CIT v. Mangat Ram Hazarimal Kuthiala

125 ITR 91Reported decision#22271 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,001 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2025.

Judgments citing CIT v. Mangat Ram Hazarimal Kuthiala

M/S Manilal P. Savla & Company, Pune vs. ACIT, Circle 5, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2394/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2394 & 2393/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Manilal P. Savla & Company, 24, Bhawani Peth, Pune-411042 Vs. Acit, Circle-5, Pune Pan: Aabfm9782A अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri M.R. Bhagwat Department By : Shri Vidya Ratan Kishore Date Of Hearing : 03-09-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24-11-2025 आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Above Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Both Dated 27.09.2024 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)”/“Nfac"] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2017-18. For The Sake Of Convenience, Both These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri M.R. BhagwatFor Respondent: Shri Vidya Ratan Kishore
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 189Section 189(1)Section 189(2)Section 69A

…t the said provisions are attracted where any business or profession carried on by a firm has been discontinued or where a firm is dissolved. The Ld. CIT(A) has relied on following precedents to support his above view: i. CIT Vs. Mangat Ram Hazarimal Kuthiala 125 ITR 91 (P & H). ii. Nagarmal Baijnath Vs. CIT 201 ITR 538 (SC) iii. CIT Vs. Raja Reddy Mallaram 51 ITR 285 (SC). iv. CIT Vs. Star Andheri Estate 208 ITR 573 (Bom.) v. CIT Vs. Paily Pillai & Co. 243 ITR 557 (Ker.) 11. In the case of CIT Vs. Mangat Ram Hazarimal Kuthiala (supra), the issue was in respect of penalty imposed u/s.271(1)(a) of the Income-tax A…

M/S Manilal P. Savla & Company, Pune vs. ACIT, Circle 5, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2393/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2394 & 2393/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Manilal P. Savla & Company, 24, Bhawani Peth, Pune-411042 Vs. Acit, Circle-5, Pune Pan: Aabfm9782A अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri M.R. Bhagwat Department By : Shri Vidya Ratan Kishore Date Of Hearing : 03-09-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24-11-2025 आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Above Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Both Dated 27.09.2024 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)”/“Nfac"] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2017-18. For The Sake Of Convenience, Both These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri M.R. BhagwatFor Respondent: Shri Vidya Ratan Kishore
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 189Section 189(1)Section 189(2)Section 69A

…t the said provisions are attracted where any business or profession carried on by a firm has been discontinued or where a firm is dissolved. The Ld. CIT(A) has relied on following precedents to support his above view: i. CIT Vs. Mangat Ram Hazarimal Kuthiala 125 ITR 91 (P & H). ii. Nagarmal Baijnath Vs. CIT 201 ITR 538 (SC) iii. CIT Vs. Raja Reddy Mallaram 51 ITR 285 (SC). iv. CIT Vs. Star Andheri Estate 208 ITR 573 (Bom.) v. CIT Vs. Paily Pillai & Co. 243 ITR 557 (Ker.) 11. In the case of CIT Vs. Mangat Ram Hazarimal Kuthiala (supra), the issue was in respect of penalty imposed u/s.271(1)(a) of the Income-tax A…

M/S. Emta Coal Ltd., ( Erstwhile Known As M/S. Eastern Mineral & Trading Agency ), Kolkata vs. ACIT, Central Circle - 3(1), Kolakta

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2422/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Sri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble) Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Emta Coal Ltd…………………………………………..............................…….............Appellant 5B, Nandlal Basu Sarani Kolkata – 700 071 [Pan : Aacce 3506 G]

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

…on he relied on the following judgments: For this proposition he relied on the following judgments: 6 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. Emta Coal Ltd. i. Motor Sales Vs. CIT 230 ITR 44 (All) Motor Sales Vs. CIT 230 ITR 44 (All) ii. Mangatram Hazarimal Kuthiala 125 ITR 91 Mangatram Hazarimal Kuthiala 125 ITR 91 iii. City Mill Distributors P Ltd. 291 ITR 1 (SC) Distributors P Ltd. 291 ITR 1 (SC) f) The ld. counsel alternatively submitted t The ld. counsel alternatively submitted that, the reopening is bad in law for the reason the reopening is bad in law for the reason that the original assessment was completed u/s…

CIT v. Mangat Ram Hazarimal Kuthiala (125 ITR 91) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax