadevan, JCIT, D.R
Section 143(3)

…ssessment. In our opinion, an error discovered on a reconsideration of the same material (and no more) does not give him that power. That was the view taken by this court in Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh v. CIT [1959] 35 ITR 1 (SC), CIT v. A. Raman and Co. [1968] 67 ITR 11 (SC) and Bankipur Club Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 831 (SC) and we do not believe that the law has since taken a different course. Any observa tions in Kalyanji Mavji and Co. v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 287 (SC) sug gesting the contrary do not, we say with respect, lay down the correct law." 16.2. The aforesaid view on the above proposition has been reite…

K.R.Jayaram, Chennai vs. ACIT, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1698/CHNY/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Oct 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Mr.Arjunraj, C.A ""For Respondent: Mr.K.Ravi, JCIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 50C

…rror discovered on ITA No.1698/Mds./16 :- 30 -: a reconsideration of the same material (and no more) does not give him that power. That was the view taken by this court in Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh v. CIT [1959] 35 ITR 1 (SC), CIT v. A. Raman and Co. [1968] 67 ITR 11 (SC) and Bankipur Club Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 831 (SC) and we do not believe that the law has since taken a different course. Any observa tions in Kalyanji Mavji and Co. v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 287 (SC) sug gesting the contrary do not, we say with respect, lay down the correct law." 23.2. The aforesaid view on the above proposition has been reite…