CIT & Anr. v. Bihari Lal Agrawal (Allahabad High Court)

346 ITR 67High Court2012#9027 most cited
12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2023.

Issues it is cited on

section 2(7)section 45(2)section 145(1)section 14(1)section 211section 2(47)(v)section 145(2)section 52section 53aproject completion methodsection 53section 34(1)

Judgments citing CIT & Anr. v. Bihari Lal Agrawal (Allahabad High Court)

ITO, WARD-5(3),, HYDERABAD vs. SHRI BRIJ GOPAL P SHAH, HUF,, HYDERABAD

ITA 1606/HYD/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 May 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri C.P. RamaswamyFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 154Section 158BSection 158CSection 246A(1)

…assessment could not be saved. This decision was followed by the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Micro Labs Ltd. [2012] 348 ITR 75 (Karn.) I also find that section 292BB of the IT Act cannot cure any defect in the notice. [ref CIT v. Bihari Lal Agarwal (2012) 346 ITR 67(All) and Kuber Tobacco Products P Ltd. v. DCIT [2009] 310 ITR (AT) 300 (Delhi). If such is the case with a defective notice, a notice which has had no foundation, such as notice u/s. 153A to a person who was not searched, cannot survive. 7.5.1 I find that in the case on hand, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s. 153A to the assessee in the st…

ITO, WARD-5(3),, HYDERABAD vs. SHRI KRISHNA KUMAR D SHAH, HUF, HYDERABAD

ITA 1605/HYD/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 May 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri C.P. RamaswamyFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 154Section 158BSection 158CSection 246A(1)

…assessment could not be saved. This decision was followed by the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Micro Labs Ltd. [2012] 348 ITR 75 (Karn.) I also find that section 292BB of the IT Act cannot cure any defect in the notice. [ref CIT v. Bihari Lal Agarwal (2012) 346 ITR 67(All) and Kuber Tobacco Products P Ltd. v. DCIT [2009] 310 ITR (AT) 300 (Delhi). If such is the case with a defective notice, a notice which has had no foundation, such as notice u/s. 153A to a person who was not searched, cannot survive. 7.5.1 I find that in the case on hand, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s. 153A to the assessee in the st…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 544/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Nagin Khincha &For Respondent: Shri M. Mathivanan, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 45(2)

…) • N R Sudhir vs DCIT (Inv.) 159 Taxman 37 (Bang) • G.S. Singhi and M N Agarwal (P&H) 146 Taxmann 701 • Spice Infotainment Ltd., vs CIT 247 CTR 500 (Delhi) • Nawal kishore & Sons Jewellers v/s. CIT [(2012) 79 DTR (All) 241] • CITvs.Bihari Lal Agarwal [(2012) 346 ITR 67 (All)] [(2012) 68 DTR (All) 112 • Manish Prakash Gupta v/s. CIT [(2012) 68 DTR 112 (All) • ACIT v/s. Supreme Appar and Associates [(2009) 30 DTR (Mum) (Trib) 229] ITA Nos.542 to 544/Bang/2021 & CO Nos.17 to 19/Bang/2021 Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore Page 96 of 96 • ITO v. Aligarh Auto Centre [(2013) 83 DTR (Agra) (Trib) 13. The Ld.…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 543/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Nagin Khincha &For Respondent: Shri M. Mathivanan, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 45(2)

…) • N R Sudhir vs DCIT (Inv.) 159 Taxman 37 (Bang) • G.S. Singhi and M N Agarwal (P&H) 146 Taxmann 701 • Spice Infotainment Ltd., vs CIT 247 CTR 500 (Delhi) • Nawal kishore & Sons Jewellers v/s. CIT [(2012) 79 DTR (All) 241] • CITvs.Bihari Lal Agarwal [(2012) 346 ITR 67 (All)] [(2012) 68 DTR (All) 112 • Manish Prakash Gupta v/s. CIT [(2012) 68 DTR 112 (All) • ACIT v/s. Supreme Appar and Associates [(2009) 30 DTR (Mum) (Trib) 229] ITA Nos.542 to 544/Bang/2021 & CO Nos.17 to 19/Bang/2021 Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore Page 96 of 96 • ITO v. Aligarh Auto Centre [(2013) 83 DTR (Agra) (Trib) 13. The Ld.…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 542/BANG/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Nagin Khincha &For Respondent: Shri M. Mathivanan, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 45(2)

…) • N R Sudhir vs DCIT (Inv.) 159 Taxman 37 (Bang) • G.S. Singhi and M N Agarwal (P&H) 146 Taxmann 701 • Spice Infotainment Ltd., vs CIT 247 CTR 500 (Delhi) • Nawal kishore & Sons Jewellers v/s. CIT [(2012) 79 DTR (All) 241] • CITvs.Bihari Lal Agarwal [(2012) 346 ITR 67 (All)] [(2012) 68 DTR (All) 112 • Manish Prakash Gupta v/s. CIT [(2012) 68 DTR 112 (All) • ACIT v/s. Supreme Appar and Associates [(2009) 30 DTR (Mum) (Trib) 229] ITA Nos.542 to 544/Bang/2021 & CO Nos.17 to 19/Bang/2021 Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore Page 96 of 96 • ITO v. Aligarh Auto Centre [(2013) 83 DTR (Agra) (Trib) 13. The Ld.…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. M/S C RAMAIAH REDDY

In the result, we do not find any merit in the appeal

ITA/192/2012HC Karnataka24 Jun 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 260Section 260ASection 292BSection 45(2)

…ALLAHABAD), ‘ACIT VS. GENO PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,’, (2013) 214 TAXMAN 83 (BOMBAY), ‘ CIT VS. GITSONS ENGINEERING CO.’, (2015) 370 ITR 87 (MADRAS), ‘PCIT VS. RAVNET SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,’, (2017) 399 ITR 567 (DELHI), ‘CIT VS. BIHARI LAL AGRAWAL’, (2012) 346 ITR 67 (ALLAHABAD), ‘NAWAL KISHORE AND SONS JEWELLERS VS. CIT’, (2012) 79 DTR (ALL) 9 241 (ALLAHABAD), ‘PCIT VS. SHRI JAI SHRI JAI SHIV SHANKAR TRADERS PVT LTD.’, (2016) 129 DTR (DEL) 63, ‘TRAVANCORE DIAGNOSTICS PVT LTD. VS. ACIT’, (2017) 390 ITR 167 (KER), ‘INDUS TOWERS LTD. VS. DCIT’, (2017) 82 TAXMANN.COM 430 (DELHI), ‘DCITK VS. CAMER…

PARAMOUNT BIOTECH INDUSTRIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 4100/DEL/2015[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Mar 2017AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. S.D. Kapila, Adv., Sh. PnayushFor Respondent: Sh. S.K. Jain, DR
Section 10(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 68

…nr. Vs. Bihari Lal Agrawal (Allahabad High Court) reported CIT & Anr. Vs. Bihari Lal Agrawal (Allahabad High Court) reported CIT & Anr. Vs. Bihari Lal Agrawal (Allahabad High Court) reported CIT & Anr. Vs. Bihari Lal Agrawal (Allahabad High Court) reported in 346 ITR 67 in 346 ITR 67 in 346 ITR 67 in 346 ITR 67 7 We also may mention here that the question of section 292BB of the Act pressed into service by the Revenue herein came up for consideration before this court in Income Tax Appeal No.286 of 20 11, decided on November 23, 2011 (ClT v. Mukesh Kumar Agrawal since reported in [2012l 345 ITR 29 (All)) and thi…

PARAMOUNT BIOTECH INDUSTRIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 4099/DEL/2015[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Mar 2017AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. S.D. Kapila, Adv., Sh. PnayushFor Respondent: Sh. S.K. Jain, DR
Section 10(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 68

…nr. Vs. Bihari Lal Agrawal (Allahabad High Court) reported CIT & Anr. Vs. Bihari Lal Agrawal (Allahabad High Court) reported CIT & Anr. Vs. Bihari Lal Agrawal (Allahabad High Court) reported CIT & Anr. Vs. Bihari Lal Agrawal (Allahabad High Court) reported in 346 ITR 67 in 346 ITR 67 in 346 ITR 67 in 346 ITR 67 7 We also may mention here that the question of section 292BB of the Act pressed into service by the Revenue herein came up for consideration before this court in Income Tax Appeal No.286 of 20 11, decided on November 23, 2011 (ClT v. Mukesh Kumar Agrawal since reported in [2012l 345 ITR 29 (All)) and thi…

SH. RAM KUMAR,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 785/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhua.Y. : 2006-07 Sh. Ram Kumar Ito, Ward 35(4), House No. 135, Surya Niketan, Vs. New Delhi Delhi – 110 092 (Pan: Aggpk6375E) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Adv, ShFor Respondent: Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69A

…nr. Vs. Bihari Lal Agrawal (Allahabad High Court) reported CIT & Anr. Vs. Bihari Lal Agrawal (Allahabad High Court) reported CIT & Anr. Vs. Bihari Lal Agrawal (Allahabad High Court) reported CIT & Anr. Vs. Bihari Lal Agrawal (Allahabad High Court) reported in 346 ITR 67 in 346 ITR 67 in 346 ITR 67 in 346 ITR 67 We also may mention here that the question of section 292BB of the Act pressed into service by the Revenue herein came up for consideration before this court in Income Tax Appeal No.286 of 20 11, decided on November 23, 2011 (ClT v. Mukesh Kumar Agrawal since reported in [2012l 345 ITR 29 (All)) and this…

SMT. ANITA KUMARI,PROP M/S HARRE KRISHANA CHEMICAL,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 5184/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Feb 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhua.Y. : 2007-08 Smt. Anita Kumari Income Tax Officer, Prop. M/S Hare Krishna Vs. Ward 1(1), Chemcial, Ghaziabad C-118, Vardhman Apartment-Iv, Shalimar Garden, Extension-Ii, Ghaziabad (Pan: (Appellant) (Appellant) (Appellant) (Appellant) (Respondent) (Respondent) (Respondent) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234B

…following cases:- - Decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Panorma Builders P Ltd. reported in 224 Taxmann 203 (Guj.). - Decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bihari Lal Agarwal reported in 346 ITR 67 (All.) - Decision of Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Manish Prakash Gupta vs. CIT reported in 68 DTR 112 (All.) - Decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of ACIT vs. Geno Pharmaceuticals Ltd. reported in 214 Taxmann 83 (Bom.) - Decision of the ITAT, Delhi in the case of DCIT vs. Silver Line in ITA No. 1809, 1504…

SH. DHIRENDRA NATH TRIVEDY,UTTAR PRADESH vs. DCIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 319/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhua.Y. : 2011-12 Sh. Dhirendra Nath Trivedy, Dcit, Circle-1, C-4014, Gaur Green City, Vs. Ghaziabad Vaibhav Kahdn, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh (Pan: Accpt8767F) (Appellant) (Appellant) (Appellant) (Appellant) (Respondent) (Respondent) (Respondent) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Adv, ShFor Respondent: Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…reto should be quashed as such. In support of this contention he relied upon the following cases:- - CIT & Anr. Vs. Mukesh Kumar Aggarwal (Allahabad High Court) as reported in 345 ITR 29 - CIT & Anr. Vs. Bihari Lal Agrawal (Allahabad High Court) reported in 346 ITR 67 - CIT vs. Cebon India Ltd. (Punjab & Haryana High Court) reported in 347 ITR 583 - CIT vs. Vishnu & Co. P Ltd. (Delhi High Court) reported in 319 ITR 151 - CIT vs. Bhan Textiles (P) Ltd. (Delhi High Court) reported in 287 ITR 287 - Madan Singh Kangarot vs. ITO (ITAT Jaipur Bench) reported in 145 TTH 262 - Dr. KC Verma vs. ACIT (ITAT, Delhi Be…

SH. RAVINDER JOON,GURGAON vs. ITO, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6852/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita Nos. 6852/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ravinder Joon, Vs Income Tax Officer, S/O Shri Rajender Singh, H.No.46 Ward-1(2), Gali No. B/10, Ashok Vihar, Gurgaon Phase-Iii, Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ajepj1394F Assessee By : Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Adv. & Sh. Shailesh Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Ved Prakash Mishra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.12.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.12.2015 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Adv. & Sh. Shailesh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ved Prakash Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(2)(ii)Section 143(3)Section 292B

…not curable even under the provisions of Section 292BB of the Act. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " CIT Vs Cebon India Ltd. (2012) 347 ITR 583 (P&H) " CIT Vs Mukesh Kumar Agrawal (2012) 345 ITR 29 (All) " CIT Vs Bihari Lal Agrawal (2012) 346 ITR 67 (All) " CIT Vs Dr. Ajay Prakash (2014) 42 Taxmann.com 387 (All) 8. In his rival submissions the ld. DR strongly supported the order of the ld. CIT(A) and further submitted that the assessee had not taken any objection for non-issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act before the AO and participated in the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the defec…

CIT & Anr. v. Bihari Lal Agrawal (Allahabad High Court) (346 ITR 67) — Cited in 12 Judgments | BharatTax