Appa Rao v. CIT

46 ITR 511High Court1962#17948 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 346,713 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2022.

Judgments citing Appa Rao v. CIT

Madanlal Mulchandas Jariwala, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(3), Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 388/SRT/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.388/Srt/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2015-16) (Virtual Court Hearing) Madanlal Mulchandas Jariwala, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(2)(3), 4512, Ganchisheri Begampura, Surat. Surat-395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abbpj5168J (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By:Shri Mehul R. Shah, Ca Revenue By:Ms Anupama Singla, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 18/11/2021 घोषणाक"तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21/01/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1,Surat [In Short “The Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Surat-1/10530/2017-18 Dated 18.07.2019, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section143(3)Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”].

For Appellant: Shri Mehul R. Shah, CAFor Respondent: Ms Anupama Singla, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 57

…of the trade. It does not require the presence of a receipt on the credit | side to justify the deduction of an expense." We find that the same view has been taken by the Madras High Court in Appa Rao v. CIT [1962] 46 ITR 511 and Mohamed Ghouse v. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 127 (Mad), the Bombay High Court in Ormerods ( India) Private Ltd. v. CIT [1959] 36 ITR 329 , the Allahabad High Court in Chhail Behari Lal v. CIT [1960] 39 ITR 696 , the Madhya Pradesh High Court in CIT v. Dr. Fida Hussain G. Abbasi [1969] 71 ITR 314 , the Kerala High Court in M.N. Ramaswamy Iyer v. CIT [1969] 71 ITR 218 and the Orissa High Court in…

M/S. Safina Hotels Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2512/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Nov 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojarim/S. Safina Hotels Pvt. Ltd., 84/85, Safina Plaza, Infantry Road, Bangalore-560 001 ….Appellant Pan Aaccs 5146G Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 6(1)(1), Bangalore. ……Respondent. Assessee By: Shri Tata Krishna, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri Kannan Narayanan, Jcit(D.R)

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kannan Narayanan, JCIT(D.R)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32Section 37

….) Ltd. [2010] 187 Taxman 25 (Delhi), • ADCIT v. Rajasthan Spg. & Wvg. Mills Ltd. [2005] 274 ITR 465 (Rajasthan) • CIT v. Darashaw & Co. (P.) Ltd. [2014] 226 Taxman 193 (Bombay)(MAG.) • Appa Rao v. CIT [ 1962] 46 ITR 511 (Mad) • Mohamed Ghouse v. CIT [ 1963] 49 ITR 127 (Mad) • Ormerods (India) Private Ltd. v. CIT [ 1959] 36 ITR 329 (Born) • Chhail Behari Lal v. CIT [ 1960] 39 ITR 696 (All), • CIT v. Dr. Fida Hussain G. Abbasi [ 1969] 71 ITR 314 (MP) • M.N. Ramaswamy Iyer v. CIT [ 1969] 71 ITR 218 (Ker.) • CIT v. Gopal Ch. Patnaik [ 1978] 111 ITR 86. (Orrisa) • S.P.P.S. Systems (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT [2015] 154 ITD 4…

Asst CIT 16(3), Mumbai vs. Nishith M. Desai, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4852/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Firoze B. Andhyarujina, A.RFor Respondent: Shri N.P. Singh, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 24Section 57

…lly and exclusively made for the purposes of the trade. It does not require the presence of a receipt on the credit side to justify the deduction of an expense." 7. We find that the same view has been taken by the Madras High Court in Appa Rao vs. CIT (1962) 46 ITR 511 (Mad) and Mohamed Ghouse vs. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 127 (Mad): TC1 5R. 1170, the Bombay High Court in Ormerods (India) (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (1959) 36 ITR 329 (Bom). TC41R.658, the Allahabad High Court in Chail Behari Lal vs. CIT (1960) 39 ITR 696 (All) : TC41R.659, the Madhya Pradesh High Court in CIT vs. Dr. Fida Hussain G. Abbasi (1969) 71 ITR 314 (MP):…

ACIT 11(3), Mumbai vs. Nishith Desai, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2562/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Firoze B. Andhyarujina, A.RFor Respondent: Shri N.P. Singh, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 24Section 57

Nishith M. Desai, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 11(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2439/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Firoze B. Andhyarujina, A.RFor Respondent: Shri N.P. Singh, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 24Section 57

…ade. It does not require the presence of a receipt on the credit side to justify the deduction of an expense." 7. We find that the same view has been taken by the Madras High Court in Appa Rao vs. CIT (1962) 46 ITR 511 (Mad) and Mohamed Ghouse vs. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 127 (Mad): TC1 5R. 1170, the Bombay High Court in Ormerods (India) (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (1959) 36 ITR 329 (Bom). TC41R.658, the Allahabad High Court in Chail Behari Lal vs. CIT (1960) 39 ITR 696 (All) : TC41R.659, the Madhya Pradesh High Court in CIT vs. Dr. Fida Hussain G. Abbasi (1969) 71 ITR 314 (MP): TC41R.666, the Kerala High Court in M.N. Ramaswamy…