Addl. CIT v. Indian Pharmaceuticals

123 ITR 874High Court1980#3214 most cited

What is Addl. CIT v. Indian Pharmaceuticals authority for?

The Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) cannot direct the Assessing Officer (AO) to initiate penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) in exercise of revisional power under Section 263 of the Act, if the AO had not initiated such proceedings in the assessment order.

37

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Addl. CIT v. Indian Pharmaceuticals · 123 ITR 874 · section 263 · section 271(1)(c) · revisionary power · initiation of penalty proceedings · assessment order · Commissioner of Income Tax

Sections most often in play

Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 148Section 273(b)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(a)

Issues it is cited on

section 271(1)(a)section 271aab(1a)assessment order erroneousunder-reporting of incomerevision under section 263penalty under section 270asection 271aabpenalty u/s 270asection 271aacsection 271aasection 271aerroneous and prejudicial

Judgments citing Addl. CIT v. Indian Pharmaceuticals

Ram Kishan Verma, Kota vs. PCIT (Circle), Jaipur

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

ITA 219/JPR/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: ShriMahendraGargieya (Adv.)&For Respondent: ShriJames Kurian (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 263

…Machinery Ltd. [1991] 192 ITR 337 (Cal.) and Gauhati in Surendra Prasad Singh v. CIT [1988] 173 ITR 510/40 Taxman 346 (Gau.) whereas dissenting with the diametrically opposite approach of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Addl. CIT v. Indian Pharmaceuticals [1980] 123 ITR 874 (MP.), Addl. CIT v. Kantilal Jain [1980] 125 ITR 373/[1981] 5 Taxman 92 (MP.) and Addl. CWT v. NathoolalBalaram [1980] 125 ITR 596/3 Taxman 170 (MP.) had concluded that where the CIT finds that the Assessing Officer had not initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act in the assessment order, he cannot direct the Assessing Off…

Ram Kishan Verma, Kota vs. PCIT (Central), Jaipur

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

ITA 218/JPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: ShriMahendraGargieya (Adv.)&For Respondent: ShriJames Kurian (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 263

…Machinery Ltd. [1991] 192 ITR 337 (Cal.) and Gauhati in Surendra Prasad Singh v. CIT [1988] 173 ITR 510/40 Taxman 346 (Gau.) whereas dissenting with the diametrically opposite approach of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Addl. CIT v. Indian Pharmaceuticals [1980] 123 ITR 874 (MP.), Addl. CIT v. Kantilal Jain [1980] 125 ITR 373/[1981] 5 Taxman 92 (MP.) and Addl. CWT v. NathoolalBalaram [1980] 125 ITR 596/3 Taxman 170 (MP.) had concluded that where the CIT finds that the Assessing Officer had not initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act in the assessment order, he cannot direct the Assessing Off…

Ram Kishan Verma, Kota vs. PCIT (Central), Jaipur

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

ITA 217/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: ShriMahendraGargieya (Adv.)&For Respondent: ShriJames Kurian (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 263

…Machinery Ltd. [1991] 192 ITR 337 (Cal.) and Gauhati in Surendra Prasad Singh v. CIT [1988] 173 ITR 510/40 Taxman 346 (Gau.) whereas dissenting with the diametrically opposite approach of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Addl. CIT v. Indian Pharmaceuticals [1980] 123 ITR 874 (MP.), Addl. CIT v. Kantilal Jain [1980] 125 ITR 373/[1981] 5 Taxman 92 (MP.) and Addl. CWT v. NathoolalBalaram [1980] 125 ITR 596/3 Taxman 170 (MP.) had concluded that where the CIT finds that the Assessing Officer had not initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act in the assessment order, he cannot direct the Assessing Off…

Harish Jain, Kota vs. PCIT (Central), Jaipur

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

ITA 216/JPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: ShriMahendraGargieya (Adv.)&For Respondent: ShriJames Kurian (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 263

…Machinery Ltd. [1991] 192 ITR 337 (Cal.) and Gauhati in Surendra Prasad Singh v. CIT [1988] 173 ITR 510/40 Taxman 346 (Gau.) whereas dissenting with the diametrically opposite approach of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Addl. CIT v. Indian Pharmaceuticals [1980] 123 ITR 874 (MP.), Addl. CIT v. Kantilal Jain [1980] 125 ITR 373/[1981] 5 Taxman 92 (MP.) and Addl. CWT v. NathoolalBalaram [1980] 125 ITR 596/3 Taxman 170 (MP.) had concluded that where the CIT finds that the Assessing Officer had not initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act in the assessment order, he cannot direct the Assessing Off…

Harish Jain, Jaipur vs. PCIT (Central), Jaipur

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

ITA 215/JPR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: ShriMahendraGargieya (Adv.)&For Respondent: ShriJames Kurian (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 263

…Machinery Ltd. [1991] 192 ITR 337 (Cal.) and Gauhati in Surendra Prasad Singh v. CIT [1988] 173 ITR 510/40 Taxman 346 (Gau.) whereas dissenting with the diametrically opposite approach of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Addl. CIT v. Indian Pharmaceuticals [1980] 123 ITR 874 (MP.), Addl. CIT v. Kantilal Jain [1980] 125 ITR 373/[1981] 5 Taxman 92 (MP.) and Addl. CWT v. NathoolalBalaram [1980] 125 ITR 596/3 Taxman 170 (MP.) had concluded that where the CIT finds that the Assessing Officer had not initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act in the assessment order, he cannot direct the Assessing Off…

Harish Jain, Kota vs. PCIT (Central), Jaipur

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

ITA 214/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: ShriMahendraGargieya (Adv.)&For Respondent: ShriJames Kurian (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 263

…Machinery Ltd. [1991] 192 ITR 337 (Cal.) and Gauhati in Surendra Prasad Singh v. CIT [1988] 173 ITR 510/40 Taxman 346 (Gau.) whereas dissenting with the diametrically opposite approach of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Addl. CIT v. Indian Pharmaceuticals [1980] 123 ITR 874 (MP.), Addl. CIT v. Kantilal Jain [1980] 125 ITR 373/[1981] 5 Taxman 92 (MP.) and Addl. CWT v. NathoolalBalaram [1980] 125 ITR 596/3 Taxman 170 (MP.) had concluded that where the CIT finds that the Assessing Officer had not initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act in the assessment order, he cannot direct the Assessing Off…

Sh. Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya, 005, Village Beedmandi, Nayagaon, Ramganjmandi, Kota vs. PCIT (Central), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 132/JPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Aug 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A..)For Respondent: Shri Avdhesh Kumar (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…91) 192 ITR 337 (Cal) and Gauhati in Surendra Prasad Singh &Ors. vs. CIT (1988) 71 CTR (Gau) 125 : (1988) 173 ITR 510 (Gau) whereas dissenting with the diametrically opposite approach of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Addl. CIT vs. Indian Pharmaceuticals (1980) 123 ITR 874 (MP), Addll. CIT vs. Kantilal Jain (1980) 125 ITR 373 (MP) and Addl. CWT vs. NathoolalBalaram (1980) 125 ITR 596 (MP) had concluded that where the CIT finds that the AO had not initiated penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act in the assessment order, he cannot direct the AO to initiate penalty proceedings 7 Shri Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya…

Sh. Narendar Kumar Agarwal, Jawali Bhawan, Station Road, Alwar vs. PCIT, Jaipur-1, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 133/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jul 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Avdhesh Kumar (CIT)
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 271FSection 50CSection 54F

…1) 192 ITR 337 (Cal) and Gauhati in Surendra Prasad Singh & Ors. vs. CIT (1988) 71 CTR (Gau) 125 : (1988) 173 ITR 510 (Gau) whereas dissenting with the diametrically opposite approach of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Addl. CIT vs. Indian Pharmaceuticals (1980) 123 ITR 874 (MP), Addll. CIT vs. Kantilal Jain (1980) 125 ITR 373 (MP) and Addl. CWT vs. Nathoolal Balaram (1980) 125 ITR 596 (MP) had concluded that where the CIT finds that the AO had not initiated penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act in the assessment order, he cannot direct the AO to initiate penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act…

Shri Vijay D. Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The CIT-7, Ahmedabad

ITA 2022/AHD/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Jan 2022AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri A. C. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vijaykumar Jaiswal, CIT D.R
Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

…e scope of authority under S. 271(1)(c) to include administrative CIT within its ambit. 16. Before we proceed to conclude the issue, we also take note the decision in the case of CIT vs. Surendra Prasad Agrawal 275 ITR 113(All.); Indian Pharmaceuticals (1980) 123 ITR 874(MP); RA Himmatsingka & Co. 340 ITR 253(Pat.); Sara Enterprises (Mad.) 224 ITR 169 etc. referred to and relied upon on behalf of the revenue. In all these cases, it was held that the CIT administration is entitled to invoke S. 263 to cancel the assessment where the penalty was either dropped or the AO omitted to initiate the penalty proceedings. H…

Anushakti Chemicals & Drugs Ltd. (Formerly Known As Aarti Healthcare Ltd. Now Merged Into Aarti Industries Ltd.), Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT - Range-2, Mumbai

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

ITA 639/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.639/Mum/2021 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2010-11) Anushakti Chemicals & Pr. Cit, Range-2 Drugs Ltd. Room No.1920, 19Th Floor, Air (Formerly Known As Aarti India Building, Nariman बनाम/ Health Care Ltd. Now Point, Mumbai-400 021, Vs. Merged Into Aarti Industries Maharashtra Ltd.) Mumbai (अपीलाथ" / Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Aabca2787L अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Ms. Shailja Rai, Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15.11.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 23.11.2021

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Shailja Rai, DR
Section 143(3)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 254Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

…Machinery Ltd. [1991] 192 ITR 337 (Cal.) and Gauhati in Surendra Prasad Singh v. CIT [1988] 173 ITR 510/40 Taxman 346 (Gau.) whereas dissenting with the diametrically opposite approach of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Addl. CIT v. Indian Pharmaceuticals [1980] 123 ITR 874 (MP.), Addl. CIT v. Kantilal Jain [1980] 125 ITR 373/[1981] 5 Taxman 92 (MP.) and Addl. CWT v. Nathoolal Balaram [1980] 125 ITR 596/3 Taxman 170 (MP.) had concluded that where the CIT finds that the Assessing Officer had not initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act in the assessment order, he cannot direct the Assessing Of…

Sunila Awasthi, New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT-12, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 496/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamblea N D Shri Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 496/Del/2021 (A.Y. 2015-16) (Through Video Conferencing) Ms. Sunila Awasthi, Principal Cit – 12, E–802, Uniworld City East, Vs. New Delhi. Sector : 30, Gurugram, Haryana. Pan : Aaepa9591J (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee By : Shri Deepak Chopra, Adv.; & Shri Harpreet Singh Ajmani, Advocate; Department By : Shri H. K. Chaudhary [Cit] – Dr; Date Of Hearing 01.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 07.07.2021

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, Adv.; &For Respondent: Shri H. K. Chaudhary
Section 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…d Calcutta High Court in CIT vs. Linotype & Machinery Ltd. (1991) 192 ITR 337 (Cal) have followed the judgment of Delhi High Court in J.K.D' Costa's case (supra). 14. However, Honourable Madhya Pradesh High Court in Addl. CIT vs. Indian Pharmaceuticals (1980) 123 ITR 874 (MP) which has been followed by the same Honourable High Court in Addl. CIT vs. Kantilal Jain (1980) 125 ITR 373 (MP) and Addl. CWT vs. Nathoolal Balaram (1980) 125 ITR 596 (MP) has adopted diametrically opposite approach. 15. We are also mindful that it is not the case where ld AO has initiated penalty proceedings and dropped it later on. Case b…

Kiri Dyes & Chemicals Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-2, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1232/AHD/2018[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Oct 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1232/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2003-04)

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani & Shri P. B
Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

…scope of authority under S. 271(1)(c) to include administrative CIT within its ambit. 16. Before we proceed to conclude the issue, we also take note the decision in the case of CIT vs. Surendra Prasad Agrawal 275 ITR 113(All.); Indian Pharmaceuticals (1980) 123 ITR 874(MP); RA Himmatsingka & Co. 340 ITR 253(Pat.); Sara Enterprises (Mad.) 224 ITR 169 etc. referred to and relied upon on behalf of the revenue. In all these cases, it was held that the CIT administration is entitled to invoke S. 263 to cancel the assessment where the penalty was either dropped or the AO omitted to initiate the penalty proceedings. H…

Shyam Pratap Singh Shekhawat, Ludhiana vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Bhopal

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 304/IND/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11 Shri Shyam Pratap Singh Shekhawat Vs Pr. Cit, Zonal Office, Bhai Bala Chowk, Bhopal 5Th Floor, Noble Enclave, Ludhiana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan Acaps0740F Revenue By Smt. Ashima Gupta, Cit Assessee By S/Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Advocates Date Of Hearing 22.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 26.07.2019 O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 244ASection 263Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…Shyam Pratap Singh Shekhawat आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON'BLE MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year 2010-11 Shri Shyam Pratap Singh Shekhawat Vs Pr. CIT, Zonal Office, Bhai Bala Chowk, Bhopal 5th floor, Noble Enclave, Ludhiana (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN ACAPS0740F Revenue by Smt. Ashima Gupta, CIT Assessee by S/Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Advocates Date of Hearing 22.05.2019 Date of Pronouncement 26.07.2019 O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, AM. The above captioned appeal relating…

Jyoti Ranjan Roy, Kolkata vs. PCIT-17, Kolkata

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1015/KOL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2006-07 Jyoti Ranjan Roy V/S. Pr. Cit-17, Bd-2, Sectdor-1, Salt Uttarapan Building, Ds4, 2Nd Floor, Lake Ciity,Kolkata-64 [Pan No.Adlpr 2179 P] Ultadanga, Kolkata-54 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri T.K. Chakrborty, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri . Mallikarjuna, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 06-09-2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 10-11-2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-17-Kolkata Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 21.03.2017 For Assessment Year 2006-07. Shri T.K. Chakraborty, Ld. Advocate Appeared On Behalf Of Assessee & Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Ld. Departmental Representative Appeared On Behalf Of Revenue. 2. Ground No. 1 To 4 Are Inter-Related & Therefore Being Taken Up Together. Solitary Inter-Connected Issue Raised By Assessee In This Appeal Is That Ld. Pr.Cit Erred In Holding The Assessment Order As Erroneous In So Far As Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. 3. Briefly Stated Facts As Culled Out From The Order Of Authorities Below Are That Assessee In The Present Case Is An Individual & Engaged In The

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 25Section 250Section 251Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “C” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “C” KOLKATA Before Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Judicial Member and Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member Assessment Year :2006-07 Jyoti Ranjan Roy V/s. Pr. CIT-17, BD-2, Sectdor-1, Salt Uttarapan Building, DS4, 2nd Floor, Lake Ciity,Kolkata-64 [PAN No.ADLPR 2179 P] Ultadanga, Kolkata-54 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri T.K. Chakrborty, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri . Mallikarjuna, CIT-DR ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 06-09-2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 10-11-2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncemen…

Jayesh V. Sheth, Mumbai vs. CIT 16, Mumbai

In the result the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3922/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R.Parikh, C.A Department byFor Respondent: Shri Arju Garodia
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

…vs. Linotype & Machinery Ltd. (1991) 192 ITR 337 (Cal) have followed the judgment of Delhi High Court in J.K. D'Costa's (1981) 25 CTR (Del) 224: (1982) 133 ITR 7 (Del) case. 11. However, Madhya Pradesh High Court in Addl. CIT vs. Indian Pharmaceuticals (1980) 123 ITR 874 (MP) which has been followed by the same High Court in Addl. CIT vs. Kantilal Join (1980)125 ITR 373 (MP) and Addl. CWT vs. Nathoolal Balaram (1980) 125 ITR 596 (MP) has adopted diametrically opposite approach. 12. We are in agreement with the view taken by the High Courts of Delhi, Rajasthan, Calcutta and Gauhati, and express our inability to su…

Jayesh V. Sheth, Mumbai vs. CIT 16, Mumbai

In the result the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3921/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R.Parikh, C.A Department byFor Respondent: Shri Arju Garodia
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

…vs. Linotype & Machinery Ltd. (1991) 192 ITR 337 (Cal) have followed the judgment of Delhi High Court in J.K. D'Costa's (1981) 25 CTR (Del) 224: (1982) 133 ITR 7 (Del) case. 11. However, Madhya Pradesh High Court in Addl. CIT vs. Indian Pharmaceuticals (1980) 123 ITR 874 (MP) which has been followed by the same High Court in Addl. CIT vs. Kantilal Join (1980)125 ITR 373 (MP) and Addl. CWT vs. Nathoolal Balaram (1980) 125 ITR 596 (MP) has adopted diametrically opposite approach. 12. We are in agreement with the view taken by the High Courts of Delhi, Rajasthan, Calcutta and Gauhati, and express our inability to su…

Jayesh V. Sheth, Mumbai vs. CIT 16, Mumbai

In the result the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3920/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R.Parikh, C.A Department byFor Respondent: Shri Arju Garodia
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

…vs. Linotype & Machinery Ltd. (1991) 192 ITR 337 (Cal) have followed the judgment of Delhi High Court in J.K. D'Costa's (1981) 25 CTR (Del) 224: (1982) 133 ITR 7 (Del) case. 11. However, Madhya Pradesh High Court in Addl. CIT vs. Indian Pharmaceuticals (1980) 123 ITR 874 (MP) which has been followed by the same High Court in Addl. CIT vs. Kantilal Join (1980)125 ITR 373 (MP) and Addl. CWT vs. Nathoolal Balaram (1980) 125 ITR 596 (MP) has adopted diametrically opposite approach. 12. We are in agreement with the view taken by the High Courts of Delhi, Rajasthan, Calcutta and Gauhati, and express our inability to su…