Bharati Cements Corporation Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

356 ITR 74Reported decision2013#10586 most cited
10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 145(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234C

Judgments citing Bharati Cements Corporation Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

SATYA NARAYAN ,BHARATPUR vs. ITO WARD 1, BHARATPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1434/JPR/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1434/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Satya Narayan बनाम Income Tax Officer, Prop. M/s Shiv Charan Lal Satya Vs. Ward -1, Narayan, Navin Mandi Yard, Nadbai, Bharatpur Bharatpur स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAPPN9055M अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. Ashish Khandelwal, CA राजस्व की ओर से/Revenue by: Sh. Anup Singh

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

…ision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Om Sons International vs. CIT (2011) (15 taxmann.com 184) (Pun. & Har.) and the decision of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Bharathi Cement Corporation P. Ltd. vs. CIT (2013) 356 ITR 74 and the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Micro Labs Ltd. (348 ITR 75). In the light of the above decisions, assessment onder cannot be invalidated by reason of omission of "section 144" in the assessment order. If this mistake is not allowed to be cured, the very purpose and object of enacting the provisions of s…

CONCORD DRUGS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the assessee in all the years under consideration are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1901/HYD/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2019AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohana RaoFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey

…ted the books of accounts of the assessee before making reference under Section 142A for valuation. The Ld. CIT (A) at Paras 5.3 and 5.4 of the appellate order on Page 4 has relied on the case of Bharati Cements Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT and others (2013) 356 ITR 74. The Ld. CIT (A) also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Uttarkhand High Court in the case of Smt. Kiran Latha vs. ITAT (2009) 318 ITR 44 wherein it has been held that in a case where the Assessing Officer referred for the cost of construction u/s 142A to the DVO, and made addition u/s 69, rejection of books of accounts is implied. The…

DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, HYDERABAD vs. M/S CONCORD DRUGS LTD.,, HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the assessee in all the years under consideration are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1154/HYD/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohana RaoFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey

…ted the books of accounts of the assessee before making reference under Section 142A for valuation. The Ld. CIT (A) at Paras 5.3 and 5.4 of the appellate order on Page 4 has relied on the case of Bharati Cements Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT and others (2013) 356 ITR 74. The Ld. CIT (A) also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Uttarkhand High Court in the case of Smt. Kiran Latha vs. ITAT (2009) 318 ITR 44 wherein it has been held that in a case where the Assessing Officer referred for the cost of construction u/s 142A to the DVO, and made addition u/s 69, rejection of books of accounts is implied. The…

DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, HYDERABAD vs. M/S CONCORD DRUGS LTD.,, HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the assessee in all the years under consideration are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1153/HYD/2014[2007]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2019

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

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohana RaoFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey

…ted the books of accounts of the assessee before making reference under Section 142A for valuation. The Ld. CIT (A) at Paras 5.3 and 5.4 of the appellate order on Page 4 has relied on the case of Bharati Cements Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT and others (2013) 356 ITR 74. The Ld. CIT (A) also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Uttarkhand High Court in the case of Smt. Kiran Latha vs. ITAT (2009) 318 ITR 44 wherein it has been held that in a case where the Assessing Officer referred for the cost of construction u/s 142A to the DVO, and made addition u/s 69, rejection of books of accounts is implied. The…

DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, HYDERABAD vs. M/S CONCORD DRUGS LTD.,, HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the assessee in all the years under consideration are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1152/HYD/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2019AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohana RaoFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey

…ted the books of accounts of the assessee before making reference under Section 142A for valuation. The Ld. CIT (A) at Paras 5.3 and 5.4 of the appellate order on Page 4 has relied on the case of Bharati Cements Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT and others (2013) 356 ITR 74. The Ld. CIT (A) also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Uttarkhand High Court in the case of Smt. Kiran Latha vs. ITAT (2009) 318 ITR 44 wherein it has been held that in a case where the Assessing Officer referred for the cost of construction u/s 142A to the DVO, and made addition u/s 69, rejection of books of accounts is implied. The…

DCIT vs. PARMARTH IRON PVT. LTD,

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above and both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3211/DEL/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2019AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, &For Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 142ASection 154Section 68

…ome Tax, 2009 (2010)328 ITR 513 (SC). 5. Sri Sidharth Dhaon, learned counsel for Revenue, however, submitted that there is another judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Bharathi Cement Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and others, (2013) 356 ITR 74, which is a decision dismissing appeal of Assessee at the stage of admission. It is submitted that therein a divergent view has been taken. 6. We find that in the judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court, judgment in Sargam Cinema Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) has been noticed in para 16 and it has been held that since it is a short judgment…

DCIT vs. PARMARTH IRON PVT. LTD,

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above and both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2370/DEL/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2019AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, &For Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 142ASection 154Section 68

…ome Tax, 2009 (2010)328 ITR 513 (SC). 5. Sri Sidharth Dhaon, learned counsel for Revenue, however, submitted that there is another judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Bharathi Cement Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and others, (2013) 356 ITR 74, which is a decision dismissing appeal of Assessee at the stage of admission. It is submitted that therein a divergent view has been taken. 6. We find that in the judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court, judgment in Sargam Cinema Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) has been noticed in para 16 and it has been held that since it is a short judgment…

PARMARTH IRON (P) LTD vs. ACIT,

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above and both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1992/DEL/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2019AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, &For Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 142ASection 154Section 68

…ome Tax, 2009 (2010)328 ITR 513 (SC). 5. Sri Sidharth Dhaon, learned counsel for Revenue, however, submitted that there is another judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Bharathi Cement Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and others, (2013) 356 ITR 74, which is a decision dismissing appeal of Assessee at the stage of admission. It is submitted that therein a divergent view has been taken. 6. We find that in the judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court, judgment in Sargam Cinema Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) has been noticed in para 16 and it has been held that since it is a short judgment…

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. SRI. K.M. NAGARAJ, BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1259/BANG/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Ms. M.R.Vanaja, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.Kamaladhar, Standing Counsel
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 292B

…ecision of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Om Sons International vs. CIT (2011)(15 taxmann.com 184)(Pun. & Har.) and the decision of the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Bharathi Cement Corporation P. Ltd. vs. CIT (2013) 356 ITR 74 and also the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Micro Labs Ltd. (348 ITR 75). On the other hand, learned counsel for the assessee vehemently contended that wrong mention of section viz. 153A goes to the very root of the matter and it is jurisdictional error which cannot be cured by the provisions of section 29…

P.GOUTHAMCHAND(HUF),KGF vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF |NCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 736/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Aug 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raop.Gouthamchand (Huf), C/O M/S.M.P.Jewellers, 1St Cross, Robersonpet, Kgf-563122 … Appellant Pan: Aadhg0869E Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Circle 2(1), Bangalore. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri H.N.Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 292B

…to be invalid merely by reason of any mistake, defect or omission if in substance and effect, it is in conformity with or according to the intent and purpose of the Act. The Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Bharathi Cement Corporation vs. CIT (356 ITR 74) had interpreted the provisions of section 292B of the Act as under: “............It may however be noted that Section 292B of the Act enacts no assessment, notice, summons or other proceedings taken by the authorities under the Act shall be invalid by reason of any mistake, defect or omission if such notice or proceedings or assessment is otherwi…

Bharati Cements Corporation Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (356 ITR 74) — Cited in 10 Judgments | BharatTax