CIT v. K. Ravindranathan Nayyar

184 CTR 46High Court2003#23249 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2022.

Judgments citing CIT v. K. Ravindranathan Nayyar

Dataserv Global Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward- 1(4), Gurgaon

Appeal is allowed and the case is restored to the files of ld

ITA 3226/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. R.K.Panda & Sh. Anubhav Sharmadataserv Global Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4) 401, Galleria Tower, Dlf-Phase-4, Gurugaon Gurugaon Pan – Aascs2569K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 68

…ore empowered to set aside to the AO which was available earlier u/s 251 (1) (a), necessitating admission of the evidence before him in the larger interest of justice. 8.2 This matter has been dealt with elaborately in CIT vs. K. Ravindranathan Nayyar (2003) 184 CTR 46 (Ker.), where it was held that the CIT (A) was not justified in rejecting the admission of confirmatory letter straight away on the plea that the case of the appellant does not fall under any of the circumstances 6 ITA No. 3226/Del./2018 Dataserv Global Pvt. Ltd. given under clause (a) to (b) of Rule 46A (1). In this judgment Bombay High Court…

Sanjay Matai, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ajmer

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 375/JPR/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Sept 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 375/Jp/2016 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2008-09 Shri Sanjay Matai, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. Prop.-M/S Metro Wines, Madar Ward-1(2), Gate, Ajmer. Ajmer. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Alkpm 9533 D Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Jcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 15/06/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 08/09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Ajmer Dated 25/01/2016 For The A.Y. 2008-09 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. Whereas On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(A), Ajmer Has Grossly Erred In Not Accepting The Application Under Rule 46-A Submitted During The Course Of Appeal Proceedings Stating There In That Though Complete Details & Evidence Were Filed Before The Assessing Officer During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings Which Were Not Considered Prospectively. It Is Therefore Respectfully Requested Before Your Honour That Application Under Rule 46A Of The I.T.Act,1961 Of The Appellant Deserves To Be Accepted.

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)

Section 143(3)Section 68

…wered to set aside to the AO which was available earlier u/s 251 (1) (a), necessitating (compulsory) admission of the evidence before him in the larger interest of justice. This matter has been dealt with elaborately in CIT vs. K. Ravindranathan Nayyar (2003) 184 CTR 46 (Ker.), which has held that the CIT (A) was not justified in rejecting the admission of confirmatory letter straight away on the plea that the case of the appellant does not fall under any of the circumstances given under clause (a) to (b) of Rule 46A (1). This ratio squarely applies on the facts of the present case. 6.2. Other supporting case law…

Design Core, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 617/JPR/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Poonam Rai (DCIT)

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 234BSection 244A(3)Section 40Section 40A(3)

…mpowered to restore back any matter which was available earlier u/s 251 (1) (a), necessitating a compulsory admission of the evidence before him in the interest of justice. This matter has been dealt with elaborately in CIT vs. K. Ravindranathan Nayyar (2003) 184 CTR 46 (Ker.), which has held that the CIT (A) was not justified in rejecting the admission of confirmatory letter straight away on the plea that the evidence was not filed before the AO (at pg-47, pr-6). This ratio squarely applies on the facts of the present case. Kindly refer our w/s to CIT(A) (PB 84 & 90) that AO did not provide sufficient time. ITA…