CIT v. Bhagwan Das

142 Taxmann 1High Court2005#19119 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 346,713 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 43BSection 92CA

Judgments citing CIT v. Bhagwan Das

Lic Mutual Fund Asset Management Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-1(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4246/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2022-23 Lic Mutual Fund Asset Dcit-1(2)(1), Management Limited, Aayakar Bhavan, 4Th Floor, Industrial Assurance Vs. Maharshi Karve Road, Building, Mumbai-400020. Opp: Churchgate Station, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Pan : Aaacj1166H (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Madhur Agrawal & Shri Ravikant Pathak For Revenue : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 15-09-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19-09-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai-1, [„Ld.Pcit‟], Dated 07-03- 2025, U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟), Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2022-23, Wherein The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1.The Hon'Ble Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai-1 (Hereinafter Referred As Hon'Ble Pcit] Erred In Setting Aside The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ("Act") & Passing The Revision Order U/S 263 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “A” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2022-23 LIC Mutual Fund Asset DCIT-1(2)(1), Management Limited, Aayakar Bhavan, 4th Floor, Industrial Assurance vs. Maharshi Karve Road, Building, Mumbai-400020. Opp: Churchgate Station, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. PAN : AAACJ1166H (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Madhur Agrawal & Shri Ravikant Pathak For Revenue : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 15-09-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 19-09-2025 O R D E R PER VIKRAM S…

Bhavendra Hasmukhlal Patadia. Legal Heir of Hasmukhlal Patadia., Cuttack vs. ITO Ward-!(1), Cuttack

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 125/CTK/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack26 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.125/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2015-2016) Bhavendra Hasmukhlal Patadia, Vs Ito, Ward-1(1), Cuttack Legal Heir Of Hasmukhlal Patadia, Nayabazar, Chauliaganj, Cuttack-753004 Pan No. :Adapp 6256 G (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Deepak Shah, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/12/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Pr.Cit, Cuttack, Passed In Itba/Com/F/17/2019-20/1026790827(1), Dated 19.03.2020, For The Assessment Year 2015-2016. Head On The Question Of Condonation Of Delay 2. On Perusal Of The Appeal Record, It Is Found That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 784 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Dated 11.07.2022 Along With Affidavit Stating Therein That Due To Continuous Lockdown On Account Of Spread Of Covid-19, The Assessee Could Not File The Present Appeal In Time, Therefore, He Prayed That Delay Of 784 Days In Filing The Present Appeal May Kindly Be Condoned. On The Other Hand, Ld. Cit-Dr Did Not Object To The Above Submission Of The Ld. Ar. Considering The Above, We Condone

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

…आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, कटक न्यायऩीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK श्री जाजज माथन, न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री अरुण खोड़पऩया ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष । BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अऩीऱ सं/ITA No.125/CTK/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2015-2016) Bhavendra Hasmukhlal Patadia, Vs ITO, Ward-1(1), Cuttack Legal heir of Hasmukhlal Patadia, Nayabazar, Chauliaganj, Cuttack-753004 PAN No. :ADAPP 6256 G (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Deepak Shah, AR राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri…

M/S. Jai Maa Hiral Enterprise, Khambhaliya vs. The Pr. CIT, Jamnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 128/RJT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 Sept 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member And Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Member Assessment Year 2017-18 M/s. Jai Maa Hiral The Pr. Commissioner of Enterprise, Bhagwati Mill Income Tax, Compound, Khambhalia, Vs Jamnagar Dev Bhumi, (Respondent) Dwarka-361306 PAN: AAKFJ5947R (Appellant) Assessee by: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.R. Revenue by: Shri Aarsi Prasad, CIT-DR Date of hearing : 07-07-2022 Date of pronouncement : 21-09-2022 आदेश/ORDER PER BENCH:- This is an appeal filed by the assessee for A.Y. 2017-18 against the order of the ld. Prin…

Shri Atul Kochar, Jaipur vs. Prcit-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 211/JPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Mar 2021AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Amrish Bedi (CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54BSection 54F

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES ‘A’ JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 211/JP/2020 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2015-16 cuke Atul Kochar Principal Commissioner of Vs. 157, 158, Near Parnami Temple Income Tax-2, Jaipur Raja Park, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. ADRPK6952H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Rajeev Sogani (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh…

CIT v. Bhagwan Das (142 Taxmann 1) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax