Bagsu Devi Bafna v. CIT

62 ITR 506High Court1966#13085 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2024.

Judgments citing Bagsu Devi Bafna v. CIT

Sonal Sandeep Satav, Pune vs. PCIT, Pune-2, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 945/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Sarang GudhateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…emitting the impugned issue back to the file of the Ld. AO for fresh assessment thereon. In support of his arguments, the Ld. AR filed a legal compilation comprising of the following decisions : i. Bagsu Devi Bafna Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. (1966) 62 ITR 506 (Cal.); 13 ITA No.945/PUN/2024, AY 2018-19 ii. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom.); iii. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Trustees Anupam Charitable Trust (1987) 167 ITR 129 (Raj.). 5.1 Several other decisions have been relied upon by the assessee in the written submissions filed before us. 6. The Ld. DR r…

DCIT, Circle-4, Jaipur vs. M/S Kandoi Metal Powders Manufacturing Company Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 244/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) a

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ranji Lal Steel Rolling Mills Vs. CIT 84 ITR 222 (P&H) (b) Namasivayam Chettiar (S.N.) Vs. CIT (1960) 38 ITR 579 (SC) (c) Abdul Razak Vs. CIT (1935) 3 ITR 361 (Pat) (d) Balasubramanian (P.N.) Vs. ITO (1978) 112 ITR 512 (AP) (e) Bagsu Devi Bafna Vs. CIT (1966) 62 ITR 506 (Cal) (f) Cashmir Vastralaya Vs. CIT (1978) 112 ITR 630 (Pat) (v) Munna Lal Murlidhar Vs CIT (1971) 79 ITR 540 (All) The principle of natural justice involve a right in the assessee to inspect the reports and obtain the substance of the all relevant documents such as statements, orders, reports etc. so as to be able to lead evidence in rebuttal or…

Play Games 24 X 7 Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Pr. .CIT-(A) 13, Mumbai

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

ITA 3910/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ram Lal Negi: A.Y : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Shishir Dhamija

Section 263

…when the learned Commissioner revises the order on an entirely different ground, which has not been disclosed to the assessee, proper opportunity to the assessee is a must. In this regard, following case laws have been referred :- i) Bagsu Devi Bafna v. CIT (62 ITR 506) (Cal.); ii) G.K. Kabra (211 ITR 336) (AP); iii) CIT v. Ashish Rajpal (320 ITR 674) (Del.); iv) CIT v. General Trade Agencies (1973) TaxLR 1383 (Cal.); v) Colonisers v. ACIT (1992) 41 ITD 57 (Hyd. SB); and, 9 Play Games 24x7 Private Limited vi) Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel and Ors. (AIR 1985 SC 1416) (SC) Further, following case laws have al…

DCIT, CC-1, Jaipur vs. Shri Jugal Kishore Garg(Derewala), Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 34/JPR/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ambrish Bedi, CIT- DR fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 143(3)

…al Steel Rolling Mills Vs. CIT (1972) 84 ITR 222 (P&H) (b) Namasivayam Chettiar (S.N.) Vs. CIT (1960) 38 ITR 579 (SC) (c) Abdul Razak Vs. CIT (1935) 3 ITR 361 (Pat) (d) Balasubramanian (P.N.) Vs. ITO (1978) 112 ITR 512 (AP) (e) Bagsu Devi Bafna Vs. CIT (1966) 62 ITR 506 (Cal) (f) Cashmir Vastralaya Vs. CIT (1978) 112 ITR 630 (Pat) 5. Addi tion canno t be made on the basi s of state ment of a th ird p arty: - It is a case where the addition has been made only on the basis of statement of Shri N.K. Gupta Director and key-person of Manglam Group. The assessee further cites the following case laws justifying that th…

Purna Chandra Kishan Kaza, Visakhapatnam vs. The ITO, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 185/VIZ/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Blepurna Chandra Kishan Kaza, Vs. Ito, Ward-2(2), D.No. 2-15-42/6, Main Road, Visakhapatnam Mvp Colony, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aeqpk 8689 F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri I. Kama Sastry – FCAFor Respondent: Shri T.S.N. Murthy – CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

…a Chandra Kishan Kaza) passing the order. Ld.AR relied on the following other decisions also:- a) CIT & Ors. Vs. Ramendra Nath Ghosh (82 ITR 888) b) Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. Vs. ACIT [(2006) 5 SOT 17] c) Bagsu Devi Bafna Vs. CIT & Ors. (62 ITR 506) 6. On the other hand the Ld.DR supported the order of the Ld.CIT and argued that the ld.CIT has sent the notice within the time allowed under the act and delivered to the post office in advance of the date of hearing. Therefore requested to uphold the order u/s 263 and dismiss the appeal of the assessee. 7. We have heard both the sides and peru…

The J.K. Trust Bombay, Mumbai vs. CIT (E), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3769/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S The J. K. Trust Cit (Exemption) Bombay, R. No.617, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ New Hind House, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Narottam Morrjee Marg, Lalbaug, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400001

Section 11Section 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ‘जे’,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “J”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एन. के. "धान, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri N.K. Pradhan, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s The J. K. Trust CIT (Exemption) Bombay, R. No.617, 6th Floor, बनाम/ New Hind House, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Narottam Morrjee Marg, Lalbaug, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400001 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) PAN. No. AAATT0611L "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Shri Rakesh Mohan राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue by Shri…

Maharashtra Airport Development, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 3, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3741/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Maharashtra Airport Pr. Cit-3, Development Company 612, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 8Th Floor, World Trade M. K. Road, Centre, Tower No.1, Mumbai-400020 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aadcm9623M

Section 148Section 154Section 263Section 80I

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ‘बी’,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, ‘B’ MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s Maharashtra Airport Pr. CIT-3, Development Company 612, 6th Floor, बनाम/ Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 8th Floor, World Trade M. K. Road, Centre, Tower No.1, Mumbai-400020 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) PAN. No. AADCM9623M "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Shri Salil Kapoor & Shri Sumit Lalchand…

Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi & Ors

Appeal is dismissed

ITA - 504 / 2008HC Delhi18 Nov 2011

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 92Section 92CSection 92D

…ITA 504 OF 2008 Page 1 of 22 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ITA 504 OF 2008 % Judgment Reserved on:10.10.2011 Judgment Pronounced on :18.11.2011 RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD. . . . APPELLANT THROUGH: Mr. M.S. Syali, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Satyen Sethi, Ms. Mahua Kalra, Mr. Sumit K. Singh and Ms. Tunsal Syali, Advocates. VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX . . .RESPONDENT THROUGH: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr.Standing Counsel. CORAM:- THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE THE HON’BLE MR. JUS…