Bhagwandas Patel v. G.V. Shah, ITO

98 ITR 255High Court1975#16293 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 331,145 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 115-AASection 115-JAASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 154(7)Section 234B

Issues it is cited on

doctrine of mergersection 80hhcsection 32section 254section 37(1)section 154first appealsection 15section 250prescribedcompanysection 143(3)

Judgments citing Bhagwandas Patel v. G.V. Shah, ITO

The South Indian Bank, Thrissur vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1) & Tps, Thrissur

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 284/COCH/2024[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2025AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoshri Sandeep Singh Karhailthe South Indian Bank Limited, Head Office, Mission Quarters, Tb Road, Thrissur Kerala - 680001 ............... Appellant Pan : Aabct0022F V/S Dcit, Circle – 1(1) & Tps ……………… Respondent Thrissur, Kerala

For Appellant: Shri Naresh C, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 115Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234BSection 234DSection 250

…he appellate authority and was left untouched by him does not merge and the order in such part remains open for rectification by the Assessing Officer under section 154. On this there was some judicial controversy. See Karsandas Bhagwandas Patel's case [1975] 98 ITR 255 (Guj.), (which was dissented from in J. K. Synthetics Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [1976] 105 ITR 344 (All.)), Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 407 (Cal.), Premchand Sitanath Roy v. Addl. CIT [1977] 109 ITR 751 (Cal.). But the conflict of judicial opinion is now resolved as the principle of partial merger is now given statutory effect by sub…

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2 (1), Panaji vs. M/S V. M. Salgaocar & Brothers (P) Ltd., Vasco

Appeals of the Revenue are DISMISSED

ITA 211/PAN/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji03 Oct 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos. 209 To 211/Pan/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2007-08 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Panaji, Goa . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Ketan Ved [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr N. Shrikanth [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 32Section 37(1)Section 80H

…sment order merging with the appellate order and hence that part of assessment continues to have an independent existence. We find this view has been followed plethora of decision from Hon’ble High Court in ‘Karsandas Bhagwandas Patel Vs G.V. Shah, ITO [1975] 98 ITR 255(Guj), ‘Singho Mica Mining Co. Ltd. Vs CIT [1978] 111 ITR 231(Cal), ‘CIT Vs City Palayacot Co. [1980] 122 ITR 430 (Mad) and in ‘CIT v. Indian Auto Stores’ [1981] 129 ITR 554 (Mad) and by the Jurisdictional Hon’ble Bombay High Court in ‘CIT Vs Sakseria Cotton Mills Ltd. (1979) 2 Taxman 0152, 47 CCH 0203. 10. We also our view is fortified in the deci…

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2 (1), Panaji vs. M/S V. M. Salgaocar & Brothers (P) Ltd., Vasco

Appeals of the Revenue are DISMISSED

ITA 210/PAN/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji03 Oct 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos. 209 To 211/Pan/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2007-08 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Panaji, Goa . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Ketan Ved [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr N. Shrikanth [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 32Section 37(1)Section 80H

…sment order merging with the appellate order and hence that part of assessment continues to have an independent existence. We find this view has been followed plethora of decision from Hon’ble High Court in ‘Karsandas Bhagwandas Patel Vs G.V. Shah, ITO [1975] 98 ITR 255(Guj), ‘Singho Mica Mining Co. Ltd. Vs CIT [1978] 111 ITR 231(Cal), ‘CIT Vs City Palayacot Co. [1980] 122 ITR 430 (Mad) and in ‘CIT v. Indian Auto Stores’ [1981] 129 ITR 554 (Mad) and by the Jurisdictional Hon’ble Bombay High Court in ‘CIT Vs Sakseria Cotton Mills Ltd. (1979) 2 Taxman 0152, 47 CCH 0203. 10. We also our view is fortified in the deci…

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2 (1), Panaji vs. M/S V. M. Salgaocar & Brothers (P) Ltd., Vasco

Appeals of the Revenue are DISMISSED

ITA 209/PAN/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji03 Oct 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos. 209 To 211/Pan/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2007-08 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Panaji, Goa . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Ketan Ved [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr N. Shrikanth [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 32Section 37(1)Section 80H

…sment order merging with the appellate order and hence that part of assessment continues to have an independent existence. We find this view has been followed plethora of decision from Hon’ble High Court in ‘Karsandas Bhagwandas Patel Vs G.V. Shah, ITO [1975] 98 ITR 255(Guj), ‘Singho Mica Mining Co. Ltd. Vs CIT [1978] 111 ITR 231(Cal), ‘CIT Vs City Palayacot Co. [1980] 122 ITR 430 (Mad) and in ‘CIT v. Indian Auto Stores’ [1981] 129 ITR 554 (Mad) and by the Jurisdictional Hon’ble Bombay High Court in ‘CIT Vs Sakseria Cotton Mills Ltd. (1979) 2 Taxman 0152, 47 CCH 0203. 10. We also our view is fortified in the deci…

Talent Anywhere Services Pvt. Ltd. ( Successor to Qsg Resource Management India Pvt. Ltd. ), Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Baroda

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 3321/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Jun 2019AY 2010-11
Section 154

…en deprived of the opportunity to approach the DRP in respect of the action at the assessment stage. Our attention is then invited to the judicial precedents in the cases of S Sankappa Vs ITO [(1968) 68 ITR 760 (SC)], Karsandas Bhagwandas Patel Vs ITO [(1975) 98 ITR 255 (Guj)] and Arvind N Mafatlal Vs ITO [(1957) 32 ITR 350 (Bom)] in support of proposition that rectification order is also an order of assessment. It is thus contended that an assessment order, which is what a rectification order in respect of assessment order inherently is, without first presenting the assessee with the draft order vitiates the who…

M/S. Enfield Gems & Jewellery Ltd., Kolkata vs. CIT, Kolkata-I, Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 33/KOL/2015[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jun 2016AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2012-13

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271ASection 41(1)

…Jewellery Ltd. v. CIT-Centrl-I Kol. Page 4 2) ACIT vs. Saraya Distillery (1978) CTR 382 (All) 3) ACIT vs. Indian Pharmaceuticals (1980) 19 CTR 302 (MP) 4) CIT vs. Cochin Malabar Estates Ltd (1974) 97 ITR 466 (Ker) 5) Singho Mica mining Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1978) 111 ITR 231 (Cal) 6) C.A Abrham vs. ITO (1961) 41 ITR 425 (SC) Hence, it was mandatory for the AO initiate the penalty proceedings in terms of the provisions of section 271AAA of the Act. So the order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Aggrieved by this order of L’d CIT under section 263 of the Act the assessee preferr…