CIT, Patiala v. Sood Harvester

304 ITR 279High Court2008#15588 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,375 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 260ASection 32Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

Judgments citing CIT, Patiala v. Sood Harvester

Dy..C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S State Bank of Mysore, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue Ground-3 is dismissed

ITA 683/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Account Member & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved & Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray, Spl. Counsel
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 41(1)Section 41(4)

…atsang v. CIT reported in [1992] 193 ITR 321. • Decision of the Hon'ble Patna High Court in the case of Alok Nursing Home v. CIT reported in [2010] 322 ITR 171 (Pat.) • Decision of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of CIT v. Sood Harvester reported in [2008] 304 ITR 279 (P & H) 22. The Ld. DR stands in favour of the orders of revenue authorities. But unable to rebut by submitting any contrary judgment against the submission of the Ld. AR. 23. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The assessee has claimed deduction under section 36(1)(viii) of the Act amounting to Rs.55…

State Bank of Mysore, Bangalore vs. JCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue Ground-3 is dismissed

ITA 660/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Account Member & Shri Anikesh Banerjeestate Bank Of India Vs Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax, (Erstwhile State Bank Of Large Tax Payers Unit, Bangalore Mysore Prior To Merger) Local Head Office Compliance Department, 4Th Floor, 65, St. Marks Road, Bangalore-560 001 Pan: Aaccs0155P Appellant Respondent Deputy Commissioner Of Vs State Bank Of Mysore Income-Tax, Ltu, Circle-1, Head Office, Finance & Accounts Bangalore Department, Kg Road, Bangalore- 560 009 Pan: Aaccs0155P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved & Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray, Spl. Counsel
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 41(1)Section 41(4)

…atsang v. CIT reported in [1992] 193 ITR 321. • Decision of the Hon'ble Patna High Court in the case of Alok Nursing Home v. CIT reported in [2010] 322 ITR 171 (Pat.) • Decision of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of CIT v. Sood Harvester reported in [2008] 304 ITR 279 (P & H) 22. The Ld. DR stands in favour of the orders of revenue authorities. But unable to rebut by submitting any contrary judgment against the submission of the Ld. AR. 23. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The assessee has claimed deduction under section 36(1)(viii) of the Act amounting to Rs.…

Shibani S. Bhojwani, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 3(4), Mumbai

ITA 1525/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh A. Thar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…ai Reddiar Vs.CIT (1964) (53 ITR 601) (Ker). We further find that the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court had also been followed by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the Shibani B. Bhojwani case of CIT, Patiala Vs. Sood Harvester (2008) 304 ITR 279 (P&H), wherein the Hon’ble High court emphasized on the fact that the revenue was statutorily bound to maintain consistency, and a departure from an earlier decision on the same question would not be permissible, unless some new facts involving material difference were found in the subsequent years. We further are persuaded to be in agreement wit…

Income Tax Officer, Bhiwadi vs. Shri Pratap Singh Tanwar, Jaipur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1027/JPR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Jan 2019AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (JCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…tribunal restored the addition in quantum appeal. The penalty on these facts was deleted by holding that two opinions are possible in respect of the deposits and there is no material to show that these deposits were assessee’s income • CIT Vs. Sood Harvestar 304 ITR 279 (P&H) It was held that a case of difference of opinion is not concealment of income and not chargeable to tax. (d) In respect of all the above creditors, assessee has proved the identity of creditor, genuineness of the transaction and the creditworthiness of creditor by furnishing various documents. He has submitted explanation regarding each o…

ACIT 21(1), Mumbai vs. Nailesh P. Dalal, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross-objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6169/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09 Acit-21(1), Shri Nailesh Dalal, 6Th Floor, C-10, 5-6, Viram, 62, बनाम/ Pratyaksh Kar Bhavan, Hatkesh Society, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, N. S. Road No.8, Bandra (East) Jvpd Scheme, Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400049 (राज"व /Revenue ) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aacpd9844N Cross Objection No.49/Mum/2016 (Arising Out Of Ita No.6169/Mum/2014) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Nailesh Dalal, Acit-21(1), 5-6, Viram, 62, 6Th Floor, C-10, बनाम/ Hatkesh Society, Pratyaksh Kar Bhavan, Vs. N. S. Road No.8, Bandra Kurla Complex, Jvpd Scheme, Bandra (East) Mumbai-400049 Mumbai-400051 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue ) Pan. No.Aacpd9844N

…) DIT vs. Escorts Cardiac Diseases Hospital Society IT Appeal No.28/2006 Pg 78-79 f) CIT vs. Dalmia Promoters Developers: ITAppeal.No.755 of 2005 Pg 8041 g) CWT vs: Allied Finance (P) Ltd. (2007) 289 ITR 318(Del) Pg 82- 83 h) CIT vs. Sood harvester (2008) 304 ITR 279 Pg 84-85 i) Pukhraj Rikhabdass vs. CWT: (1995) 203 ITR 770 (Raj) Pg 86-87 j) CIT V India Forge & Drop Stamping Ltd. (1999) 240 ITR (Mad) Pg 88-89 vi) That the appellant has been assessed to tax u/s 143(3) in the proceeding assessment year i.e. assessment years 2004-05 wherein the shares /MF Units sold during the previous year have been accept…

ACIT 15(3), Mumbai vs. Neelkanth Palm Realty, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3922/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2016AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Gyneshwar KataramFor Respondent: Shri S.R.Kirtane
Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…Zycus Infotech P Ltd 17 SOT 310. 3.14 It is also a settled law that when no penalty has been levied on similar facts and similar additions made in earlier years, no penalty can be levied in subsequent years. Reliance in this regard is placed on Sood Harvester 304 ITR 279 (P&H) and Navjeevan Oil Mills 252 ITR 417 (Guj). In case of Sood Harvester, the Punjab & Haryana He has relied upon the judgment of SC in case of Berger Paints Ltd 266 ITR 99 (SC) and Radhasaomi Satsang 193 ITR 321 and has held as under: "2. It is undisputed that for the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1982-83, on similar set of fac…

CIT, Patiala v. Sood Harvester (304 ITR 279) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax