CIT v. Munnalal Shrikishan

167 ITR 415Reported decision1987#23007 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,356 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2019.

Judgments citing CIT v. Munnalal Shrikishan

Shri Kartick Chandra Mondal, Hooghly vs. Principal CIT - 8, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 322/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Dr. Shri P. K. Srihari, CIT/ld.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 54Section 54E

…not defined in the Income Tax Act therefore its meaning has to be under 4 Shri Kartick Chandra Mondal 1 stood as General Clause Act 1897 which defined the word Month to mean a month reckoned according to British calendar. In CIT vs Munna Lal Shri Kishan(1987) 167 ITR 415(AII) it was held in the context of Limitation u/s 256(2) that the word Month referred to period of 30 days and therefore the referred to "6 month" in see 256(2) is to 6 calendar month not 180 days, therefore the assessee invested within 6 month of sale was in conformity with judgement laid down in ITAT. That, in addition to the above facts the as…

Niamat Mahroof Virji, Mumbai vs. ITO 17(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 1964/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1964/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Niamat Mahroof Virji, I.T.O. 17(3)(3), बनाम/ Unit 232, 2 Nd Floor, Piramal Chambers, V. Bussa Udyog Bhavan, Opp Parel P.O., T.J. Road, Mumbai. Sewree. Mumbai – 400 015. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aahpv1071H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Neil Philip
Section 143(3)Section 48Section 50CSection 54E

…six months. Whether the intention of the legislator was to compute six calendar months or to compute 180 days. To resolve this controversy, we are guided by a decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court pronounced in the case of CIT v. Munnalal Shrikishan [1987] 167 ITR 415 where answering the dispute in respect of law of limitation the Hon'ble Court has clearly held that there is nothing in the context of section 256(2) to warrant the conclusion that the word 'month' in it refers to a period of 30 days, therefore, refers to six months in Section 256(2) is to six calendar months and not 180 days. Rather, in this cit…

Shah Textile P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 5(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3731/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri S.C. TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Agarwal
Section 115JSection 54E

…six months. Whether the intention of the legislator was to compute six calendar months or to compute 180 days. To resolve this controversy, we are guided by a decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court pronounced in the case of CIT v. Munnalal Shrikishan [1987] 167 ITR 415 where answering the dispute in respect of law of limitation the Hon'ble Court has clearly held that there is nothing in the context of section 256(2) to warrant the conclusion that the word 'month' in it refers to a period of 30 days, therefore, refers to six months in Section 256(2) is to six calendar months and not 180 days. Rather, in this cit…