How many judgments cite CIT v. Aruna Luthra?

87 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Aruna Luthra (252 ITR 76), spanning 2016 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Aruna Luthra come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 10(37), Section 143(3), Section 145A(b), Section 147, Section 148, Section 151.

CIT v. Aruna Luthra

252 ITR 76High Court2001#1309 most cited

What is CIT v. Aruna Luthra authority for?

Rectification under Section 154 is permissible based on a subsequent judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court or the Supreme Court. Such a judgment clarifies the law as it always stood, thereby revealing a mistake apparent from the record.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Aruna Luthra · 252 ITR 76 · Section 154 · rectification of mistake · mistake apparent from record · subsequent judgment · jurisdictional High Court · Supreme Court judgment · declaration of law · retrospective application of law

Sections most often in play

Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 145A(b)Section 147 Section 148 Section 151 Section 263 Section 56(2)(viii)

Issues it is cited on

section 234e(1)section 200a(1)(c)section 141 section 282a(1)section 254(2)section 194la section 200a(1)section 200(3)section 145b section 145a(b)section 45(5)section 56(2)(viii)

Judgments citing CIT v. Aruna Luthra

Omega Hospital and Blood Bank, Jabalpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax CPC, Jabalpur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 36/JAB/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur20 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Bleassessment Year: 2018-19 Omega Hospital & Blood Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Income Tax, Bank, Cpc, Jabalpur (M.P.) Bangalore [Pan: Aabfo 8142Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Manoj Kumar Jain & Sh. Kailash Chandra Agrawal (Cas) Respondent By Sh. S.K. Halder, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13/12/2021 Date Of Pronouncement 20/12/2021

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43B

…ITA No. 36/Jab/2021(AY 2018-19) Omega Hospital & Blood Bank v. Dy. CIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR (SMC) BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2018-19 Omega Hospital and Blood Deputy Commissioner of vs. Income Tax, Bank, CPC, Jabalpur (M.P.) Bangalore [PAN: AABFO 8142Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Manoj Kumar Jain & Sh. Kailash Chandra Agrawal (CAs) Respondent by Sh. S.K. Halder, Sr. DR Date of hearing 13/12/2021 Date of pronouncement 20/12/2021 ORDER Per Sanjay Arora, AM This is an Appeal by the Assessee directed against the Order…

DCIT, Circle-2(2), New Delhi vs. Anant Raj Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal is allowed partly as indicated above

ITA 5238/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Goel, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CA; Ms

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50

…). b) L.HridayNarain vs ITO [1970] 78 ITR 26 (SC) c) CIT vs K. N. Oil Industries [1983] 142 ITR 13 (MP) d) NavNirman(P) Ltd vs CIT [1988] 174 ITR 574 (MP) e) KilKotagiri Tea & Coffee Estates Co Ltd vs ITAT [1988] 174 ITR 579 (Ker) f) CIT vs ArunaLuthra [2001] 252 ITR 76 (Punj. &Har.) g) CIT vs Ram Lal Babu Lal [1998] 148 CTR (Punj. &Har.) 643 23 I.T.As. No.4736, 5237 & 5238/DEL/2017 h) Omega Sports & Radio Works vs CIT [1982] 134 ITR 28 (All.) i) Gammon India Ltd vs CIT [1995] 214 ITR 50 (Bom) j) Maharana Mills (P) Ltd vs ITO [1959] 36 ITR 350 (SC) k) Addl. CIT vs Kanta Behan [1983] 140 ITR 187 (Delhi) l) Rastr…

DCIT, Circle-2(2), New Delhi vs. Anant Raj Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal is allowed partly as indicated above

ITA 5237/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Goel, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CA; Ms

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50

Anant Raj Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-2(2), New Delhi

The appeal is allowed partly as indicated above

ITA 4736/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Goel, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CA; Ms

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50

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

…ial Taxes (Kar) 116 CTR 284, iii. CIT Vs. Alankar BVorewells (Mad.) 177 CTR 560, iv. Pershuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. Vs. D.R. Trivedi, W.T.O (Guj.) 100 ITR 651, v. Walchand Nagar Industries Vs. V.S. Gaitonde, ITO, 44 ITR 260 ( Bom), vi. CIT Vs. Aurn Luthra, 252 ITR 76 ( P & H) and vii. Bhauram Jawahirmal Vs. CIT, 121 ITR 487 (All) 7 ITA No. 2286/PUN/2014, A.Y. 2005-06 10.1 In view of above decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Courts and various High Courts, it is argued and submitted that if decision of the High Court /Supreme Court is found on an issue subsequent to passing of the assessment order, which is appl…

DCIT 4(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Dalal Barocha Stock Broking P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 616/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.616/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Dcit 4(1)(1), Dalal Barocha Stock Broking P. Ltd. R.No. 640, 6Th Floor, 506, Maker Chambers, बिधम/ Aaykar Bhawan, V 221 Nariman Point, M.K Road, Vs. Mumbai – 400 021. Mumbai – 400 020. सससससस सससस सस./सससससस सस./Pan/Gir No. Aaacd5662J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) : अपीलार्थी की ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Purshottam Kumar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondentby : Shri. Vijay Mehta सुनवाई की तारीख / : 10/01/2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 07/04/2017 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Purshottam KumarFor Respondent: Shri. Vijay Mehta

Section 154Section 250(6)Section 36(1)(ii)Section 37(1)

…P a g e | 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R BASKARAN, AM AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.616/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) DCIT 4(1)(1), Dalal Barocha Stock Broking P. Ltd. R.No. 640, 6th Floor, 506, Maker Chambers, बिधम/ Aaykar Bhawan, V 221 Nariman Point, M.K Road, Vs. Mumbai – 400 021. Mumbai – 400 020. सससससस सससस सस./सससससस सस./PAN/GIR No. AAACD5662J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) : अपीलार्थी की ओर से /Appellant by : Shri Purshottam Kumar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondentby : Shri. Vijay Mehta सुनवाई की तारीख / :…

Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/S Subhash Kabini Power Corporation Limited

ITA/169/2015HC Karnataka29 Mar 2016

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

Section 260Section 263Section 80I

…able. Therefore, the assessee cannot claim the benefit of these orders. However, we do not concur with this proposition of the learned CIT, because the Full Bench of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Aruna Luthra reported in 254 ITR 76 has held that a Court decide a dispute between the parties. The case can involve decision on facts. It can also involve a decision on point of law. Both may have bearing on the ultimate result of the case. When a Court interprets a provision, it decides as to what is the meaning and effect of the words used by the Legislature, it is th…