Anchor Pressings (P.) Ltd. v. CIT

100 ITR 347High Court1975#18563 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 10(10A)Section 143(3)Section 154

Judgments citing Anchor Pressings (P.) Ltd. v. CIT

Arun Dhir, Chandigarh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 97/CHANDI/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 97/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Arun Dhir, Vs The Dcit, House No.1150, Sector 21-B, Circle-1, Chandigarh. Sector 17,Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aarpd0180F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pankaj Bhalla, C.A. Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Bhalla, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT Sr.DR

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 15Section 154

…hya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT Vs K.N.Oil Industries 142 ITR Page 13. The following observations are worth to note, which read as under: “The learned standing counsel for the Department placed reliance upon Anchor Pressings (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1975] 100 ITR 347 (All.), Sharda Prasad v. CIT [1975] 100 ITR 373 (All.) and Paramount Trading Corporation v. ITO [1980] 124 ITR 55 (All.), in support of his submission that as no relief under section 35B was claimed by the assessee in the return, the mistake in not granting the relief could not be apparent and could not be corrected under section 154. These cases…

M/S Karakulam Service Co-Op Bank Ltd, Trivandrum vs. The ITO, Trivandrum

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

ITA 57/COCH/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 143(3)Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 8O

…6. The Ld. DR relied on the following case laws in support of the contention that relief not claimed in assessment proceedings cannot be granted by rectification if there were no materials on record to support the claim. 1) Anchor Pressings (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (100 ITR 347) (All.) 2) Anchor Pressings (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (161 ITR 159) (SC) 3) Sharda Prasad vs. CIT (100 ITR 373) (All.) 4) Choksi Metal Refinery vs. CIT (107 ITR 63) (Guj.) 5) CIT vs. K.N. Oil Industries (142 ITR 13) (MP) 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. We find that the order of the CIT(A) is very cryptic The plea of the ass…

M/S Karakulam Service Co-Op Bank Ltd, Trivandrum vs. The ITO, Trivandrum

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

ITA 40/COCH/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 143(3)Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 8O

Auto Finance Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 12(3), Mumbai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 259/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.259/Mum/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Auto Finance Enterprises Acit-Circle 12(3) 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, बनाम/ 41, Nariman Bhavan, 221, Nariman Point, M. K. Road Vs. Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafa-2325-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta & Shri GovindFor Respondent: Shri Satish Chandra Rajore - Ld. DR

Section 139(1)Section 139(3)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 45(2)Section 74(1)Section 80

…er section 35B although the said relief was not claimed in the return. It is the correctness of this view which we have to examine in this reference. The learned standing counsel for the Department placed reliance upon Anchor Pressings (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1975] 100 ITR 347 (All.), Sharda Prasad v. CIT [1975] 100 ITR 373 (All.) and Paramount Trading Corporation v. ITO [1980] 124 ITR 55 (All.), in support of his submission that as no relief under section 35B was claimed by the assessee in the return, the mistake in not granting the relief could not be apparent and could not be corrected under section 154. These cases…