Bishwannath P Singh v. Rajendra Prasad Bishwannath P Singh v. Rajendra Prasad

4 SCC 432Reported decision2006#9989 most cited
11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2024.

Issues it is cited on

section 112section 111section 114furnishing inaccurate particulars of incomefurnishing inaccurate particularssection 56section 37(1)cross objectionsection 132(4)section 271(1)income from other sourcesincriminating material

Judgments citing Bishwannath P Singh v. Rajendra Prasad Bishwannath P Singh v. Rajendra Prasad

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. MATIX FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for assessment year

ITA 2154/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Ita Nos. 1688, 1687, 1686, 1685, 1683, 1684/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2019-2020

For Appellant: Mr. Ajay R. Singh, &

…he Ld. Counsel submitted that the entire document by and between the parties by and between the parties has to be understood has to be understood e of Bishwannath P Singh v. Rajendra Prasad Bishwannath P Singh v. Rajendra Prasad as held in the case of (2006) 4 SCC 432. The Ld. Counsel also referred to the decision of . The Ld. Counsel also referred to the decision of . The Ld. Counsel also referred to the decision of preme Court in the case of Shahzada Nand and Shahzada Nand and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sons v. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 358 (SC) Sons v. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 358 (SC) and submitted that and…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CC-5(4), MUMBAI vs. MATIX FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for assessment year

ITA 2152/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Ita Nos. 1688, 1687, 1686, 1685, 1683, 1684/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2019-2020

For Appellant: Mr. Ajay R. Singh, &

…he Ld. Counsel submitted that the entire document by and between the parties by and between the parties has to be understood has to be understood e of Bishwannath P Singh v. Rajendra Prasad Bishwannath P Singh v. Rajendra Prasad as held in the case of (2006) 4 SCC 432. The Ld. Counsel also referred to the decision of . The Ld. Counsel also referred to the decision of . The Ld. Counsel also referred to the decision of preme Court in the case of Shahzada Nand and Shahzada Nand and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sons v. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 358 (SC) Sons v. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 358 (SC) and submitted that and…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. MATIX FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for assessment year

ITA 2149/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Ita Nos. 1688, 1687, 1686, 1685, 1683, 1684/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2019-2020

For Appellant: Mr. Ajay R. Singh, &

…he Ld. Counsel submitted that the entire document by and between the parties by and between the parties has to be understood has to be understood e of Bishwannath P Singh v. Rajendra Prasad Bishwannath P Singh v. Rajendra Prasad as held in the case of (2006) 4 SCC 432. The Ld. Counsel also referred to the decision of . The Ld. Counsel also referred to the decision of . The Ld. Counsel also referred to the decision of preme Court in the case of Shahzada Nand and Shahzada Nand and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sons v. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 358 (SC) Sons v. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 358 (SC) and submitted that and…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. MATIX FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 2148/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

Section 37(1)Section 56

…y facts and rejected the grounds with cryptic reasons without assigning any proper reasons. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the entire document by and between the parties has to be understood as held in the case of Bishwannath P Singh v. Rajendra Prasad (2006) 4 SCC 432. The Ld. Counsel also referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shahzada Nand and Sons v. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 358 (SC) and submitted that the Department cannot sit in arm chair of businessmen and decide how he should have entered in the contract. The Ld. Counsel also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court…

MATIX FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LTD ,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIT(A)53, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for assessment year

ITA 1687/MUM/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Ita Nos. 1688, 1687, 1686, 1685, 1683, 1684/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2019-2020

For Appellant: Mr. Ajay R. Singh, &

…he Ld. Counsel submitted that the entire document by and between the parties by and between the parties has to be understood has to be understood e of Bishwannath P Singh v. Rajendra Prasad Bishwannath P Singh v. Rajendra Prasad as held in the case of (2006) 4 SCC 432. The Ld. Counsel also referred to the decision of . The Ld. Counsel also referred to the decision of . The Ld. Counsel also referred to the decision of preme Court in the case of Shahzada Nand and Shahzada Nand and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sons v. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 358 (SC) Sons v. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 358 (SC) and submitted that and…

MATIX FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LTD ,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIT(A)53, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for assessment year

ITA 1686/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Ita Nos. 1688, 1687, 1686, 1685, 1683, 1684/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2019-2020

For Appellant: Mr. Ajay R. Singh, &

…he Ld. Counsel submitted that the entire document by and between the parties by and between the parties has to be understood has to be understood e of Bishwannath P Singh v. Rajendra Prasad Bishwannath P Singh v. Rajendra Prasad as held in the case of (2006) 4 SCC 432. The Ld. Counsel also referred to the decision of . The Ld. Counsel also referred to the decision of . The Ld. Counsel also referred to the decision of preme Court in the case of Shahzada Nand and Shahzada Nand and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sons v. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 358 (SC) Sons v. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 358 (SC) and submitted that and…

MATIX FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LTD ,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIT(A)53, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for assessment year

ITA 1684/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Ita Nos. 1688, 1687, 1686, 1685, 1683, 1684/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2019-2020

For Appellant: Mr. Ajay R. Singh, &

…he Ld. Counsel submitted that the entire document by and between the parties by and between the parties has to be understood has to be understood e of Bishwannath P Singh v. Rajendra Prasad Bishwannath P Singh v. Rajendra Prasad as held in the case of (2006) 4 SCC 432. The Ld. Counsel also referred to the decision of . The Ld. Counsel also referred to the decision of . The Ld. Counsel also referred to the decision of preme Court in the case of Shahzada Nand and Shahzada Nand and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sons v. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 358 (SC) Sons v. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 358 (SC) and submitted that and…

MATIX FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LTD ,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIT(A)53, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for assessment year

ITA 1683/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Ita Nos. 1688, 1687, 1686, 1685, 1683, 1684/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2019-2020

For Appellant: Mr. Ajay R. Singh, &

…he Ld. Counsel submitted that the entire document by and between the parties by and between the parties has to be understood has to be understood e of Bishwannath P Singh v. Rajendra Prasad Bishwannath P Singh v. Rajendra Prasad as held in the case of (2006) 4 SCC 432. The Ld. Counsel also referred to the decision of . The Ld. Counsel also referred to the decision of . The Ld. Counsel also referred to the decision of preme Court in the case of Shahzada Nand and Shahzada Nand and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sons v. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 358 (SC) Sons v. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 358 (SC) and submitted that and…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) DELHI vs. HAMDARD NATIONAL FOUNDATION (INDIA)

ITA/144/2021HC Delhi16 Feb 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

Section 11Section 13(2)(b)Section 13(3)

…he places reliance on the following judgments: i. M.M. Ipoh & Ors. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras, AIR 1968 SC 317; ii. The Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal v. Brijlal Lohia & Mahabir Prasad Kemka, Executors of Late Kanailal Lohia, (1972) 4 SCC 432; iii. Income Tax Officer, A Ward, Sitapur v. Murlidhar Bhagwan Das, (1964) 52 ITR 335 (SC); and iv. Distributors (Baroda) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors., (1986) 1 SCC 43. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant/revenue further submits that in the present case, the „market rent‟, as found by the Assessing Officer, had been confronted…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) DELHI vs. HAMDRD NATIONAL FOUNDATION (INDIA)

ITA/115/2021HC Delhi16 Feb 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

Section 11Section 13(2)(b)Section 13(3)

…he places reliance on the following judgments: i. M.M. Ipoh & Ors. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras, AIR 1968 SC 317; ii. The Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal v. Brijlal Lohia & Mahabir Prasad Kemka, Executors of Late Kanailal Lohia, (1972) 4 SCC 432; iii. Income Tax Officer, A Ward, Sitapur v. Murlidhar Bhagwan Das, (1964) 52 ITR 335 (SC); and iv. Distributors (Baroda) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors., (1986) 1 SCC 43. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant/revenue further submits that in the present case, the „market rent‟, as found by the Assessing Officer, had been confronted…

RITZ THEATER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Accordingly, they are dismissed without any

ITA/978/2010HC Delhi25 Aug 2010

Bench: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 282Section 67(2)

…no jurisdiction therefor, and/or in a case involving a pure question of law. It will also have no application in a case where the judgment is not a speaking one.” [Emphasis Added] 40. In Bishwanath Prasad Singh v. Rajendra Prasad and another, (2006) 4 SCC 432, it has been held thus:- “43. The question of determination of (sic) being a pure question of law, the principles of res judicata shall have no application. Therefore, the High Court, in our opinion, committed a manifest error in interfering with the judgment and decree passed by the trial court as also the appellate court in exercise of it…