CIT v. K.N. Oil Industries

142 ITR 13High Court1983#7120 most cited
16

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2024.

Issues it is cited on

section 139(9)section 11(1)(a)mistake apparent from recordapplication of incomesection 12aasection 154speaking ordersection 143(1)section 11section 143(2)transferindia

Judgments citing CIT v. K.N. Oil Industries

KATHIKODE CHARITABLE TRUST,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THRISSUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes, and it’s stay petitions dismissed as infructuous

ITA 948/COCH/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Jojo, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountant Member and Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Judicial Member ITA Nos. 947& 948/Coch/2022 (along with stay petitions SA 73 & 74/Coch/2022) (Assessment Years: 2014-15& 2015-16) Kathikode Charitable Trust Income Tax Officer Koolimuttam P.O. Ward - 2(1), Thrissur vs. Thrissur 680961 [PAN: AACTK5779L] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Jojo, Advocate Respondent by: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 14.02.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 10.05.2024 O R D E R Per: Sanjay Arora, AM This is a set of two Appeals by the A…

KATHIKODE CHARITABLE TRUST,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER., THRISSUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes, and it’s stay petitions dismissed as infructuous

ITA 947/COCH/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Jojo, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountant Member and Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Judicial Member ITA Nos. 947& 948/Coch/2022 (along with stay petitions SA 73 & 74/Coch/2022) (Assessment Years: 2014-15& 2015-16) Kathikode Charitable Trust Income Tax Officer Koolimuttam P.O. Ward - 2(1), Thrissur vs. Thrissur 680961 [PAN: AACTK5779L] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Jojo, Advocate Respondent by: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 14.02.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 10.05.2024 O R D E R Per: Sanjay Arora, AM This is a set of two Appeals by the A…

THE NEHRU MEMORIAL EDUCATION SOCIETY,KANHANGAD vs. ITO EXEMPTIONS, KANNUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 159/COCH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. S. Seethalakshmithe Nehru Memorial The Income Tax Officer Education Society (Exemptions), Kannur Lakshmi Nivas Vs. Kanhangad - 671315 Kasaragod [Pan:Aabtt0633M] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Veeramani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 10Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2

…ified that the Department must not take advantage of the ignorance of assessee to collect more tax than what is legitimately due, which is precisely the import of the decision in Parekh Bros. (supra), as well as others, as in CIT v. K.N. Oil Industries [1983] 142 ITR 13 (MP). That is, the law should be sought to be given effect to. The AO, however, went wrong in denying the assessee exemption u/s.10(23C)(iiiad). This is as the provision does not, as stated in the rectification order dated 29.01.2016, speak of “gross receipt”, but “annual receipt”, making the same mistake as the assessee had earlier. The differenc…

DEVENDRA MEHTA,JABALPUR vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1) JABALPUR, JABALPUR

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

ITA 80/JAB/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur20 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadaledevendra Mehta, Vs Dcit, 1084, Sanjivani Nagar, Circle-2(1), Jabalpur-482003 (M.P.) Jabalpur. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Afppm8269P Assessee By Shri Sughosh Bhamore & Shri Hitesh Trivedi Revenue By Shri Rajesh Kumar Gupta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 13/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20/09/2023

Section 10Section 133Section 143(1)Section 154

…transfer scheme. 6. That the circumstances were beyond the control of assessee, as the transfer from State Government to Government Company was made by state Government. 7. That LD CIT(A) erred in not following the Jurisdictional MP High Court Decision (1983) 142 ITR 13 (MP) wherein it was held that rectification u/s 154 can be made even if the assessee omits to claim some relief in return of income. 8. That LD CIT (A) erred in relying on Goetze India LTD Judgement because it only talks about powers of assessing officer and not about powers of appellate authorities. Reliance is placed on (2010) 4 ITR ( Trib) 44 (…

LATE SMT. SHANTI DEVI,HISAR vs. CIT, HISAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5074/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usi.T.A. No. 5074/Del/2012 (A.Y. 2008-09) Ashwani Kumar, Legal Heir Cit, Of Late Smt. Shanti Devi, Vs. Hissar, 14, Urban Estate-Ii, Haryana. Hissar, Haryana. ( Respondent ) Pan No. Anpmd9735C ( Appellant )

For Appellant: Shri Satish Khosla, Adv.; &For Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, [CIT] - D. R
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH: ‘G’ NEW DELHI ] BEFORE Dr. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 5074/DEL/2012 (A.Y. 2008-09) Ashwani Kumar, Legal Heir CIT, of late Smt. Shanti Devi, Vs. Hissar, 14, Urban Estate-II, Haryana. Hissar, Haryana. ( RESPONDENT ) PAN No. ANPMD9735C ( APPELLANT ) Assessee by : Shri Satish Khosla, Adv.; & Shri Manu K. Giri, Advocate. Department by : Shri H. K. Choudhary, [CIT] - D. R Date of Hearing 27.02.2023 Date of Pronouncement 23.03.2023 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR US, JM 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee a…

THE DCIT, (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. SHRI DIPAK KALANI, INDORE

In the result, revenue’s appeals in IT(SS)A 104

ITA 1045/IND/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…come and paid the legitimate amount of taxes due thereon. The Ld. Counsel also placed reliance on the following judgments to support his contentions:  CIT v. Shelly Products reported in [2003] 261 ITR 367 (SC)  CIT v. K.N. Oil Industries reported in [1983] 142 ITR 13 (Madhya Pradesh)  Deep Chand Jain v. ITO reported in [1984] 145 ITR 676 (Punjab & Haryana) Accordingly, the Ld. Counsel submitted that correct amount of additional income which should have been taxed was of Rs. 33,89,582/- instead of Rs.62,50,000/- originally offered in the return of income for the AY 2012-13 and therefore, excess amount of Rs.2…

THE DCIT, (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. SHRI PANKAJ KALANI, INDORE

In the result, revenue’s appeals in IT(SS)A 104

ITA 1044/IND/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…come and paid the legitimate amount of taxes due thereon. The Ld. Counsel also placed reliance on the following judgments to support his contentions:  CIT v. Shelly Products reported in [2003] 261 ITR 367 (SC)  CIT v. K.N. Oil Industries reported in [1983] 142 ITR 13 (Madhya Pradesh)  Deep Chand Jain v. ITO reported in [1984] 145 ITR 676 (Punjab & Haryana) Accordingly, the Ld. Counsel submitted that correct amount of additional income which should have been taxed was of Rs. 33,89,582/- instead of Rs.62,50,000/- originally offered in the return of income for the AY 2012-13 and therefore, excess amount of Rs.2…

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), NEW DELHI vs. ANANT RAJ LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed partly as indicated above

ITA 5238/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Goel, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CA; Ms
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50

…54 of the Act by following the judgment and for which necessary directions must be issued: a) M. K. Venkatachalam, ITO vs Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd [1958] 34 ITR 143 (SC). b) L.HridayNarain vs ITO [1970] 78 ITR 26 (SC) c) CIT vs K. N. Oil Industries [1983] 142 ITR 13 (MP) d) NavNirman(P) Ltd vs CIT [1988] 174 ITR 574 (MP) e) KilKotagiri Tea & Coffee Estates Co Ltd vs ITAT [1988] 174 ITR 579 (Ker) f) CIT vs ArunaLuthra [2001] 252 ITR 76 (Punj. &Har.) g) CIT vs Ram Lal Babu Lal [1998] 148 CTR (Punj. &Har.) 643 23 I.T.As. No.4736, 5237 & 5238/DEL/2017 h) Omega Sports & Radio Works vs CIT [1982] 134 ITR 28 (All.…

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), NEW DELHI vs. ANANT RAJ LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed partly as indicated above

ITA 5237/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Goel, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CA; Ms
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50

…54 of the Act by following the judgment and for which necessary directions must be issued: a) M. K. Venkatachalam, ITO vs Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd [1958] 34 ITR 143 (SC). b) L.HridayNarain vs ITO [1970] 78 ITR 26 (SC) c) CIT vs K. N. Oil Industries [1983] 142 ITR 13 (MP) d) NavNirman(P) Ltd vs CIT [1988] 174 ITR 574 (MP) e) KilKotagiri Tea & Coffee Estates Co Ltd vs ITAT [1988] 174 ITR 579 (Ker) f) CIT vs ArunaLuthra [2001] 252 ITR 76 (Punj. &Har.) g) CIT vs Ram Lal Babu Lal [1998] 148 CTR (Punj. &Har.) 643 23 I.T.As. No.4736, 5237 & 5238/DEL/2017 h) Omega Sports & Radio Works vs CIT [1982] 134 ITR 28 (All.…

ANANT RAJ LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed partly as indicated above

ITA 4736/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Goel, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CA; Ms
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50

…54 of the Act by following the judgment and for which necessary directions must be issued: a) M. K. Venkatachalam, ITO vs Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd [1958] 34 ITR 143 (SC). b) L.HridayNarain vs ITO [1970] 78 ITR 26 (SC) c) CIT vs K. N. Oil Industries [1983] 142 ITR 13 (MP) d) NavNirman(P) Ltd vs CIT [1988] 174 ITR 574 (MP) e) KilKotagiri Tea & Coffee Estates Co Ltd vs ITAT [1988] 174 ITR 579 (Ker) f) CIT vs ArunaLuthra [2001] 252 ITR 76 (Punj. &Har.) g) CIT vs Ram Lal Babu Lal [1998] 148 CTR (Punj. &Har.) 643 23 I.T.As. No.4736, 5237 & 5238/DEL/2017 h) Omega Sports & Radio Works vs CIT [1982] 134 ITR 28 (All.…

M/S KARAKULAM SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 57/COCH/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 143(3)Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 8O

…rt the claim. 1) Anchor Pressings (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (100 ITR 347) (All.) 2) Anchor Pressings (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (161 ITR 159) (SC) 3) Sharda Prasad vs. CIT (100 ITR 373) (All.) 4) Choksi Metal Refinery vs. CIT (107 ITR 63) (Guj.) 5) CIT vs. K.N. Oil Industries (142 ITR 13) (MP) 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. We find that the order of the CIT(A) is very cryptic The plea of the assessee is that the assessee is entitled for deduction u/s. 80P(2) and 80P(2)(a)(i) of the I.T. Act, if the assessee is not granted deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the I.T. Act. According to the Ld. AR, this alter…

M/S KARAKULAM SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 40/COCH/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 143(3)Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 8O

…rt the claim. 1) Anchor Pressings (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (100 ITR 347) (All.) 2) Anchor Pressings (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (161 ITR 159) (SC) 3) Sharda Prasad vs. CIT (100 ITR 373) (All.) 4) Choksi Metal Refinery vs. CIT (107 ITR 63) (Guj.) 5) CIT vs. K.N. Oil Industries (142 ITR 13) (MP) 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. We find that the order of the CIT(A) is very cryptic The plea of the assessee is that the assessee is entitled for deduction u/s. 80P(2) and 80P(2)(a)(i) of the I.T. Act, if the assessee is not granted deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the I.T. Act. According to the Ld. AR, this alter…

AUTO FINANCE ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 12(3), MUMBAI

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 259/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.259/Mum/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Auto Finance Enterprises Acit-Circle 12(3) 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, बनाम/ 41, Nariman Bhavan, 221, Nariman Point, M. K. Road Vs. Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafa-2325-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta & Shri GovindFor Respondent: Shri Satish Chandra Rajore - Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(3)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 45(2)Section 74(1)Section 80

…olutions P. Ltd. Hon’ble Bombay High Court [349 ITR Vs. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax 404] (Appeals)- Mumbai [CIT(A)] 2. CIT V/s Nalwa Investment Ltd. Hon’ble Delhi High Court [322 ITR 233] 3. CIT Vs. K.N. Oil Industries Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh [142 ITR 13] 4. Container Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. ITAT Delhi Bench DCIT [94 TTJ 502] 5. Asia Pacific Fund Inc. Vs. DCIT ITAT Mumbai Bench [96 TTJ 548] 6. ACIT Vs. Rupam Impex ITAT, Rajkot Bench [157 ITD 360] 7. Alka Agarwal V/s ADIT ITAT Delhi Bench [15 Taxmann.com 176] Per Contra, Ld. DR submitted that there was no mistake apparent from record within…

M/S JILA SAHAKARI KENDRIYA BANK MARYADIT,MANDSAUR vs. THE DCIT, RATLAM

In the result Ground No.1 & 2 raised by the

ITA 386/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Jila Sahakari Kendriya Dcit, Ratlam Bank Maryadit, Vs. Mhow-Neemuch Road, Mandsaur (M.P) (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aaatj2383F Revenue By Shri Lalchand, Cit Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande,Ca Date Of Hearing 25.7.2018 Date Of 17.8.2018 Pronouncement

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…particular relief in law. It is obligatory on the part of the AO to draw attention of the assessee to the lawful relief or deduction. The attention is drawn to the following decision: 1. CIT vs Archana Dhanwate 136 ITR 355 (BOM) 2. CIT vs KN Oil Industries 142 ITR 13 (MP) 3. Nathmal Bankatlal Parikh vs CIT 122 ITR 168 5. Per contra The Ld. Departmental representative submitted that the assessee has not claimed the deduction under the correct section not is a nature of expenditure similar because the assessee has claimed the expenditure towards special reserve fund created for long term finance and now ass…

ACIT, CIR-30, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHEELA DEVI KANORIA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1172/KOL/2014[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 May 2017AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 10Section 10(38)Section 143(3)

…on behalf of the assessee, inter alia, on the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of West Bengal State Housing Corporation –vs.- CIT [157 ITR 149] and that of Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT – vs.- K.N. Oil Industries [142 ITR 13]. 4. The submissions made by the assessee were forwarded by the ld. CIT(Appeals) to the Assessing Officer seeking the latter’s comment I.T.A. No. 1172/KOL./2014 Assessment year: 2007-2008 Page 3 of 5 thereon. In the remand report submitted to the ld. CIT(Appeals), the Assessing Officer offered his comments and after considering the same as we…

ASIM KUMAR MONDAL,BURDWAN vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, BURDWAN, BURDWAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2180/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Sept 2015AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

Section 143(1)Section 154

…urn, which could be rectified under section 154. As regards the reliance placed by the ld. counsel for the assessee in support of the assessee’s case on the decision of the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT –vs.- K.N. Industries reported in 142 ITR 13 (MP) as well as the Board’s Circular No. 14(XL-35) dated 11.04.1955, it is observed that the same are not applicable in the context I.T.A. No. 2180/KOL./2014 Assessment year: 2010-2011 Page 3 of 3 of rectification of intimation under section 143(1), the scope of which, as already observed by me, is very limited. I, therefore, find no infirmity i…

CIT v. K.N. Oil Industries (142 ITR 13) — Cited in 16 Judgments | BharatTax