CIT v. Goodwill Theatres

400 ITR 566Supreme Court of India2018#14167 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,356 Indian tax judgments — from 2023 to 2023.

Issues it is cited on

section 2(1a)section 56(1)section 268asection 64section 153a proceedingssection 10(37)written down valuesection 139(4)put to usesection 69bsection 292csection 50

Judgments citing CIT v. Goodwill Theatres

V D Devasia, Kottayam vs. ACIT, Kottayam

In the result, the appeals by the assessees are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 50/COCH/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Sept 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Markose, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 64

…filing of appeals for other years [s. 268A(2)/(3)]. On the broader principle, to which we advert to for the sake of completeness of the discussion, we may;there being no estoppel against law, refer, inter alia, to decisions in CIT vs. Goodwill Theatres [2018] 400 ITR 566 (SC); Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. vs. CIT [2012] 343 ITR 270 (SC); C.K. Gangadharan vs. CIT [2008] 304 ITR 61 (SC); the latter two being by the larger benches of the Apex Court. In all these cases, the Revenue’s right to question, despite failure to challenge an adverse order earlier,the correctness of such an order, is not precluded, particularly…

V D Devasia, Kottayam vs. ACIT, Kottayam

In the result, the appeals by the assessees are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 49/COCH/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Sept 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Markose, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 64

…filing of appeals for other years [s. 268A(2)/(3)]. On the broader principle, to which we advert to for the sake of completeness of the discussion, we may;there being no estoppel against law, refer, inter alia, to decisions in CIT vs. Goodwill Theatres [2018] 400 ITR 566 (SC); Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. vs. CIT [2012] 343 ITR 270 (SC); C.K. Gangadharan vs. CIT [2008] 304 ITR 61 (SC); the latter two being by the larger benches of the Apex Court. In all these cases, the Revenue’s right to question, despite failure to challenge an adverse order earlier,the correctness of such an order, is not precluded, particularly…

V D Devasia, Kottayam vs. ACIT, Kottayam

In the result, the appeals by the assessees are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 48/COCH/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Sept 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Markose, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 64

…filing of appeals for other years [s. 268A(2)/(3)]. On the broader principle, to which we advert to for the sake of completeness of the discussion, we may;there being no estoppel against law, refer, inter alia, to decisions in CIT vs. Goodwill Theatres [2018] 400 ITR 566 (SC); Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. vs. CIT [2012] 343 ITR 270 (SC); C.K. Gangadharan vs. CIT [2008] 304 ITR 61 (SC); the latter two being by the larger benches of the Apex Court. In all these cases, the Revenue’s right to question, despite failure to challenge an adverse order earlier,the correctness of such an order, is not precluded, particularly…

Chengazhasseril Thomas Kurian, Kottayam vs. ACIT Central Circle Kottayam, Kottayam

In the result, the appeals by the assessees are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 474/COCH/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Sept 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Markose, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 64

…filing of appeals for other years [s. 268A(2)/(3)]. On the broader principle, to which we advert to for the sake of completeness of the discussion, we may;there being no estoppel against law, refer, inter alia, to decisions in CIT vs. Goodwill Theatres [2018] 400 ITR 566 (SC); Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. vs. CIT [2012] 343 ITR 270 (SC); C.K. Gangadharan vs. CIT [2008] 304 ITR 61 (SC); the latter two being by the larger benches of the Apex Court. In all these cases, the Revenue’s right to question, despite failure to challenge an adverse order earlier,the correctness of such an order, is not precluded, particularly…

Chengazhasseril Thomas Kurian, Kottayam vs. ACIT Central Circle Kottayam, Kottayam

In the result, the appeals by the assessees are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 473/COCH/2022[ 2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Sept 2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Markose, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 64

…filing of appeals for other years [s. 268A(2)/(3)]. On the broader principle, to which we advert to for the sake of completeness of the discussion, we may;there being no estoppel against law, refer, inter alia, to decisions in CIT vs. Goodwill Theatres [2018] 400 ITR 566 (SC); Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. vs. CIT [2012] 343 ITR 270 (SC); C.K. Gangadharan vs. CIT [2008] 304 ITR 61 (SC); the latter two being by the larger benches of the Apex Court. In all these cases, the Revenue’s right to question, despite failure to challenge an adverse order earlier,the correctness of such an order, is not precluded, particularly…

Chengazhasseril Thomas Kurian, Kottayam vs. ACIT Central Circle Kottayam, Kottayam

In the result, the appeals by the assessees are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 472/COCH/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Sept 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Markose, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 64

…filing of appeals for other years [s. 268A(2)/(3)]. On the broader principle, to which we advert to for the sake of completeness of the discussion, we may;there being no estoppel against law, refer, inter alia, to decisions in CIT vs. Goodwill Theatres [2018] 400 ITR 566 (SC); Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. vs. CIT [2012] 343 ITR 270 (SC); C.K. Gangadharan vs. CIT [2008] 304 ITR 61 (SC); the latter two being by the larger benches of the Apex Court. In all these cases, the Revenue’s right to question, despite failure to challenge an adverse order earlier,the correctness of such an order, is not precluded, particularly…

V D Devasia, Kottayam vs. ACIT, Kottayam

In the result, the appeals by the assessees are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 47/COCH/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Sept 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Markose, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 64

…filing of appeals for other years [s. 268A(2)/(3)]. On the broader principle, to which we advert to for the sake of completeness of the discussion, we may;there being no estoppel against law, refer, inter alia, to decisions in CIT vs. Goodwill Theatres [2018] 400 ITR 566 (SC); Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. vs. CIT [2012] 343 ITR 270 (SC); C.K. Gangadharan vs. CIT [2008] 304 ITR 61 (SC); the latter two being by the larger benches of the Apex Court. In all these cases, the Revenue’s right to question, despite failure to challenge an adverse order earlier,the correctness of such an order, is not precluded, particularly…

CIT v. Goodwill Theatres (400 ITR 566) — Cited in 7 Judgments | BharatTax