CIT v. Karnani Industrial Bank Ltd.

113 ITR 380High Court1978#18730 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2023.

Judgments citing CIT v. Karnani Industrial Bank Ltd.

Shri Bimal Paul, Silchar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Silchar

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 8/GTY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati06 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri Arun Bhowmick, JCIT
Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153(1)

…s that the Demand Notice served on the appellant answers quite satisfactorily to the aforementioned legal proposition. The objections raised by the appellant are, therefore, hyper-technical. In the case of CIT vs Karnani Industrial Bank Ltd [1978] reported in 113 ITR 380, the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court has held that the purpose of Demand Notice is to bring to the attention of and demand from the assessee, the amount of tax including interest and other items due. The Hon'ble High Court observed that it is the duty of the Assessing Officer concerned to give this notice and there is no bar to the issue of such a no…

Shri Bimal Paul, Silchar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Silchar

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 211/GTY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati06 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri Arun Bhowmick, JCIT
Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153(1)

…s that the Demand Notice served on the appellant answers quite satisfactorily to the aforementioned legal proposition. The objections raised by the appellant are, therefore, hyper-technical. In the case of CIT vs Karnani Industrial Bank Ltd [1978] reported in 113 ITR 380, the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court has held that the purpose of Demand Notice is to bring to the attention of and demand from the assessee, the amount of tax including interest and other items due. The Hon'ble High Court observed that it is the duty of the Assessing Officer concerned to give this notice and there is no bar to the issue of such a no…

Gurudayal Singh, Keonjhar vs. ACIT, Cuttack

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 146/CTK/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack29 May 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Written submissionFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 153(1)Section 153(2)

…T(A) is not in accordance with law and prayed for restoring the order of the Assessing officer. 7. We perused the written submissions filed by the assessee and judicial decisions supporting the action of the CIT(A). i) Karnani Industrial Bank Ltd., (1978) 113 ITR 380 (Cal) ii) Viswanathan Chettiar, 25 ITR 79 (Mad) iii) N. Subba Rao, 48 ITR 808 (Mys) iv) Badri Prasad Bajoria(1967) 64 ITR 362 (Cal) v) Andhra Pradesh vs M Rama Krishitah & Co. (1994) 93 STCZ 406 (SC) vi) Tulsi Mohyapatra (ITA Nos.412 & 413/CTk/2011) Asse ssment Year : 20 07- 08 vii) Delhi Foot Wear vs Sales Tax Officer order dated 25.9.2014 i…

ACIT, Circle-2(2), Cuttack vs. M/S. New Age Data Net Pvt. Ltd, Cuttack

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 165/CTK/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 May 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Written submissionFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 153(1)Section 153(2)

…T(A) is not in accordance with law and prayed for restoring the order of the Assessing officer. 7. We perused the written submissions filed by the assessee and judicial decisions supporting the action of the CIT(A). i) Karnani Industrial Bank Ltd., (1978) 113 ITR 380 (Cal) ii) Viswanathan Chettiar, 25 ITR 79 (Mad) iii) N. Subba Rao, 48 ITR 808 (Mys) iv) Badri Prasad Bajoria(1967) 64 ITR 362 (Cal) v) Andhra Pradesh vs M Rama Krishitah & Co. (1994) 93 STCZ 406 (SC) vi) Tulsi Mohyapatra (ITA Nos.412 & 413/CTk/2011) Asse ssment Year : 20 07- 08 vii) Delhi Foot Wear vs Sales Tax Officer order dated 25.9.2014 i…

CIT v. Karnani Industrial Bank Ltd. (113 ITR 380) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax