Ashwin Mehta v. Custodian (2 SCC 385)

AMBAR RESOURCES PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1569/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Varis Isani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 148Section 148ASection 249Section 69C

…ar Resources Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO Asst.Year –2018-19 - 4– on several judicial precedents such as P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala (1997) 7 SCC 556, Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy (2013) 12 SCC 649, and Govt. of A.P. v. S. Prakash Rao (1982) 2 SCC 385, holding that law of limitation must be applied strictly and that delay of 285 days could not be condoned. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in limine. 6. The assessee is in appeal before us against the order passed by the CIT(Appeals) dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation. 7. During the hearing, the learned Counsel for the asses…

GROWMORE RESEARCH AND ASSETS MANAGEMENT ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-4(1) (ERSTWHILE DCIT-31, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are treated as partly allowed

ITA 453/MUM/2023[1992-93]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2025AY 1992-93

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta and ShriDharmeshFor Respondent: Dr.P. Daniel – Spl. Counsel

Section 144

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “G” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. A.Y. Appellant Respondent M/s.Growmore Research DCIT, CC-4(1), and Assets Management (Erstwhile ACIT, Limited, CC-31) 453/Mum/2023 1992-93 32, Madhuli Apartment, 19th Floor, 3rd Floor, Air India Building, Dr. A.B. Road, Worli, Nariman Point Mumbai Mumbai PAN: AAACG4936C M/s.Growmore Research DCIT, CC-4(3), and Assets Management Central Range-4, Limited, 1125/Mum/2023 1992-93 19th Floor, 32, Madhuli Apartment, Air India Building, 3rd Floor, Nariman Point Dr…

LANXES INDIA P.LTD,THANE vs. ASST CIT CIR 1, THANE

In the result, both the appeals are treated as partly allowed

ITA 1125/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta and ShriDharmeshFor Respondent: Dr.P. Daniel – Spl. Counsel

Section 144

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “G” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. A.Y. Appellant Respondent M/s.Growmore Research DCIT, CC-4(1), and Assets Management (Erstwhile ACIT, Limited, CC-31) 453/Mum/2023 1992-93 32, Madhuli Apartment, 19th Floor, 3rd Floor, Air India Building, Dr. A.B. Road, Worli, Nariman Point Mumbai Mumbai PAN: AAACG4936C M/s.Growmore Research DCIT, CC-4(3), and Assets Management Central Range-4, Limited, 1125/Mum/2023 1992-93 19th Floor, 32, Madhuli Apartment, Air India Building, 3rd Floor, Nariman Point Dr…

SHRI. PARSWANATH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITA/304/2019HC Karnataka13 Sept 2021

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna

Section 109Section 13(1)(e)Section 13(2)Section 397Section 482

…tting an offence by intentionally aiding another to commit that offence that the charge of abetment against him would be expected to fail when the person alleged to have committed the offence is acquitted of that offence.” 8. Madan Raj Bhandari [(1969) 2 SCC 385: (1970) 1 SCR 688] is a case where the appellant was charged with having abetted one Mst Radha in causing miscarriage to a woman and that Mst Radha was acquitted but the appellant was convicted. This Court referred to the principle laid down in Faguna Kanta Nath case [1959 Supp 2 SCR 1: AIR 1959 SC 673: 1959 Cri LJ 917] and held that (SCR he…

RINA S. MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 23, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1455/MUM/2016[1992-93]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2021AY 1992-93

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 1992-93

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri P. Daniel, D.R

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 234ASection 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 1992-93 DCIT, Smt. Rina S. Mehta, Central Circle 4(1), 32, Madhuli, 3rd Floor, Central Range-4, ABN Road, Room No.1916, Vs. Opp. Nehru Centre, 19th Floor, Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Air India Building, PAN: ABNPM8222C Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 1992-93 Smt. Rina S. Mehta, DCIT, 32, Madhuli, 3rd Floor, Central Circle 4(1), ABN Road, Central Range-4, Opp. Nehru Centre, Vs. Room No.1916, Worli, Mumbai – 400 0…

DCIT CEN CIR 4(1) CEN RG 4, MUMBAI vs. RINA S. MEHTA, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1367/MUM/2016[1992-93]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2021AY 1992-93

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 1992-93

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri P. Daniel, D.R

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 234ASection 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 1992-93 DCIT, Smt. Rina S. Mehta, Central Circle 4(1), 32, Madhuli, 3rd Floor, Central Range-4, ABN Road, Room No.1916, Vs. Opp. Nehru Centre, 19th Floor, Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Air India Building, PAN: ABNPM8222C Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 1992-93 Smt. Rina S. Mehta, DCIT, 32, Madhuli, 3rd Floor, Central Circle 4(1), ABN Road, Central Range-4, Opp. Nehru Centre, Vs. Room No.1916, Worli, Mumbai – 400 0…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4 vs. GRAN OVERSEAS LTD.

ITA/42/2016HC Delhi22 Jan 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Section 125

…er and not from the date of the application for maintenance. And if he intends to pass such an order, he is required to record reasons in support of such order 17. Further, in Jaiminiben Hirenbhai Vyas & Anr vs Hirenbhai Ramesh Chandra Vyas &Anr. (2015) 2 SCC 385 the Supreme Court held that “Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., therefore, impliedly requires the Court to consider making the order for maintenance effective from either of the two dates, having regard to the relevant facts. For good reason, evident from its order, the Court may choose either date. It is neither appropriate nor desirable that a Cour…

M/S. ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANIES LTD. vs. COMNR. OF CUSTOMS

Appeals are dismissed but in

C.A. No.-000821-000821 - 2000Supreme Court25 Jan 2001

For Respondent: COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

…tract it was held that the same could not be split and State Legislature had no legislative right to seek to levy sales tax on a transaction which was not a sale simpliciter of goods. Rainbow Colour Lab & Anr. Vs. State of M.P. and Others (2000) 2 SCC 385 was, however, a case relating to the definition of the word sale in the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 after its amendment consequent to the insertion of Article 366 (29A). The question there was whether the job rendered by a photographer in taking photographs, developing and printing films would amount to works contract for the p…

Ashwin Mehta v. Custodian

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Ashwin Mehta v. Custodian