CIT v. Chamanlal Mangaldas& Co.

39 ITR 1Supreme Court of India1960#20716 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 249

Judgments citing CIT v. Chamanlal Mangaldas& Co.

The Good Shepherd Education Society, Bengaluru vs. ITO, Exemptions Ward-2, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 128/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri. Gokul, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 249

…bhdas& Co. [1962] 46 ITR 144 (SC) b. Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd v. CIT [1997] 225 ITR 746 (SC) c. Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd v. CIT [1965] 56 ITR 521 (SC) d. CIT v. Chamanlal Mangaldas& Co. [1960] 39 ITR 8 (SC) e. CIT v Harivallabhadas Kalidas & Co. [1960] 39 ITR 1 (SC) f. CIT v Virtual Soft Systems Ltd. [2018] 404 ITR 409 (SC) Page 3 of 4 g. Miss Dhun Dadabhoy Kapadia v CIT [1967] 63 ITR 651 (SC) h. CIT v. Bokaro Steel Ltd. [1999] 236 ITR 315 (SC) 4. On the other hand, learned DR relied on the Order of the learned CIT(A) and submitted that assessee should have filed appeal within the stipulated time. The ret…

Jatinder Pal Singh, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 18, New Delhi

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

ITA 1670/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Waseem Arshad, CIT DR

Section 271(1)(c)

…t address Allahabad High Court- Rulings in a catena of cases- Contents of notice u/s 274 not prescribed by Statute mainly for show cause opportunity of hearing. 5 ITA No.1670/Del./2018 D. The concept of prejudice as alluded to by Bombay High Court Full Bench-39 ITR 1, is contrary to Delhi High Court in Sudev Industries. Prejudice to be examined as an inference in Facts Vide principles enunciated by Supreme Court in the State of Haryana vs. Nar Singh E. Satisfaction- Jurisdictional Fact Page - 6-14. A3-A-13 in the Paper Book F. Posed as a Question of Law Answered by Bombay High Court in Shyam Biri Works not a…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (4) vs. M/S Chamundi Winery and Distillery

ITA/172/2017HC Karnataka25 Sept 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 260

…Bom) 75-79 14 Poorna Electric Supply Co. Ltd Vs. CIT [1965] 56 ITR 521 (SC) 80-85 17 CIT Vs. Chamanlal Mangaldas & Co. 39 ITR 8 (SC) 101-104 18 CIT Vs. Chamanlal Mangaldas & Co. 29 ITR 987 (Bom) 105-110 19 CIT Vs. Harivallabhadas Kalidas & Co. 39 ITR 1 (SC) 111-115 28 CIT Vs. Virtual Soft Systems Ltd 404 ITR 409 (SC) 172-184 29 CIT Vs. Lakshmi Machine Works 290 ITR 667 (SC) 185-196 30 Miss Dhun Dadbhoy Kapadia Vs. CIT 63 ITR 651 (SC) 197-200 Date of Judgment 25-09-2018 I.T.A.No.155/2016 and connected matters The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors.…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Chamundi Winery and Distillery

ITA/467/2015HC Karnataka25 Sept 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 260