CIT v. P. Muncherji& Co.

167 ITR 671High Court1987#23009 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Judgments citing CIT v. P. Muncherji& Co.

M/S Jaipur Telecom Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Pr. CIT-2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 274/JPR/2021[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Jaipur14 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No.274/JPR/2021 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years :2014-15 M/s Jaipur Telecom Pvt. Ltd. 3, Amrapali Circle, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur. cuke Vs. Pr.CIT-2, Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABCJ 0763 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby :Sh. Manish Agarwal(C.A.) jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Sh. Ajey Malik (CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 15/02/2

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal(C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Ajey Malik (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 263

…iew that once the original order goes in appeal and the appeal is decided, the original order ceases to exist since it merges in the appellate order and, hence, the original order cannot be revised under revisional jurisdiction- CIT v. P. Muncherji& Co.[1987] 167 ITR 671 (Bom.), Ritz Ltd. v. Union of India [1990] 184 ITR 599 (Bom.), CIT v. International Computers Indian Manufacture Ltd. [1991] 187 ITR 580 (Bom.), Tel Utpadak Kendra v. Dy. CST [1981] 48 STC 248 (SC) and Khandelwal Ferro Alloys Ltd v. State of Maharashtra [1991] 80 STC 42 (Bom.). 11.1 Similar view has been taken by the Honourable Calcutta High Cou…

DCIT, Cir-I, Kolkata vs. M/S the Hooghly Mills Co. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 421/KOL/2014[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Mar 2017AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri Siddharth Jhajharia, FCA
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(24)(x)Section 263Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 40A(2)(b)

…of it merges in that of the appellate order. Thus, the only question that requires consideration is whether the retrospective amendment of s. 263 overrides or nullifies the effect of those judgments.—CIT vs. P. Muncherji & Co. (1987) 63 CTR (Bom) 338 : (1987) 167 ITR 671 (Bom) : TC57R.432#1 and CIT vs. Smt. A.S. Narendrakumari Basaheba of Rajkot (1988) 74 CTR (Bom) 56 : (1989) 176 ITR 515 (Bom) : TC57R.436 followed As a first impression Expln. (c), as it stands without anything more, appears to support the Revenue's submission that Expln. (c) was applicable in the present case also. On carefully examining the pro…

M/S. the Hooghly Mills Co. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, CC-VII, Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 547/KOL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2006-07

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 2(24)(x)Section 263Section 36(1)

…of it merges in that of the appellate order. Thus, the only question that requires consideration is whether the retrospective amendment of s. 263 overrides or nullifies the effect of those judgments.—CIT vs. P. Muncherji & Co. (1987) 63 CTR (Bom) 338 : (1987) 167 ITR 671 (Bom) : TC57R.432#1 and CIT vs. Smt. A.S. Narendrakumari Basaheba of Rajkot (1988) 74 CTR (Bom) 56 : (1989) 176 ITR 515 (Bom) : TC57R.436 followed As a first impression Expln. (c), as it stands without anything more, appears to support the Revenue's submission that Expln. (c) was applicable in the present case also. On carefully examining the pro…