Appukutty v. STO

17 STC 380High Court1966#16952 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 352,026 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2022.

Judgments citing Appukutty v. STO

B G Exploration & Production India Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income, DDIT/ ADIT (International Taxation), Circle-1, Dehradun

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 47/DDN/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun27 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Mayak Kumar, JCIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘DB’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Kul Bharat, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA No. 13/DDN/2022: Asstt. Year: 2015-16 ITA No. 47/DDN/2022: Asstt. Year: 2018-19 BG Exploraton & Production India Ltd., Vs DCIT, BG House, Lake Boulevard, DDIT/ADIT (International Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Taxation), Circle-1, Mumbai-400076 Dehradun-248001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACE4569K Assessee by : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Mayak Kumar, JCIT, DR Date of Hearing: 11.10.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 27.12.2022 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R.…

B G Exploration & Production India Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income, DDIT/ ADIT (International Taxation), Circle-1, Dehradun, Uttarakhand

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 13/DDN/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun27 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Mayak Kumar, JCIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

Dy . Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(2)`, Nagpur vs. M/S Karan Kothari Jewellers Pvt.Ltd, Nagpur

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 315/NAG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur20 Dec 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri O.P. Kant, Am Assessment Year: 2016-17 A.C.I.T., Vs. M/S Karan Kothari Jewellers Central Circle-2(2), Private Limited, Nagpur. 475, Kothari Bhawan, Naik Lane, Itwari, Nagpur-440001. Pan No. Aacck 3221 C Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Hedaoo (Cit-Dr) Assessee By: Shri Hitesh P Shah (Ca) Date Of Hearing: 27/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/12/2021 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Nagpur Dated 30/09/2019 For The A.Y. 2016-17 Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.33,18,94,091/ -Made By The Ao As Unexplained Investment In Closing Stock Without Going Into The Merit Of The Case. 2. On The Fact & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Holding That Ao Is Not Empowered To Making Addition U/S 69 Without Rejecting Books Of Account Ignoring The Merit Of The Case. 3. On The Fact & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Holding The Findings Of The Ao That The <Salvalue> Column In The Jilaba Software Represent

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh P Shah (CA)For Respondent: Shri Pradeep Hedaoo (CIT-DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 69

…n the workings and reconciliation provided by the assessee. 8. We would also like to draw Your Honour's attention to the Hon. Supreme Court's judgement in the case of M. Appukutty v. STO 12 ITA 315/NAG/2019_ ACIT Vs M/s Karan Kothari Jewellers P Ltd. (1966) 17 STC 380 (Ker.) wherein it was held that "where the assessing officer refuses to apply his mind and makes the assessment as he likes, the assessment suffers from arbitraries and so is bad in law." In the case of our client, the Ld. AO has not brought on record any cogent or clinching evidence to disprove the details and explanation submitted by our client…

M/S. Naresh Pharmaceutical Agencies, Cuttack vs. Principal CIT, Cuttack

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 180/CTK/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Kuldip Singhassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kunal Singh, CIT, DR

Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…ssessee.” 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the orders of lower authorities and materials available on record. We find that the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of M. Appukutty vs Sales Tax Officer, Spl. Circle I, AIR 1966 Ker 55, 1966 17 STC 380 (Ker) has held that the judicial process does not end by making known to a person the proposal against him and giving him a chance to explain but extends further to a judicial consideration of his representations and the materials and a fair determination of the question involved. In the instant case, we find that the assessee had filed explanati…

DCIT, Circle - 11, Kolkata vs. M/S. Samay Construction Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 85/KOL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasusdevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2008-09 Dcit, Circle-11, P-7, V/S. M/S Samay Construction Chowringhee Square, Pvt. Ltd., C/O Model Kolkata-700 069 Nursury, 5/1, Tiljola Road, Park Circus, Kolkata – 700 046 [Pan No.Aahcs 8487 R] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 155Section 80Section 80ASection 80I

…know to the person the proposal against him and giving him a chance to explain. It extends further to a judicial consideration of his representations and the materials and a fair determination of the question involved in the case of M.Appukutty v. STO (1966) 17 STC 380 (Ker). In the case of CBDT v. Smt. Kamala Bai Srikrishna Soni (2010) 323 ITR 664 (Kar) it was held that where ITA No.85/Kol/2012 A.Y. 2008-09 DCIT Cir-11, Kol. v. M/s Samay Construction Pvt. Ltd. Page 7 the assessee had filed a belated wealth tax return including assets which were not chargeable to tax and could not file a revised return because…