CIT v. D. Lakshminarayanapathi

250 ITR 187High Court2001#20195 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 264 Section 44AB

Issues it is cited on

section 264 section 246a section 253 section 24 section 26 section 25 interest

Judgments citing CIT v. D. Lakshminarayanapathi

A.G.T. ELECTRONICS LTD.,COIMBATORE vs. ADIT, CPC, , BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2767/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.2767/Chny/2024 िनधा8रण वष8 /Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode)For Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT

Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 264Section 44A

…264 of the Act on 11.06.2016 and the said revision petition was considered and dismissed in the order passed by the PCIT, Pondicherry in C.No.9127/2/PCIT/PDY/264/2017-18 dated 28.03. 2018. In the light of the decision of Jurisdictional High Court reported in 250 ITR 187 and followed by the Jurisdictional Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of M/s Premier Distilleries Ltd. in ITA.No.3185/2016 dated 14.06.2018, the present appeal is being preferred with a prayer for admission of the appeal by condoning the technical delay for adjudication of the issues arising from the assessment order on merits…

SUNIL KUMAR MISHRA,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD-40(1), KOLKATA

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

ITA 277/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyi.T.A. No.277/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sunil Kumar Mishra ………. Appellant (Pan: Ahppm0825R) Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-40(1), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Gopal Ram Sharma, Ar Appeared For Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 04.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 09.07.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2017-18 Is Directed Against The Order Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 21.07.2023 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order U/S 144 Of The Act By Ito, Ward-40(1), Kolkata Dated 24.12.2019. 2. Registry Has Informed That This Appeal Of Assessee Is Time Barred By 96 Days. Application For Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed By Assessee. Perusal Of The Same & Also Considering The Ratio Of I.T.A. No. 277/Kol/2024 Sunil Kumar Mishra, Ay : 2017-18

Section 115BSection 144Section 246ASection 250Section 264Section 271ASection 69A

…that the Ld. CIT (A) misconceived in dismissing appeal on the ground that the assessee availed the remedy u/s.264 prior to invoking section 246A which could not be a bar in filing an appeal in view of the ratio decided in CIT v. D. Lakshminarayanapathi [2001] 250 ITR 187 (Madras) which was followed in case of M. Jayabalan v. CIT, Chennai-VI [2013] 40 taxmann.com 218 (Madras). 6. For that the addition of Rs.1,25,90,000/- u/s. 69A of the Act treating the total deposit during the year as unexplained money is illegal & void. 7. For that the Ld. CIT (A) erred in not considering submission of the assessee who prayed fo…

P. KRISHNAMURTHY,VILLUPURAM vs. ITO,WARD-2, VILLUPURAM

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

ITA 773/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.Suresh, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 249(2)(b)Section 264Section 69

M/S. PREMIER DISTILLERIES LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, PONDICHERRY

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

ITA 3185/CHNY/2016[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jun 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3185/Chny/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Asish Tripathy, JCIT

Section 221Section 234ASection 264

…has filed revision petition under Section 264 of the Act, according to the Ld. counsel, the CIT(Appeals) in the impugned order found that the appeal is not maintainable. Referring to the judgment of Madras High Court in CIT v. D. Lakshminarayanapathi (2001) 250 ITR 187, the Ld.counsel submitted that on identical set of facts, the Madras High Court found that the appeal is maintainable. Therefore, according to the Ld. counsel, the CIT(Appeals) is not correct in rejecting the appeal of the assessee. 5. On the contrary, Shri Asish Tripathy, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the assessee could…