CIT v. Ekbal & Co.

13 ITR 154High Court1945#22342 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2021.

Judgments citing CIT v. Ekbal & Co.

M/S. Growmore Research & Assets Management Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. - 4(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 504/MUM/2019[1991-92]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2021AY 1991-92

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 1991-92 Dcit, M/S. Growmore Research Cent. Cir.-4(3) & Assets Management Central Range-4, Ltd., Room No.1921, 32, Madhuli Apartment, Vs. 19Th Floor, 3Rd Floor, Air India Bldg., Dr. Annie Besant Road, Nariman Point, Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aaacg4936C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 1991-92 M/S. Growmore Research Dcit & Assets Management Cent. Cir.-4(3), Ltd., Central Range-4, 32, Madhuli Apartment, Room No.1921, 3Rd Floor, Vs. 19Th Floor, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Air India Bldg., Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Nariman Point, Pan: Aaacg4936C Mumbai - 400021

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. P. Daniel, D.R
Section 147Section 14ASection 234Section 69

…3 [ITA No.8704/M/2011] dated 30.11.2018 2. Ashok Rao & Co. v. ACIT TA No. 5595 & 5596/Bom/19 dated 29.05.2002 3. Shri Lalit Sheth v. ACIT and vice versa [ITA No. 7394/Mum/1996] dated 28.11.2003 4. CIT vs. Sudhir S. Mehta 9265 ITR 548] 5. CIT v. Ekbal and Co. [13 ITR 154(Bom)] 6. Deepika A. Mehta v. ACIT [57 TTJ 104(Mum)j 7. Chandi Ram v. ITO and Ors [225 ITR 611 (Raj.)] 8. N. Jayaprakash, Package India Tin Fabricators v. CIT [285 ITR 369 (Ker)] The Ld. A.R. prays before the Bench that in view of the facts of the case and the ratio laid down by the various judicial forums including Hon’ble Bombay High Court the no…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-4(3), Central Range-4, Mumbai vs. M/S.Growmore Research & Asset Management Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1196/MUM/2019[1991-92]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2021AY 1991-92

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 1991-92 Dcit, M/S. Growmore Research Cent. Cir.-4(3) & Assets Management Central Range-4, Ltd., Room No.1921, 32, Madhuli Apartment, Vs. 19Th Floor, 3Rd Floor, Air India Bldg., Dr. Annie Besant Road, Nariman Point, Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aaacg4936C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 1991-92 M/S. Growmore Research Dcit & Assets Management Cent. Cir.-4(3), Ltd., Central Range-4, 32, Madhuli Apartment, Room No.1921, 3Rd Floor, Vs. 19Th Floor, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Air India Bldg., Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Nariman Point, Pan: Aaacg4936C Mumbai - 400021

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. P. Daniel, D.R
Section 147Section 14ASection 234Section 69

…3 [ITA No.8704/M/2011] dated 30.11.2018 2. Ashok Rao & Co. v. ACIT TA No. 5595 & 5596/Bom/19 dated 29.05.2002 3. Shri Lalit Sheth v. ACIT and vice versa [ITA No. 7394/Mum/1996] dated 28.11.2003 4. CIT vs. Sudhir S. Mehta 9265 ITR 548] 5. CIT v. Ekbal and Co. [13 ITR 154(Bom)] 6. Deepika A. Mehta v. ACIT [57 TTJ 104(Mum)j 7. Chandi Ram v. ITO and Ors [225 ITR 611 (Raj.)] 8. N. Jayaprakash, Package India Tin Fabricators v. CIT [285 ITR 369 (Ker)] The Ld. A.R. prays before the Bench that in view of the facts of the case and the ratio laid down by the various judicial forums including Hon’ble Bombay High Court the no…

Provident Inv. & Industries (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result ground No. 5 of the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1003/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiprovident Inv & Industries P Ltd, Vs. Ito, Ward-14(2), 4Th Floor, Ito, A-49, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi Cr Building, New Delhi Pan:Aabcj4816P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Venugopal Nair, CAFor Respondent: Sh. FR Meena, Sr. DR
Section 142Section 144Section 69

…and thus the order framed on August 25 is barred by Limitation. Without prejudice to the stand that assessment framed subsequent to Dec 31,2010 sans a valid order u/s 142(2A) to the assessee, is barred by limitation we , relying on CIT vs Ekbal and co (1945) 13 ITR 154 (Bom) & M Srinivasalu v UOI & Ors contend that the aggregate number of days that the auditor has been to furnish the report is 179 days as initially it was within 90 days and further extended by another 90 days. Thus the audit report was to be furnished on 179 th day from Dec 28,2010 -I.e June 24,2011 and availing further 60 days the assessment is…

CIT v. Ekbal & Co. (13 ITR 154) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax