CIT v. Manoj Kumar Beriwal

316 ITR 218High Court2009#10776 most cited
10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 249(4)(a) of the Income Tax Act

Issues it is cited on

section 249(4)(a)section 35(1)(i)section 35(1)(iv)section 35(1)opening wdvsection 249(4)written down valuesection 249section 22section 35advance taxappeal before cit(a)

Judgments citing CIT v. Manoj Kumar Beriwal

M/S. LA OPALA RG LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA

ITA 1891/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 May 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tulsyan, FCAFor Respondent: Smt. Monalisha Pal Mukherjee, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 80ISection 80l

…arding the second issue of other income being claimed as part of income exigible for relief u/s.80IC of the Act, the ld. CIT(A) is seen to have upheld the action of Ld. Assessing Officer (pages 42-43 of impugned order) by following the cases of Liberty India [316 ITR 218 (SC)] and the case of Sterling Foods [237 ITR 218 (SC)], to hold that such income was not ‘derived' from the industrial undertaking and hence, not eligible for relief u/s.80IC of the Act. 1. 3. Further aggrieved with this order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal with the following grounds: "1. That the Ld. CIT(A)- NFAC was…

RAVI DEVELOPMENTS,KANDIVALI MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1, THANE, THANE

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3864/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Shri B R Baskaran, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Naresh JainFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar (Sr. DR)
Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(a)

…part of the interest amount of ₹1,40,58,269/- was unpaid when the appeal was filed before the CIT(A). The appellant has placed reliance on the ITA 3864/Mum/2024 Ravi Developments decision of Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Manoj Kumar Beriwal (2009) 316 ITR 218, in order to submit that ‘tax’, for the purpose of section 249(4) does not include interest. Having regard to the decision of the jurisdictional High Court, MA 243/Mum/2024 came to be allowed by order of the even date and the appeal has been restored to file. 3. We have taken up the appeal for hearing and disposal by consent of parties. Upon hea…

DEMI REALTORS,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 156/HYD/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Respondent: Ms. T. Vijaya Lakhsmi, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 40a

…gs directed to pay the entire tax including tax arrived at as tax due as per the ROI. However, the fact remains that this is a legal ground available to the Appellant otherwise. As a matter of fact Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Manoj Kumar Beriwal (316 ITR 218) held that the term ‘tax’ as defined under section 2(43) of the Act does not include the term ‘interest’ as defined under section 2(28A) of the Act. 12. In the THIRD ROUND of proceedings before ld. CIT(A), the Appellant pleaded the ground of financial stringency. The Appellant respectfully submits that the AO in the asst. order in the middle of p…

UMESH RAMESH PATIL,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), MUMBAI

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

ITA 3017/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Dec 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Umesh Ramesh Patil, Cit (Appeals), Jai Malhar Builders & Office Of Asstt. Cit Central Developers Kalyan Padgha Vs. Circle 1, Thane-400604. Road, Near Gandhari Bridge Bapgaon, Bhiwandi-421 302. Pan No. Aavpp 4945 L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Dharmesh Shah/Ms. MitaliFor Respondent: Mr. Ujjawal Kumar Chavan, Sr. DR
Section 24BSection 80C

…arnataka HC) and decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court 99 (Karnataka HC) and decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court 99 (Karnataka HC) and decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Manoj Ku in the case of CIT v. Manoj Kumar Beriwal 316 ITR 218 (Bom) mar Beriwal 316 ITR 218 (Bom) dismissed the appeal of the assessee dismissed the appeal of the assessee in-limine observing as under: observing as under: “8. In the present case, the appellant had filed his Rol declaring total In the present case, the appellant had filed his Rol declaring total In the present case, the appellant had filed…

DCIT, GULBARGA vs. M/S JUPITERBIOSCIENCE LTD.,, BIDAR

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 628/BANG/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jan 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Sumeer Kumar Singh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 271(1)Section 35(1)(iv)Section 35(2)

…2007] 292 ITR 99/162 Taxman 16 , wherein, it has been held that section 249(4) of the Act makes it clear that admission of an appeal before the ld CIT(A) is subject to payment of tax due on the income returned. In the case of CIT v. Manoj Kumar Beriwal [2009] 316 ITR 218 (Bom.), the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held that for the purpose of section 249(4) of the Act, the deposit of admitted tax is condition precedent for entertainment of appeal before the ld CIT(A. In the instant case, the view taken by the ld CIT(A) deserves to be reversed keeping in view the judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of D…

DCIT, GULBARGA vs. M/S JUPITER BIOSCIENCE LTD.,, BIDAR

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 951/BANG/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Sumeer Kumar Singh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 271(1)Section 35(1)(iv)Section 35(2)

…2007] 292 ITR 99/162 Taxman 16 , wherein, it has been held that section 249(4) of the Act makes it clear that admission of an appeal before the ld CIT(A) is subject to payment of tax due on the income returned. In the case of CIT v. Manoj Kumar Beriwal [2009] 316 ITR 218 (Bom.), the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held that for the purpose of section 249(4) of the Act, the deposit of admitted tax is condition precedent for entertainment of appeal before the ld CIT(A. In the instant case, the view taken by the ld CIT(A) deserves to be reversed keeping in view the judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of D…

DCIT, GULBARGA vs. M/S JUPITER BIOSCIENCE LTD.,, BIDAR

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 950/BANG/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Sumeer Kumar Singh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 271(1)Section 35(1)(iv)Section 35(2)

…2007] 292 ITR 99/162 Taxman 16 , wherein, it has been held that section 249(4) of the Act makes it clear that admission of an appeal before the ld CIT(A) is subject to payment of tax due on the income returned. In the case of CIT v. Manoj Kumar Beriwal [2009] 316 ITR 218 (Bom.), the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held that for the purpose of section 249(4) of the Act, the deposit of admitted tax is condition precedent for entertainment of appeal before the ld CIT(A. In the instant case, the view taken by the ld CIT(A) deserves to be reversed keeping in view the judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of D…

DCIT, GULBARGA vs. M/S JUPITERBIOSCIENCE LTD.,, BIDAR

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 627/BANG/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Sumeer Kumar Singh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 271(1)Section 35(1)(iv)Section 35(2)

…2007] 292 ITR 99/162 Taxman 16 , wherein, it has been held that section 249(4) of the Act makes it clear that admission of an appeal before the ld CIT(A) is subject to payment of tax due on the income returned. In the case of CIT v. Manoj Kumar Beriwal [2009] 316 ITR 218 (Bom.), the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held that for the purpose of section 249(4) of the Act, the deposit of admitted tax is condition precedent for entertainment of appeal before the ld CIT(A. In the instant case, the view taken by the ld CIT(A) deserves to be reversed keeping in view the judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of D…

DCIT, GULBARGA vs. M/S JUPITER BIOSCIENCE LTD.,, BIDAR

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 990/BANG/2008[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Sumeer Kumar Singh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 271(1)Section 35(1)(iv)Section 35(2)

…2007] 292 ITR 99/162 Taxman 16 , wherein, it has been held that section 249(4) of the Act makes it clear that admission of an appeal before the ld CIT(A) is subject to payment of tax due on the income returned. In the case of CIT v. Manoj Kumar Beriwal [2009] 316 ITR 218 (Bom.), the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held that for the purpose of section 249(4) of the Act, the deposit of admitted tax is condition precedent for entertainment of appeal before the ld CIT(A. In the instant case, the view taken by the ld CIT(A) deserves to be reversed keeping in view the judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of D…

ACIT, GULBARGA vs. M/S. JUPITER BIOSCIENCE LTD.,, BIDAR

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1232/BANG/2005[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Sumeer Kumar Singh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 271(1)Section 35(1)(iv)Section 35(2)

…2007] 292 ITR 99/162 Taxman 16 , wherein, it has been held that section 249(4) of the Act makes it clear that admission of an appeal before the ld CIT(A) is subject to payment of tax due on the income returned. In the case of CIT v. Manoj Kumar Beriwal [2009] 316 ITR 218 (Bom.), the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held that for the purpose of section 249(4) of the Act, the deposit of admitted tax is condition precedent for entertainment of appeal before the ld CIT(A. In the instant case, the view taken by the ld CIT(A) deserves to be reversed keeping in view the judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of D…