CIT v. M. Subramaniam

272 ITR 525Reported decision#20253 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2018.

Judgments citing CIT v. M. Subramaniam

ACIT Non Corporate Circle 20(1), Chennai vs. Spi Music Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1886/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Nov 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCITFor Respondent: None
Section 37

…DCIT [2013) (34 taxmann.com 235) have not been accepted by the Department and the appeals preferred are pending before the Hon’ble Madras High Court and therefore, pleaded that the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. M. Subramaniam 272 ITR 525 should be followed. 3 I.T.A. Nos. 1883 to 1886/Chny/18 5. Despite service of notice RPAD on record, none appeared on behalf of the assessee or any adjournment petition filed by the assessee. Hence we proceed to decide the appeal on merits after hearing the ld. DR. 6. We have heard the ld. DR, perused the materials available on record and gone…

ACIT Non Corporate Circle 20(1), Chennai vs. Spi Music Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1885/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Nov 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCITFor Respondent: None
Section 37

…DCIT [2013) (34 taxmann.com 235) have not been accepted by the Department and the appeals preferred are pending before the Hon’ble Madras High Court and therefore, pleaded that the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. M. Subramaniam 272 ITR 525 should be followed. 3 I.T.A. Nos. 1883 to 1886/Chny/18 5. Despite service of notice RPAD on record, none appeared on behalf of the assessee or any adjournment petition filed by the assessee. Hence we proceed to decide the appeal on merits after hearing the ld. DR. 6. We have heard the ld. DR, perused the materials available on record and gone…

ACIT Non Corporate Circle 20(1), Chennai vs. Spi Music Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1884/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Nov 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCITFor Respondent: None
Section 37

…DCIT [2013) (34 taxmann.com 235) have not been accepted by the Department and the appeals preferred are pending before the Hon’ble Madras High Court and therefore, pleaded that the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. M. Subramaniam 272 ITR 525 should be followed. 3 I.T.A. Nos. 1883 to 1886/Chny/18 5. Despite service of notice RPAD on record, none appeared on behalf of the assessee or any adjournment petition filed by the assessee. Hence we proceed to decide the appeal on merits after hearing the ld. DR. 6. We have heard the ld. DR, perused the materials available on record and gone…

ACIT Non Corporate Circle 20(1), Chennai vs. Spi Music Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1883/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Nov 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCITFor Respondent: None
Section 37

…DCIT [2013) (34 taxmann.com 235) have not been accepted by the Department and the appeals preferred are pending before the Hon’ble Madras High Court and therefore, pleaded that the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. M. Subramaniam 272 ITR 525 should be followed. 3 I.T.A. Nos. 1883 to 1886/Chny/18 5. Despite service of notice RPAD on record, none appeared on behalf of the assessee or any adjournment petition filed by the assessee. Hence we proceed to decide the appeal on merits after hearing the ld. DR. 6. We have heard the ld. DR, perused the materials available on record and gone…

CIT v. M. Subramaniam (272 ITR 525) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax