How many judgments cite CIT v. Mirza Ataullaha Baig & Anr.?

31 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Mirza Ataullaha Baig & Anr. (202 ITR 291), spanning 2016 to 2024.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Mirza Ataullaha Baig & Anr. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 142(1), Section 143(1), Section 143(3), Section 148, Section 250, Section 32.

CIT v. Mirza Ataullaha Baig & Anr.

202 ITR 291High Court1993#3786 most cited

What is CIT v. Mirza Ataullaha Baig & Anr. authority for?

The Income-Tax Act, 1961, as amended on April 1, of any financial year, applies to the assessment of that year, and amendments coming into force after April 1 would not apply.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Mirza Ataullaha Baig · 202 ITR 291 · Income-tax Act 1961 · applicability of amendments · assessment year

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148 Section 250 Section 32 Section 37

Judgments citing CIT v. Mirza Ataullaha Baig & Anr.

Madhyanchal Gramin Bank, Rajapur Branch, Sagar vs. ITO(TDS) Jabalpur, Jabalpur

In the result, the assessee‟s appeals are dismissed

ITA 58/JAB/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur13 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon‟Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

…in Bank v. ITO (TDS) the sole decision on the point, may not be followed, as explained in Rishi Roop Chemical Co. (P.) Ltd. vs. ITO [1991] 36 ITD 35 (Del)(SB). Reference in this context be also made to the decision in CIT v. Mirza Ataullaha Baig & Anr. [1993] 202 ITR 291 (Bom), subjecting the doctrine of beneficial interpretation to the existence of an ambiguity in law, which in fact, as explained time and again by the Apex Court, is the premise of this doctrine. We have already explained with reference to the binding decisions by the Apex Court that the machinery provisions are to be read in a manner so as to ef…

Madhyanchal Gramin Bank, Orchha Branch, Sagar vs. ITO(TDS)-1, Jabalpur

In the result, the assessee‟s appeals are dismissed

ITA 57/JAB/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur13 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon‟Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

Madhyanchal Gramin Bank Neguan Branch, Neguwan Sagar vs. ITO(TDS)-1, Jabalpur

In the result, the assessee‟s appeals are dismissed

ITA 56/JAB/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur13 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon‟Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

Madhyanchal Gramin Bank, Majholi Branch, Majholi vs. Cito-TDS-2 Jabalpur, Jabalpur

In the result, the assessee‟s appeals are dismissed

ITA 55/JAB/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur13 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon‟Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

DCIT, Circle- 21(1), New Delhi vs. Religare Enterprises Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed and cross-objection

ITA 7552/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Delhi29 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia:Assessment Year: 2014-15 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Religare Enterprises Income-Tax, Circle-21(1), Ltd., 2Nd Floor, Rajlok New Delhi Building, 24-Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019 Pan :Aaacv5888N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 14A

…rward for more than eight years and consequently, cannot be set off against the business income of the assessment year 1960- 61 ”. (emphasis supplied) • Following the aforesaid decisions, the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mirza Ataullah Baig (1993) 202 ITR 291 (Bom) similarly held as under [refer pages 176-182 of CLPB II], “As regards the second question, it may be observed that the law is well-settled that the Income-tax Act, 1961, as it stands amended on the 1st day of April of any financial year, applies to the assessment of that year. Any amendment in the Act or the rules which come into force afte…

Habib Textiles P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT, Circle-1, Kalyan

In the result, appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 485/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2015-16 Habib Textiles Private Limited, The Dcit, Circle-1 1130, Habib Manzil, Nasik Road, Mohan Plaza, 1St Floor, V P Naka, Po: Bhiwandi, Wayle Nagar, Khadakpada, District- Thane - 421302 Vs. Kalyan (West), Pan: Aabch3399B Distt- Thane - 421301 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Lalchand Choudhary (Ar) Revenue By : Shri Sandeep Raj (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing : 04/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 23/11/2021

For Appellant: Shri Lalchand Choudhary (AR)For Respondent: Shri Sandeep Raj (CIT-DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(2)

…terest of the revenue. In support of such contention, learned Counsel relied upon the following decision:- i. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Dilip Singh Sardarsingh Bagga (1993) 201 ITR 995 (Bombay) ii. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Mirza Ataullaha Baig (1994) 202 ITR 291 (Bombay) iii. Shree Laxmi Estate (P) Ltd. v. ITO, Ward – 15(3)(3), Mumbai (2019) 108 taxmann.com 195 (Mumbai) iv. Mehta Equities Limited v. The ACIT 4(2), Mumbai (2016) ITA No. 570/Mum/2015 (Mumbai) 5. Learned Departmental Representative submitted, the revision order cannot be held as barred by limitation as the limitation period got extended…

The DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Aagam Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1762/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1762/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.DRFor Respondent: -None-

…al Construction Ltd. vs. CIT (1990) 85 CTR (Del) 116: DCIT vs. Aagam Infrabuild Pvt.Ltd. Asst.Year – 2012-13 (1990) 185 ITR 178 (Del) : TC 26R.532, CIT vs. Dilip Singh Sardarsingh Bagga (1993) 201 ITR 995 (Bom) : and CIT vs Mirza Ataullaha Baig & Anr. (1993) 202 ITR 291 (Bom): TC 27R.217. Factually, the vehicles are shown as asset in the balance-sheet of the assessee-company and running & maintenance expenses are borne by the assessee-company and such maintenance expenditure on the vehicle in question have been allowed by the AO as revenue expenditure which is contrary to the finding of the AO and therefore the…

Sanjay G Vadodaria, Mumbai vs. ITO 25(3)(4), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is disposed of in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 4419/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Sanjay G. Vadodaria, Income Tax Officer- बनाम/ 29/B Roop Kamal 426, S.V. 25(3)(4), Road, Kandivali West, Mumbai Vs. Mumbai-400067 (यनधाारयती /Assessee) (याजस्व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaepv9502A यनधाारयती की ओर से / Assessee By Mrs. Zarna P. Chandwani & Mr. Pradeep Chandwani याजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By Shri Vishwas Mundhe-Dr ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 21/02/2017 आदेश की तायीख /Date Of Order: 08/03/2017

Section 32oSection 42

…oses, but not registered in the name of the assessee, the assessee was held to be entitled for depreciation. Identical ratio was laid down by Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs Dilip Singh S. Bagga (1993) 201 ITR 995 (Bom.), CIT vs Mirza Ataulla Baig 202 ITR 291 (Bom.), CIT vs Nabdurga Transport Company 235 ITR 158, 160 (All.), Basti Sugar Mills Ltd. (2002) 257 ITR 88, 89,91 (Del.), Hotels Skylark & Restaurant Pvt. Ltd. 221 ITR 283 (Punjab), CIT vs A.P. Paper Mills 225 ITR 262 (A.P.), CIT vs Orient Longman Pvt. Ltd. 227 ITR 68 (A.P.), CIT vs Himachal Pradesh Mineral and Industrial Development Corporation…

M/S. Elite Shipping Synergies Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2405/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Dec 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2405/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Ms. Hemalatha, ACAFor Respondent: Shri A.V.Sreekanth, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 201Section 40

…roposition is based on the principle that where the language of the statute is amenable to two views, the subject should get the benefit of doubt, i.e., of an ambiguity in the language of the provision. Even as explained in CIT v. Mirza Atauallaha Baig [1993] 202 ITR 291 (Bom), the principle is to be applied with due care and circumspection. It is only when there is reasonable and genuine doubt in regard to the interpretation of a particular provison, that this would have application and cannot be stretched too far, allowing the taxpayer a benefit that the statute did not intend to give (page 297-D). As clarified…

Sbi Dfhi Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 7433/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7433/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Sbi Dfhi Limited Asst. Cit, Range 2(1), बनाम/ 23, 3Rd Floor, Voltas House, J. N. Aayakar Bhavan, Churchgate, Heradia Marg, Bellard Estate, Mumbai Vs. Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacd 0532 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Bhavin Shah ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vachaspati Tripathi सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 02.6.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 30.6.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 15.10.2013, Partly Allowing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its’ Assessment U/S.143(3) R/W S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2006-07 Vide Order Dated 23.11.2010. 2 Sbi Dfhi Limited Vs. Asst. Cit 2. The Sole Issue, Agitated Per Four Grounds By The Assessee, As Under, Is The Validity Or Otherwise In Law Of The Levy Of Penalty U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act On The Assessee’S Claim For Unabsorbed Deposition (For Rs.41,68,938/-) In The Computation Of Its’ Book Profit U/S. 115 Jb Of The Act, At Rs. 4 Lacs, I.E., At A Little Over 100% Of The Tax Sought To Be Evaded Thereon: ‘1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Penalty Levied Under Section 271(L)(C) Of The Act By The Learned Assessing Officer.

For Appellant: Shri Bhavin ShahFor Respondent: Shri Vachaspati Tripathi

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…edited in his books of account being brought to tax. The same would accordingly clearly apply to a case of penalty as well. Again, speaking in the context of a similar argument canvassed in CIT vs. Mirza Atullaha 12 SBI DFHI Limited vs. Asst. CIT Baig [1993] 202 ITR 291 (Bom), the Hon’ble Court, while admitting the proposition that in case of any doubt with regard to interpretation, the benefit of doubt should be given to the assessee, i.e., in principle, clarified that the said proposition cannot be stretched too far, and would not apply where the statutory provision is otherwise clear and brooks no doubt; it e…

Kedia Shares & Stock Brokers Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 4(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6128/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Apr 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2010-11 Kedia Shares & Stock Acit, Brokers Limited, Circle-4(3), बनाम/ 418, Commerce House, Room No.649, 6Th Floor, Vs. 140, Nagindas Master Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400023 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 Pan No.Aaack2528E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 32oSection 42

…ing, the ld. Counsel for the assessee, Shri Rishabh Shah, advanced arguments which are identical to the ground raised by submitting that the impugned issue is covered by the decision from Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs Mirza Attaulla Baig & Ors. (202 ITR 291) (Bom.), CIT vs Salkia Transport Associates 143 ITR 39 (Cal.) and CIT vs Nidish Transport Corporation 185 ITR 669 (Kerala). 2.1. On the other hand, Shri M. Murli, defended the conclusion, arrived at in the assessment order/impugned order by contending that the director is not the owner of the motor car, therefore, the claim of depreciation was r…