Bakelite Highlam Ltd. v. CIT

171 ITR 344High Court#23074 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2019.

Judgments citing Bakelite Highlam Ltd. v. CIT

Bansila Mohanlal Malani Rep.by L/R Smt. Aruna Malani, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals of the assessee for both the AYs are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1280/HYD/2018[1994-95]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Oct 2019AY 1994-95

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Respondent: Sh. Chilaka Rajeswara Reddy, D.R
Section 132(4)Section 154Section 220(2)Section 234A

…the computation and, therefore, it is an appealable order u/s 246 of the Act. In support of his contention that it is an appealable order, he placed reliance on the decision of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Bakelite Highlam Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 171 ITR 344 (AP). 4. The Ld.DR, on the other hand, supported the orders of the CIT(A) and placed reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of ANZ Grindlays Bank PLC vs. CIT reported on 241 ITR 269(2000) (Calcutta) wherein it has been held that the order charging interest u/s 220(2) of the Act is neither a part of assessment ord…

Bansila Mohanlal Malani Rep. by L/R Smt. Aruna Malani, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals of the assessee for both the AYs are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1279/HYD/2018[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Oct 2019AY 1993-94

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Respondent: Sh. Chilaka Rajeswara Reddy, D.R
Section 132(4)Section 154Section 220(2)Section 234A

…the computation and, therefore, it is an appealable order u/s 246 of the Act. In support of his contention that it is an appealable order, he placed reliance on the decision of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Bakelite Highlam Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 171 ITR 344 (AP). 4. The Ld.DR, on the other hand, supported the orders of the CIT(A) and placed reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of ANZ Grindlays Bank PLC vs. CIT reported on 241 ITR 269(2000) (Calcutta) wherein it has been held that the order charging interest u/s 220(2) of the Act is neither a part of assessment ord…

Indokem Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT Cir 6, Mumbai

In the result all the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 3288/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi (AR)For Respondent: Shri Awungshi Gimson (DR)
Section 23Section 23(1)(a)Section 263

…was passed when already subsisting order dated 26.03.2012 for the A.Y. 2008—0 and order dated 20.07.2012 for the A.Y. 2009-10 was in forced. Subsequent order dated 29.01.2013 cannot be treated as valid order in view of the decision Bakelite Hylam Ltd. Vs. CIT 171 ITR 344 (AP), CIT Vs. Industrial Machinery Manufacturing P. Ltd. 282 ITR 592 (Guj). CIT Vs. Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. 170 ITR 449 (All.) etc. as order giving appeal effect (order dated 26.03.2012 for A.Y. 2008-09 & order dated 20.07.2012 for A.Y. 2009-10) got merged with the assessment order and consequently order giving appeal effect” dated A.Y. 2008-09…