CIT v. A. Yonus Kunju

228 ITR 147High Court1997#17274 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,001 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2024.

Judgments citing CIT v. A. Yonus Kunju

M/S. Panchmahal Steel Ltd., Baroda vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for both the assessment years in question

ITA 128/AHD/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Manish J Shah & Shri Rushin Patel, A.RsFor Respondent: Shri R. N. Dsouza, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154Section 263

…by the assessee are genuine and therefore, nothing survives against the assessee to hold that assessee had incorrectly claimed VAT of Rs. 45,07,004/- as expenses. Further, the Counsel for the assessee also placed reliance on the case of CIT vs. A. Yonus Kunju 228 ITR 147 (Ker) on the proposition that even though the final order was passed by CESTAT subsequent to order of PCIT under Section 263 of the Act, even then 263 proceedings were liable to be set-aside since the very basis for initiating the 263 proceedings had been vacated / decided in favour of the assessee. 5. In response, the Ld. D.R. placed reliance o…

M/S. Panchmahal Steel Ltd., Baroda vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for both the assessment years in question

ITA 127/AHD/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Manish J Shah & Shri Rushin Patel, A.RsFor Respondent: Shri R. N. Dsouza, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154Section 263

…by the assessee are genuine and therefore, nothing survives against the assessee to hold that assessee had incorrectly claimed VAT of Rs. 45,07,004/- as expenses. Further, the Counsel for the assessee also placed reliance on the case of CIT vs. A. Yonus Kunju 228 ITR 147 (Ker) on the proposition that even though the final order was passed by CESTAT subsequent to order of PCIT under Section 263 of the Act, even then 263 proceedings were liable to be set-aside since the very basis for initiating the 263 proceedings had been vacated / decided in favour of the assessee. 5. In response, the Ld. D.R. placed reliance o…

M/S J P Distilleries Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 51/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri C Ramesh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Kannan Narayanan, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 28

…es India Ltd Vs. ACIT & Another (2010) 323 ITR 54 (Bom) ii) CIT V. (I) Kelvinator of India Ltd (ii) Eicher Ltd (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) iii) Asian Paints Ltd V. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Another (2009) 223 CTR 141 (Bom) iv) CIT V. Younus Kunju (1997) 228 ITR 147 (Kerala) Page 3 of 11 10. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in ignoring the position of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT V. Dhirendra Hansraj Singh, S.L.P (C) No.32237 of 2018 wherein it is held that: when there is no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose all material facts at the time…

M/S Sapna Investments, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 2203/BANG/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year :2008-09

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vimal Anand, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40

…ndia Ltd Vs. ACIT & Another (2010) 323 ITR 54 (Bom) ii) CIT Vs. (i) Kelvinator of India Ltd (ii) Eicher Ltd (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC). iii) Asian Paints Ltd Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Another (2009) 223 CTR 141 (Bom) iv) CIT Vs. Younus Kunju (1997) 228 ITR 147 (Kerala) 11. The appellant craves permission to add, delete or alter any of the grounds at the time of hearing.” Page 3 of 4 3. The ld. AR of assessee submitted that in the present case, proviso to section 147 is applicable because assessment order was earlier framed by AO u/s. 143(3) on 30.08.2010 and copy of this assessment order is available…

M/S Way 2 Wealth Brokers (P) Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 758/BANG/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri. Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri. C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri. B.R Ramesh, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(11)Section 32

…relied upon the following case laws : i) Rallies India Ltd v. ACIT[(2010) 323 ITR 54 (Bom); ii) CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd & Eicher Ltd [(2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC)] iii) Asian Paints Ltd v. DCIT [(2009) 223 CTR 141 (Bom); and iv) CIT v. Younus Kunju [(1997) 228 ITR 147 (Kerala)] On the basis of the above, it was submitted that the depreciation is required to be allowed on the WDV of these stock exchange membership cards. It was submitted that the rules and regulations dealing with BGSE and NSE as that of BGSE card, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Techno Shares & Stocks Ltd v. CIT [(2010) 327 ITR 323].…

CIT v. A. Yonus Kunju (228 ITR 147) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax