Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Limited

262 ITR 146High Court2003#11426 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154 Section 250 Section 254(2)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43B

Issues it is cited on

miscellaneous application

Judgments citing Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Limited

RATIONAL BUSINESS CORPORATION PVT LTD,SONIPAT vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-19(1), DELHI

Appeals are hereby dismissed

ITA 4403/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.4402 & 4403/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 बनाम Rational Business Corporation Dcit, Private Limited, Vs. Circle 19(1), C.R. Building, Bahalgarh Chowk, Delhi, Sonepat Road, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. Bahalgarh (73), Sonipat. Pan No.Aadcr1837J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

…ITA Nos.4402 & 4403/Del/2025 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRIMAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRISANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.4402 & 4403/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 बनाम RATIONAL BUSINESS CORPORATION DCIT, PRIVATE LIMITED, Vs. Circle 19(1), C.R. Building, Bahalgarh Chowk, Delhi, Sonepat Road, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. Bahalgarh (73), Sonipat. PAN No.AADCR1837J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee by Shri Amit Kumar Gupta, CA Revenue by Shri Sabyasachi Roy, Sr. DR सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date of hearing: 16.12.20…

RATIONAL BUSINESS CORPORATION PVT LTD,SONIPAT vs. DCIT CIRCLE-19(1), DELHI

Appeals are hereby dismissed

ITA 4402/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

SHAMJI MAYA & SONS,,BHUJ vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, BHUJ

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 93/RJT/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot25 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar"नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Shamji Maya & Sons, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Narayan Chambers, Ward-2, Bank Of Baroda Bldg., Bhuj-Kutch Station Road, Bhuj Pan : Abdfs 5703 J अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 17.11.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25.01.2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Gupta: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-3, Rajkot (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 19.02.2016 Passed U/S 250(6) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12. 2. This Is A Recalled Matter. In The First Round Of Litigation, The Tribunal Vide Order Dated 30.07.2019 In Ita No.93/Rjt/2016 For The Assessment Year 2011-12, Had Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee. However, The Assessee Moved A Miscellaneous Application Praying Recall Of The Order On The Ground That The Alternate Contention Raised By The Assessee To Tax The Undisclosed Contract Receipts Of Rs.15,41,000/- On Estimated Basis, In View Of The Decision Of Hon’Ble Jurisdictional High Court In The Case Of Cit Vs.Industries, Reported In (2002) 124 Taxman 654 (Guj), As Relied Upon By The Assessee, Was Not Considered By The Tribunal While Adjudicating The Case. The Tribunal, Therefore, Vide Order Dated 16.09.2022 Recalled The Appeal In View Of The Judgement Of Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 250(6)

…ting the case. The Tribunal, therefore, vide order dated 16.09.2022 recalled the appeal in view of the judgement of Hon’ble 2 Shamji Maya & Sons Vs. ITO AY :2011-12 jurisdictional High Court in the case of ACIT vs. Saurashtra Kutch Exchange Ltd, reported in 262 ITR 146 (Guj.) wherein it was held that non-consideration of judgement of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court would amount to a mistake apparent from the record. 3. The solitary issue, therefore, before us is whether the addition on account of difference in contractual receipts as reflected in the TDS Certificate and as that shown in the books of accounts…

ATUL LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1681/AHD/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Feb 2022AY 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT/DR

Section 250(6)Section 92C

…r to rectify any mistake apparent on the face of the record at any time within four years from the date of the order. In view of the judgment of this Court in case of Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Limited, reported in 262 ITR 146, the decision of the jurisdictional High Court even if rendered subsequently, would constitute a mistake apparent on record, investing the Tribunal with jurisdiction to rectify the mistake. It was therefore not even the argument of the Revenue that merely because the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in case of Gujarat Alkalies and Chemicals Ltd…

DCIT, CC-3(3), MUMBAI vs. MURARILAL R. MITTAL, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue stands allowed

ITA 7039/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya () & Shri Ravish Sood () Dy. Commissioner Of Shri Murarilal Income-Tax, Central Vs. R. Mittal Circle-3(3), Mumbai 1601 Marathon Room No. 1923, Air Heights, Pb Marg, India Building, 19Th Lower Parel (W), Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 013. Mumbai – 400 021. Pan No. Ahnpm8021D (Revenue) (Assessee) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri. Bharat Andhle, D.R Date Of Hearing : 08/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 11/10/2021

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Bharat Andhle, D.R

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147

…dit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Addl.CIT (350 ITR 655). In the order sent by the Brother, the said decision has not been dealt with. It may not be out of place to note here that Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Surasthra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. 262 ITR 146] has held that non-consideration of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court decision render the ITAT decision suffering from mistake apparent from record. 2. It may also be not out of place to mention here that in the open court it was told by me in the Bench that the assessee has not come clean with source of cash deposited in the Bank. That there is…

EXIND TRADING P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 6(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 351/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ravish Sood: A.Y : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Gubgotra

Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 68

…SCC 428, an obiter dictum of Supreme Court is binding on subordinate courts in absence of direct pronouncement on that question elsewhere by Supreme Court. We further find that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd., 262 ITR 146 (SC) has expounded that non consideration of Hon’ble Supreme Court decision whether cited or not can lead into an order of the Tribunal to be suffering from mistake 9 Exind Trading Pvt. Ltd. apparent from record. From this it implies that it is incumbent upon subordinate courts to follow the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 10. We fi…

DISRUPTED BOI CONSISTING OF SRI. DASAPPA, SRI. RAMACHANDRAPPA & SRI. D. JAIRAJ,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

ITA 273/BANG/2010[1986-87]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Dec 2017AY 1986-87

Bench: Shri. A. K. Garodia & Shri. Lalit Kumar

Section 143(3)

…has been held in the following case laws that the Tribunal has no power to review:- 1. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v CIT (191 CTR 344)(Raj.) 2. Schenectady Bench India Ltd. v bCIT (91 ITb 23) (Third Member) 3. ACIT v Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. (262 ITR 146) (Guj.) 2.14 Once a finding has been arrived by the Tribunal, the same finding cannot be reversed while hearing appeal of another assessee as it will tantamount to review of earlier order. Hence, also on this ground, it cannot be held that receipts in the nature of goodwill or gift and presentation belong to AOP. The reopening of assessment on su…

The Commissioner of Income Tax-X

The appeal of the revenue is allowed with no order as to costs

ITA/349/2011HC Delhi08 Nov 2011

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 260ASection 80H

…ITA-349-11 Page 1 of 10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.349/2011 Reserved on : 1st November, 2011. % Date of Decision : 8th November, 2011. The Commissioner of Income Tax-X .... Appellant Through: Ms. Rashmi Chopra, Advocate. VERSUS SATISH KUMAR AGARWAL …..Respondent Through: Ms.Bhakti Pasrija, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To b…

ASSISTANT COMMNR., INCOME TAX, RAJKOT vs. SAURASHTRA KUTCH STOCK EXCHANGE LTD

C.A. No.-001171-001171 - 2004Supreme Court15 Sept 2008

Section 11Section 12ASection 143Section 154Section 25Section 254

…directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Gujarat, Ahmedabad on March 31, 2003 in Special Civil Application No. 1247 of 2002 [Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd., (2003) 262 ITR 146]. By the said judgment, the High Court confirmed the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad on September 5, 2001 in Misc. Application NO. 31/Rjt/2000. By the said order, the Tribunal held that there was a ‘mistake apparent from the record’ within the meaning of sub-section (2) of Section 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and…