CIT v. Madhukant M. Mehta

247 ITR 805Supreme Court of India2001#17363 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2020.

Judgments citing CIT v. Madhukant M. Mehta

Income Tax Officer 17(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Narshi Nenshi & Sons, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 1169/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Ms Dinkle HariaFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P.Kaushik
Section 78(2)

…another person other than the person who has incurred depreciation on his fixed assets. The assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of the CIT v. Madhukant M. Mehta [247 ITR 805] allowed the claim of the assessee. Further, reliance was also placed by the Ld. CIT(A) on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of the Saroj Aggarwal v. CIT [156 ITR 497]. 6. Ld. DR vehemently supported the orders of the Assessing Officer and whereas the Ld. Counsel for the assessee strongly placed reliance on the decision of th…

Income Tax Officer 17(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Narshi Nenshi & Sons, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 1157/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Ms Dinkle HariaFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P.Kaushik
Section 78(2)

…another person other than the person who has incurred depreciation on his fixed assets. The assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of the CIT v. Madhukant M. Mehta [247 ITR 805] allowed the claim of the assessee. Further, reliance was also placed by the Ld. CIT(A) on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of the Saroj Aggarwal v. CIT [156 ITR 497]. 6. Ld. DR vehemently supported the orders of the Assessing Officer and whereas the Ld. Counsel for the assessee strongly placed reliance on the decision of th…

I.T.O. 17(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Narshi Nenshi & Sons, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 6202/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Ms Dinkle HariaFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P.Kaushik
Section 78(2)

…another person other than the person who has incurred depreciation on his fixed assets. The assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of the CIT v. Madhukant M. Mehta [247 ITR 805] allowed the claim of the assessee. Further, reliance was also placed by the Ld. CIT(A) on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of the Saroj Aggarwal v. CIT [156 ITR 497]. 6. Ld. DR vehemently supported the orders of the Assessing Officer and whereas the Ld. Counsel for the assessee strongly placed reliance on the decision of th…

Ramesh Kocha, Mumbai vs. ITO 24(3)(4), Mumbai

Appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1379/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Dharmesh Shah,Ld.ARFor Respondent: N.Hemalatha, Ld. DR
Section 143(3)

…se of succession by inheritance. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Upon perusal of the same, we find that the court after considering various judicial pronouncements including that of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in CIT v. Madhukant M. Mehta [2001 247 ITR 805] as relied upon by Ld. AR concluded that the losses of the dissolved firm could not be set-off by the Assessment Year: 2009-10 assessee partner upon succession. We also find that the case of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in CIT v. Madhukant M. Mehta [2001 247 ITR 805] was factually different since in that case, the erstwhile proprietorship concern…

Pramod Mittal

ITA/66/2012HC Delhi08 Feb 2012
Section 78(2)

…ship firm. This loss should be reduced from the income earned by the appellant as an individual. The appellant relies upon Section 78(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act, for short) and decisions of the Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Madhukant M. Mehta (2001) 247 ITR 805 (SC) and Saroj Aggarwal Vs. CIT (1985) 156 ITR 497 (SC). 3. We have considered the contentions raised by the petitioner but do not find any merit in the same. Partnership firm is a separate and distinct unit of assessment. The petitioner and his brother constituted a 2012:DHC:895-DB ITA 66/2012…