CIT v. Farida Prime Tannery

259 ITR 342High Court#12512 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 331,145 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 11Section 115BBCSection 12Section 12ASection 12AA(1)(b)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Judgments citing CIT v. Farida Prime Tannery

Gmr Varalakshmi Foundation, Rajam vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Hyderabad at Vizag

ITA 110/VIZ/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam21 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri Manish V. Shah, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 25Section 263Section 80G

…een sub judice before the CIT(A), the CIT(E) cannot assume jurisdiction on the very same issues and set aside the assessment order. In this regard he relied upon judgement of Hon’ble Madras High court in the case of CIT vs., M/s. Farida Shoes Private Limited, 259 ITR 342 (Mad.) and the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High court in the case of Ranka Jewellers vs. ACIT [2010] 328 ITR 148 (Bom.) (HC). 7. Learned counsel further referring to various issues discussed by the CIT(E) in his order u/sec. 263 of the Act submitted that the CIT(E) denying the benefit of exemption u/sec.11 of the Act only on the ground that the 1…

Shiva Distilleries Privatelimited, Coimbatore vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 2, Coimbatore

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

ITA 1788/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1788/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Shiva Distilleries Pvt. The Acit, Ltd., V. Corporate Circle – 2, No.1212, Trichy Road, Income Tax Office, Coimbatore – 641 018. 63, Race Course Road, Coimbatore – 641 018. Pan: Aaccs7199B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Abani Kantha Nayak,Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 11.11.2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.12.2020

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abani Kantha Nayak,CIT
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144Section 14ASection 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "संह, उपा"य" एवं "ी जी. मंजुनाथ, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 1788/CHNY/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s Shiva Distilleries Pvt. The ACIT, Ltd., v. Corporate Circle – 2, No.1212, Trichy Road, Income Tax Office, Coimbatore – 641 018. 63, Race Course Road, Coimbatore – 641 018. PAN: AACCS7199B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ"…

V.R.Venkaatachalam, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2639/CHNY/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jul 2015AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.2634, 2635, 2636, 2637, 2638 & 2639/Mds/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009- 10, 2010-11 & 2011-2012)

For Appellant: Ms. S. Vidya, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Pathlavath Peerya, IRS, CIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…the appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal decided it one way or other, the Commissioner of Income Tax would not take up the same issue in proceedings u/s.263 of the Act as held by jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Farida Prime Tannery, 259 ITR 342 (Mad). The Commissioner of Income Tax observed in its order at para 5 that while re-examining, comparing and contrasting the two Statement of Affairs for both the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08, the Assessing Officer has noticed a shortage of "1,01,97,722/- in the liability side for the assessment year 2006-07 and "12,15,79,373/- for the…

V.R.Venkaatachalam, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2638/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jul 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.2634, 2635, 2636, 2637, 2638 & 2639/Mds/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009- 10, 2010-11 & 2011-2012)

For Appellant: Ms. S. Vidya, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Pathlavath Peerya, IRS, CIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…the appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal decided it one way or other, the Commissioner of Income Tax would not take up the same issue in proceedings u/s.263 of the Act as held by jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Farida Prime Tannery, 259 ITR 342 (Mad). The Commissioner of Income Tax observed in its order at para 5 that while re-examining, comparing and contrasting the two Statement of Affairs for both the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08, the Assessing Officer has noticed a shortage of "1,01,97,722/- in the liability side for the assessment year 2006-07 and "12,15,79,373/- for the…

V.R.Venkaatachalam, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2637/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jul 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.2634, 2635, 2636, 2637, 2638 & 2639/Mds/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009- 10, 2010-11 & 2011-2012)

For Appellant: Ms. S. Vidya, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Pathlavath Peerya, IRS, CIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…the appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal decided it one way or other, the Commissioner of Income Tax would not take up the same issue in proceedings u/s.263 of the Act as held by jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Farida Prime Tannery, 259 ITR 342 (Mad). The Commissioner of Income Tax observed in its order at para 5 that while re-examining, comparing and contrasting the two Statement of Affairs for both the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08, the Assessing Officer has noticed a shortage of "1,01,97,722/- in the liability side for the assessment year 2006-07 and "12,15,79,373/- for the…

V.R.Venkaatachalam, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2636/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jul 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.2634, 2635, 2636, 2637, 2638 & 2639/Mds/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009- 10, 2010-11 & 2011-2012)

For Appellant: Ms. S. Vidya, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Pathlavath Peerya, IRS, CIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…the appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal decided it one way or other, the Commissioner of Income Tax would not take up the same issue in proceedings u/s.263 of the Act as held by jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Farida Prime Tannery, 259 ITR 342 (Mad). The Commissioner of Income Tax observed in its order at para 5 that while re-examining, comparing and contrasting the two Statement of Affairs for both the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08, the Assessing Officer has noticed a shortage of "1,01,97,722/- in the liability side for the assessment year 2006-07 and "12,15,79,373/- for the…

V.R.Venkaatachalam, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2635/CHNY/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jul 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.2634, 2635, 2636, 2637, 2638 & 2639/Mds/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009- 10, 2010-11 & 2011-2012)

For Appellant: Ms. S. Vidya, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Pathlavath Peerya, IRS, CIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…the appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal decided it one way or other, the Commissioner of Income Tax would not take up the same issue in proceedings u/s.263 of the Act as held by jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Farida Prime Tannery, 259 ITR 342 (Mad). The Commissioner of Income Tax observed in its order at para 5 that while re-examining, comparing and contrasting the two Statement of Affairs for both the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08, the Assessing Officer has noticed a shortage of "1,01,97,722/- in the liability side for the assessment year 2006-07 and "12,15,79,373/- for the…

V.R.Venkaatachalam, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2634/CHNY/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jul 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.2634, 2635, 2636, 2637, 2638 & 2639/Mds/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009- 10, 2010-11 & 2011-2012)

For Appellant: Ms. S. Vidya, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Pathlavath Peerya, IRS, CIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…the appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal decided it one way or other, the Commissioner of Income Tax would not take up the same issue in proceedings u/s.263 of the Act as held by jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Farida Prime Tannery, 259 ITR 342 (Mad). The Commissioner of Income Tax observed in its order at para 5 that while re-examining, comparing and contrasting the two Statement of Affairs for both the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08, the Assessing Officer has noticed a shortage of "1,01,97,722/- in the liability side for the assessment year 2006-07 and "12,15,79,373/- for the…