CIT v. Manmohan Das (Deceased)

21 SOT 22Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2008#13738 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2024.

Issues it is cited on

section 44afsection 262trade creditorsinadequate enquiryrevision u/s 263non application of mindsection 263(1)lack of enquirymalabar industrialsection 194asection 44asection 40a(3)

Judgments citing CIT v. Manmohan Das (Deceased)

M/S Din Dayal Pursotam Lal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

ITA 148/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

…L i) ITA No.1925/Del/2013 Kamal Industry, HUF vs. DCIT ii) ITA No. 1946/D/2010 AY 2000-01 dated 26.3.2018 Ravina Khurana v. DCIT iii) ITA No. 3736/D/2017 dated 27.11.2020 ACIT vs. SPG Finvest (P) Ltd. (in respect of investments pertains to earlier years) iv) 21 SOT 22 (Delhi) (URO) Suraj Bhan Bajaj vs. ITO v) 65 TTJ 476 (Del) Jagtar Singh vs. ITO vi) ITA No 1219/Mum/2013 Rita Stephen Pinto vs. 1TO vii) ITA No. 2927/Mum/2017 dated 15.6.2018 Syntensia Network Security India (P) Ltd. vs. ITO viii) ITA No 1078/Bang/2014 Glen Willians vs ACIT ix) ITA No 305/Mds/2016 M/s. Sooraj Leathers vs. ITO x) ITA No 557/LKW/20M…

M/S Din Dayal Pursotam Lal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

ITA 147/CHANDI/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

…L i) ITA No.1925/Del/2013 Kamal Industry, HUF vs. DCIT ii) ITA No. 1946/D/2010 AY 2000-01 dated 26.3.2018 Ravina Khurana v. DCIT iii) ITA No. 3736/D/2017 dated 27.11.2020 ACIT vs. SPG Finvest (P) Ltd. (in respect of investments pertains to earlier years) iv) 21 SOT 22 (Delhi) (URO) Suraj Bhan Bajaj vs. ITO v) 65 TTJ 476 (Del) Jagtar Singh vs. ITO vi) ITA No 1219/Mum/2013 Rita Stephen Pinto vs. 1TO vii) ITA No. 2927/Mum/2017 dated 15.6.2018 Syntensia Network Security India (P) Ltd. vs. ITO viii) ITA No 1078/Bang/2014 Glen Willians vs ACIT ix) ITA No 305/Mds/2016 M/s. Sooraj Leathers vs. ITO x) ITA No 557/LKW/20M…

M/S Din Dayal Pursotam Lal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

ITA 146/CHANDI/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

…L i) ITA No.1925/Del/2013 Kamal Industry, HUF vs. DCIT ii) ITA No. 1946/D/2010 AY 2000-01 dated 26.3.2018 Ravina Khurana v. DCIT iii) ITA No. 3736/D/2017 dated 27.11.2020 ACIT vs. SPG Finvest (P) Ltd. (in respect of investments pertains to earlier years) iv) 21 SOT 22 (Delhi) (URO) Suraj Bhan Bajaj vs. ITO v) 65 TTJ 476 (Del) Jagtar Singh vs. ITO vi) ITA No 1219/Mum/2013 Rita Stephen Pinto vs. 1TO vii) ITA No. 2927/Mum/2017 dated 15.6.2018 Syntensia Network Security India (P) Ltd. vs. ITO viii) ITA No 1078/Bang/2014 Glen Willians vs ACIT ix) ITA No 305/Mds/2016 M/s. Sooraj Leathers vs. ITO x) ITA No 557/LKW/20M…

Sis Live, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2146/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20 Sis Live, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of 4Th Floor, Statesman House Income Tax, Building, Barakhamba Road, Circle-3(1)(2), International Connaught Place, Taxation, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Abrfs4787L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 9

…ted, losses determined and brought forward from earlier years cannot be disallowed in the current years. For this proposition, he relied upon the following decisions: i CIT Vs Manmohan Das (Deceased), (1996) 59 ITR 699 (SC) ii Suraj Bhan Bajaj Vs. ITO (2008) 21 SOT 22 (Delhi) 9. As regards the finding of the Assessing Officer that the provision for carry forward and set off of losses are not applicable to a non-resident assessee, learned counsel submitted, section 71 and 72 of the Act, which provide for set off and carry forward of losses refers to assessee and not resident assessee. Therefore, the assessee wi…

Sis Live, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-3(1)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2145/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20 Sis Live, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of 4Th Floor, Statesman House Income Tax, Building, Barakhamba Road, Circle-3(1)(2), International Connaught Place, Taxation, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Abrfs4787L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 9

…ted, losses determined and brought forward from earlier years cannot be disallowed in the current years. For this proposition, he relied upon the following decisions: i CIT Vs Manmohan Das (Deceased), (1996) 59 ITR 699 (SC) ii Suraj Bhan Bajaj Vs. ITO (2008) 21 SOT 22 (Delhi) 9. As regards the finding of the Assessing Officer that the provision for carry forward and set off of losses are not applicable to a non-resident assessee, learned counsel submitted, section 71 and 72 of the Act, which provide for set off and carry forward of losses refers to assessee and not resident assessee. Therefore, the assessee wi…

Syntensia Network Security India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 11(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2927/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm M/S. Syntensia Network Security Vs. Ito 11(2)(4) India Pvt. Ltd., Churchgate, 506, Laxmi Mall Laxmi Industrial Mumbai - 400020 Estate New Link Road, Andheri (W) Mumbai - 400053 Pan/Gir No.Aalcs1143G Appellant) Respondent) ..

Section 143(3)Section 68

…a right to the assessing authority to make an addition. The taxing authority can act only if there is power under the statute to do so. It further held that if the liabilities are old representing opening balances only, Section 68 cannot be applied. 6. [2008) 21 SOT 22 (DELHIUURO) SURAJ BHAN BAJAJ vs. ITO Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credits - Assessment year 1995-96 - Assessee constructed a residential house during period from July 1994 to April 1996 - Whether while invoking deeming provisions for making addition, Income-tax Act does not empower revenue authorities to include certain receipt as…

Sh. Nanak Chand, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Hapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 552/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 552/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Sh. Nanak Chand, Vs Income Tax Officer, 285, Durga Colony, Chopla Garh, Ward-3(4), Mukteshwar, Distt. Hapur Hapur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Akcpc7135L Assessee By : Sh. Akhilesh Kumar, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.05.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2017 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 09.11.2016 Of Ld. Cit(A), Ghaziabad.

For Appellant: Sh. Akhilesh Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. DR
Section 10(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…A No. 5660/Del/2012 order dated 05.09.2014 " S.R. Venkata Ratnam Vs CIT (1981) 127 ITR 807 (Kar.) " ACIT Vs Baldev Raj Charla (2009) 121 TTJ 366 (Del-C Bench) 14 Nanak Chand " ITO Vs Varun Kumar Saboo in ITA No. 5588/Del/2011 (Del.) " Suraj Bhan Bajaj Vs ITO 21 SOT 22 (Del) (URO) 11. In his rival submissions the ld. DR strongly supported the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A) and reiterated the observations made in the said order. 12. I have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the asse…

CIT v. Manmohan Das (Deceased) (21 SOT 22) — Cited in 7 Judgments | BharatTax