CIT v. Hukumchand Mohanlal

82 ITR 624Supreme Court of India1971#21560 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2022.

Judgments citing CIT v. Hukumchand Mohanlal

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-1, KOLKATA vs. M/S. MAHALUXMI MARKETING PVT LTD

In the result, the substantial questions of law are

ITAT/51/2020HC Calcutta07 Feb 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

For Appellant: Mr. S. N. Dutta, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Agnibesh Sengupta, Adv

Section 260ASection 68Section 69

…absorbed into one or blended with another, the amalgamating company loses its entity.” It would also be of relevance to note an earlier decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Hukumchand Mohanlal reported in [1971] 82 ITR 624 (SC), more appropriately the decision of the High Court of Delhi in Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-VI vs. Usha Stud Agricultural Farms Ltd. reported in [2008] 301 ITR 384 (Delhi) can be referred to as the facts in the said case would match with that of the facts in the case on hand. As in the case of the assessee before us in Usha Stud Agricult…

V.GEETHALAKSHMI,COIMBTORE vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1360/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Respondent: Shri Abani kanta Nayak, CIT

Section 136Section 263Section 57

…s an opportunity of being heard. In this case, it is not the case of the assessee that no opportunity was given to the assessee. 3 I.T.A. No. 1360/19 This view of the Tribunal is fortified by the judgment of Apex Court in CIT vs. Hukumchand Mohanlal (1971) 82 ITR 624 and Gita Devi Aggarwal vs. CIT, (1970) 76 ITR 496. 4. Now coming to the merits of the case, the AO admittedly called for the details of the expenditure claimed u/s.57 of the Act. However, there is no discussion in the assessment order. It is not in dispute that the Assessment proceedings are judicial proceedings u/s.136 of the Act. When the AO p…

EPC INDUSTRIES LTD,NASHIK vs. ACIT OSD 10(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3210/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Cn Prasad: (A.Y : 2007-08) Epc Industries Ltd. Vs. Acit Osd 10(1) Plot No.H-109, Midc Mumbai Ambad Nashik – 422010 Pan : Aaace2659J (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Dinkle H HariyaFor Respondent: Shri PR Ghosh

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 28Section 41(1)

…as been placed on following cases. (I) Comfund Financial Services (I) Ltd. Vs Dy. CIT [67 ITD 304 (Bang)] (ii) CIT Vs. Chetan Chemicals (P.) Ltd [267 ITR 770 (Guj)] (iii) Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. CIT [261 ITR 501 (Bom)] (iv) CIT Vs. Hukumchand Mohanlal [82 ITR 624 (SC)] (v) Mehboob Productions (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [106 ITR 758 (Bom)]” 9. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) on 30.11.2009 accepting the submission of the assessee. No addition was made in the assessment order in respect of the principal amount waived by the banks under one time settlement, which was claimed as deduction in the computation of in…

BRIPRANIL INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. C.I.T KOL- I, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 2276/KOL/2013[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 May 2016AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasusdevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2000-01

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 263(1)

…of medical certificate passed ex parte order u/s. 263 of the Act and sent the assessment back to the ld. AO for doing afresh. The ld. CIT in support of his action has relied on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Hukumchand Mohanlal [82 ITR 624 (SC)] and Gita Devi Aggarwal vs. CIT [776 ITR 496 (Hon'ble Supreme Court)]. However, the facts of the present case are distinguishable as in both the above cases the assessee did not avail the opportunity which was provided to them, whereas in the case before us the assessee duly complied with the notice of hearing by making a prayer for adjournme…