Chemical Works Ltd. v. CIT

94 ITR 519High Court1974#16247 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,356 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2022.

Judgments citing Chemical Works Ltd. v. CIT

Smt. Monica Chattopadhya, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle-28(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2369/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blesmt. Monica Chattopadhya V. Acit – Circle – 28(2) 321, Reena Complex Tower No. 6 R.N. Road, Vidyavihar (W) Vashi Railway Commercial Complex Navi Mumbai-400703 Mumbai – 400086 Pan: Ajipc1975D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Malav P. Sheth Department By : Mahita Nair

For Appellant: Malav P. ShethFor Respondent: Mahita Nair
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 54

…nica Chattopadhya discovered by a long drawn process of reasoning or examination of arguments on points where there may conceivably be two opinions cannot be said to be a mistake or error which is apparent from the record. J.M. Shah v. J.M. Bhatia, AAC [1974] 94 ITR 519 (Bom.) The plain meaning of the word 'apparent is that it must be something which appears to be so ex facie that it is incapable of argument or debate. The mistake can be regarded as 'apparent' only when it is glaring, obvious or self-evident mistake. ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL NO.2. 20. The said ground of appeal is reproduced below for your kind…

ITO, New Delhi vs. Sh. Vishnu Goel, Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the learned assessing officer are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3932/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Shivir Bajaj, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.S.Rana, CIT DR
Section 133Section 133ASection 271

…t). State Raja Syed Mohammed Saddat Ali Khan 1961 41 ITR 737 (SC), CIT Vs Straw Products Ltd 1966 60 ITR 156(SC), Madeva Upendra Sinai Vs UOI - 1975 98 ITR 209 -SC I. .vangadhar Chemical Works Ltd Vs CIT 1975 101 ITR 491 (Bom.), Shah JM Vs Bhatia JM AAc 1979, 94 ITR 519 (Bom), Anglo French Textiles Ltd v ITO 1976 103 ITR 2-2 'Rad.), it stands to reason that the development arising in the interval i.e. Hon'ble ITAT passing the order in the meanwhile in the appellant's main case i.e. SKG’s logically and necessarily, had to be taken cognizance of by me while passing the order in the case at hand. It is pertinent to…

ITO, New Delhi vs. Sh. Vishnu Goel, Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the learned assessing officer are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3931/DEL/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Shivir Bajaj, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.S.Rana, CIT DR
Section 133Section 133ASection 271

…t). State Raja Syed Mohammed Saddat Ali Khan 1961 41 ITR 737 (SC), CIT Vs Straw Products Ltd 1966 60 ITR 156(SC), Madeva Upendra Sinai Vs UOI - 1975 98 ITR 209 -SC I. .vangadhar Chemical Works Ltd Vs CIT 1975 101 ITR 491 (Bom.), Shah JM Vs Bhatia JM AAc 1979, 94 ITR 519 (Bom), Anglo French Textiles Ltd v ITO 1976 103 ITR 2-2 'Rad.), it stands to reason that the development arising in the interval i.e. Hon'ble ITAT passing the order in the meanwhile in the appellant's main case i.e. SKG’s logically and necessarily, had to be taken cognizance of by me while passing the order in the case at hand. It is pertinent to…

ITO, New Delhi vs. Sh. Vishnu Goel, Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the learned assessing officer are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3930/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Shivir Bajaj, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.S.Rana, CIT DR
Section 133Section 133ASection 271

…t). State Raja Syed Mohammed Saddat Ali Khan 1961 41 ITR 737 (SC), CIT Vs Straw Products Ltd 1966 60 ITR 156(SC), Madeva Upendra Sinai Vs UOI - 1975 98 ITR 209 -SC I. .vangadhar Chemical Works Ltd Vs CIT 1975 101 ITR 491 (Bom.), Shah JM Vs Bhatia JM AAc 1979, 94 ITR 519 (Bom), Anglo French Textiles Ltd v ITO 1976 103 ITR 2-2 'Rad.), it stands to reason that the development arising in the interval i.e. Hon'ble ITAT passing the order in the meanwhile in the appellant's main case i.e. SKG’s logically and necessarily, had to be taken cognizance of by me while passing the order in the case at hand. It is pertinent to…

ITO, New Delhi vs. Sh. Vishnu Goel, Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the learned assessing officer are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3929/DEL/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Shivir Bajaj, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.S.Rana, CIT DR
Section 133Section 133ASection 271

…t). State Raja Syed Mohammed Saddat Ali Khan 1961 41 ITR 737 (SC), CIT Vs Straw Products Ltd 1966 60 ITR 156(SC), Madeva Upendra Sinai Vs UOI - 1975 98 ITR 209 -SC I. .vangadhar Chemical Works Ltd Vs CIT 1975 101 ITR 491 (Bom.), Shah JM Vs Bhatia JM AAc 1979, 94 ITR 519 (Bom), Anglo French Textiles Ltd v ITO 1976 103 ITR 2-2 'Rad.), it stands to reason that the development arising in the interval i.e. Hon'ble ITAT passing the order in the meanwhile in the appellant's main case i.e. SKG’s logically and necessarily, had to be taken cognizance of by me while passing the order in the case at hand. It is pertinent to…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Atlas Copco (India) Ltd., Pune

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2286/PUN/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jan 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri R. MurlidharFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 154

…sions the ld. AR placed reliance on the following decisions : i. Mepco Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 185 Taxman 409 (SC); ii. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Nathpa Jhakri Joint Venture, 358 ITR 233 (Bom); iii. J.M. Shah Vs. J.M. Bhatia, AAC, 94 ITR 519 (Bom); iv. Arvind N. Mafatlal Vs. T.A. Balakrishnan, Dy. CED, 67 ITR 449 (Bom); 5.2 The ld. AR submitted that when an issue under consideration is a debatable, order on such an issue could not be passed in proceeding u/s. 154 of the Act. To support this argument the ld. AR placed on the decision of Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Tata…

Chemical Works Ltd. v. CIT (94 ITR 519) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax