CIT v. C. Palaniappan

241 CTR 207Reported decision2011#20055 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2018.

Judgments citing CIT v. C. Palaniappan

Pr. Commissioner of vs. M/S Sasken

ITA/450/2016HC Karnataka23 Jul 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 10ASection 148Section 260Section 292B

…ssee was aware about exact reason for which notice u/s 148 was issued, this is still not be sufficient to satisfy the requirement in this regard. No doubt Hon’ble Madras High Court in case of Areva T&D India Ltd. (supra) as well as CIT vs. C.Palaniappan (241 CTR 207) had held that non-furnishing of reasons was only a Date of Judgment 23-07-2018, ITA No.450/2016 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-6 & Another Vs. M/s. Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd., 5/11 supervening illegality and would not render the proceedings void by itself. However, both Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Chetan…

Sri. K.U. Povaiah, Pollobetta vs. ITO, Madikeri

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 311/BANG/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavanassessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri K. Ramgopal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, Jt. CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44Section 69c

…eld that the assessee substantially complied with all the proceedings subsequently and never objected to the notice, hence the same cannot be objected. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. C. Palaniappan, 241 CTR 207. 5. On merits, the CIT(Appeals) noted that the assessee produced certain books from which the AO noticed certain defects, which the assessee tried to correct and produced another set of books on the plea that the earlier set of books were rough ones and the second set were the final ones. The assessee contended before CIT(A) that the earlier se…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the revenue as well as cross- objections of assessee are dismissed

ITA 901/BANG/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Dec 2015AY 2002-03

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Abraham P Georgedeputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 12(3), Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. M/S.Sasken Communication Technology Ltd., No.139/25, Amarjyothi Layout, Ring Road, Domlur, Bangalore. … Respondent Pan:Aaecs6424R & Cross Objn.No.70/Bang/2015 (In Ita No.901/Bang/2014) (Assessment Year: 2002-03) (By Assessee) ******* Appellant By: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Jcit(Dr). Respondent By: Shri B.R.Sudheendra, Ca.

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, JCIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri B.R.Sudheendra, CA
Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 12(3), Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. M/s.Sasken Communication Technology Ltd., No.139/25, Amarjyothi Layout, Ring Road, Domlur, Bangalore. … Respondent PAN:AAECS6424R AND Cross Objn.No.70/Bang/2015 (In ITA No.901/Bang/2014) (Assessment year: 2002-03) (by assessee) ******* Appellant by: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, JCIT(DR). Respondent by: Shri B.R.Sudheendra, CA. Date of hearing : 02/12/2015 Date of pronouncement: 11/12/2015…

C. Jayaram (HUF), Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed while its stay petition is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1287/BANG/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Nov 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri. Abraham P. George & Shri. Vijaypal Raoi.T.A No.1287/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year : 2006-07) & Stay Peition No.130/Bang/2015 (In I.T.A No.1287/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year : 2006-07) Shri. C. Jayaram (Huf), No.154, Kariyamana Agrahara Village, Varthur Hobli, Bellandur Post, Bangalore 560 103 .. Appellant Pan : Aadhc7565F V. Income-Tax, Officer, Ward – 7(2), Bangalore .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri. S. Venkatesan, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sunil Kumar Agarwala, Jcit Heard On : 17.11.2015 Pronounced On : 27.11.2015 O R D E R Per Abraham P. George:

For Appellant: Shri. S. Venkatesan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sunil Kumar Agarwala, JCIT
Section 148

…eness of the assessee as to the reason why notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued may not be sufficient to satisfy the requirement in this regard. No doubt Ld. DR has relied on a judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. C. Palaniappan [(2011) 241 CTR 207] where it was held that non-furnishing of reasons was only a supervening illegality and would not render the proceedings void by itself. However, we find that Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Samcor Glass Ltd [supra] and Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Trend Electronics [supra] had held that jurisdictional issues should be strictl…