CIT v. KM Jagannathan

180 ITR 191High Court1989#19676 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2018.

Judgments citing CIT v. KM Jagannathan

KARPARA PROJECT ENGINEERING PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2223/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2223/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/A.Y.:2012-13

Section 2Section 28Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…tion of the issue can not be deemed to be a law declared so as to have binding effect under Article 141 of the Constitution of India.” Following the above decision and in conformity with this principle, it was laid down in the case of CIT vs. KM Jagannathan 180 ITR 191 (Mad) that dismissal of special leave petition by the Supreme Court cannot be construed as affirmation of the decision against which special leave was sought. In the case of Hindustan Tea Trading Company Ltd. vs. CIT 263 ITR Karpara Project Engineering Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT 1(1)(2) Surat/I.T.A. No.2223/Ahd/2016/ A.Y. 12-13 Page 6 of 7 289, 294 (Cal…

MITALI CREATION PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), NOW WARD-1(1)(3),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2121/AHD/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: C .M. Garg, Jm & O. P. Meena, Am

Section 2Section 28Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…ration of the issue can not be deemed to be a law declared so as to have binding effect under Article 141 of the Constitution of India.” Following the above decision and in conformity with this principle, it was laid down in the case of CIT vs. KM Jagannathan 180 ITR 191 (Mad) that dismissal of special leave petition by the Supreme Court cannot be construed as affirmation of the decision against which special leave was sought. In the case of Hindustan Tea Trading Company Ltd. vs. CIT 263 ITR 289, 294 (Cal), it was reiterated that a decision becomes binding as a precedent only when the court decides a particular q…

MAHENDRA VICHARE,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 13(3)(2), MUMBAI

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

ITA 5419/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Mayur Kisnadwala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Vidhyadhar, D.R

Section 14ASection 24

…AO and affirmed by the CIT(A). The Ld. A.R. contended that the order of Ld. CIT(A) upholding the order of AO is wrong and deserved to be reversed. The Ld. A.R. relied on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. K.M. Jagannathan (1989) 180 ITR 191. Alternatively, the Ld. A.R. further contended that though the premises were used by the private limited companies which are distinct from the assessee. The undisputed facts are that the majority stocks in the said companies were held by the assessee and assessee is a promoter director in the said companies. The Ld. A.R. also contended that in ab…

RAM B MANSUKHANI,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 17()2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 3154/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Mr. Ram B. Mansukhani Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax C/O Eden Garden Exports, C-33 Circle 17(2) Mumbai Shri Ram Industrial Estate Vs. G.D. Ambedkar Road, Wadala Mumbai-400013 Pan No.Aabpm8345F Appellant .. Respondent .. Shri A. K. Lal, Ar Assessee By Revenue By .. Shri T. A. Khan, Dr .. Date Of Hearing 24-01-2017 Date Of Pronouncement .. 15-02-2017

Section 143(3)Section 22

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM Mr. Ram B. Mansukhani Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax C/o Eden Garden Exports, C-33 Circle 17(2) Mumbai Shri Ram Industrial Estate Vs. G.D. Ambedkar Road, Wadala Mumbai-400013 PAN No.AABPM8345F Appellant .. Respondent .. Shri A. K. Lal, AR Assessee by Revenue by .. Shri T. A. Khan, DR .. Date of hearing 24-01-2017 Date of pronouncement .. 15-02-2017 O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM: This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of CIT (A)-32, Mumbai in appeal No. CIT (A)-32/IT-179/AC 17(2)/201…