CIT v. R. Giridhar

145 ITR 246High Court1984#16810 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2024 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 115JBSection 153Section 10(38)Section 14ASection 144BSection 14A(2)Section 156

Issues it is cited on

section 150section 65book profitssection 115jbincome-tax officerdraft assessment ordersection 153section 15section 143prescribedtransfersection 14

Judgments citing CIT v. R. Giridhar

RAYMIX CONCRETE INDIA PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-5(1), , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2771/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2771/Chny/2024 Assessment Years: 2015-16 Raymix Concrete India Private Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of Income No.1/107 & 108, Agr Tower, Tax, P.H.Road, Nerkundram, Corporate Circle-5(1), Chennai- 600 107 Chennai. [Pan: Aaecr6993A] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Ms.Lekha,C.A प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.08.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Ms.Lekha,C.AFor Respondent: Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 37

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ’सी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI माननीय श्री मनु कुमार धिरर ,न्याधयक सदस्य एवं माननीय श्री अमिताभ शुक्ला, लेखा सदस्य के सिक्ष BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON’BLE SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.2771/Chny/2024 Assessment Years: 2015-16 Raymix Concrete India Private Limited, Deputy Commissioner of Income No.1/107 & 108, AGR Tower, Tax, P.H.Road, Nerkundram, Corporate Circle-5(1), Chennai- 600 107 Chennai. [PAN: AAECR6993A] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assess…

WRITEMEN MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-7(1)(3), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1516/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ashwin D Gowda, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 153Section 56(2)(viib)

…urt because it had not challenged the Tribunal's order in appropriate proceedings. The Karnataka High Court, however, did have occasion later to consider the question directly and upheld an assessment made in similar circumstances in CIT v. R. Giridhar [1984] 145 ITR 246 (Kar), even though the separate sheet containing the tax computations had not been signed by the Income-tax Officer. The Punjab and Haryana High Court has also taken the same view Karuna Rani Jain v. CIT [1989] 178 ITR 321. In CIT v. Krishwanti Page 19 of 24 Punjabi [1983] 139 ITR 703 (Cal), Form No. I.T. 30 served on the assessee was not signed…

SAPPHIRE FOODS INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 3(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5399/MUM/2024[AY 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2025
For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Sathe / Asavari Kadam, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna (CIT DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 292BSection 56(2)(viib)

…rpose of the Act. An inconsequential technicality must not be\nallowed to defeat justice. Relevant paras are reproduced as below for\nreference:\n\"42. This Section 292B came up for interpretation in the following decisions :\n(i) In CIT v. R. Giridhar [1984] 145 ITR 246 (Kar). There the Karnataka High Court\npointed out that if an action in substance and effect is in conformity with and\naccording to the intent and purpose of the Act, the defect or omission cannot\ninvalidate the action.\n(ii) In I. Devarajan v. Tamil Nadu Farmers Service Co-operative Federation [1981] 131\nITR 506 (Mad). That is a case from the…

ACIT-1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BENNETT COLEMAN & COMPANY LIMITED, MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed and revenue is dismissed

ITA 1520/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bleι.Τ.Α. No.1387/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd. The Times Of India Building, Dr. Dadabhai Naoroji Road Fort, Mumbai-400 001 [Pan: Aaacb4373Q] Vs National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्य्थी / (Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1520/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Acit-1(1)(1), Mumbai Vs Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd. The Times Of India Building, Dr. Dadabhai Naoroji Road Fort, Mumbai-400 001 [Pan: Aaacb4373Q] Assessee By : Shri P.J. Pardiwala A/W. Shri Madhur Agrawal, Shri Jas Sanghavi, Shri Yash Prakash & Shri Vikas Poojary Revenue By : Shri S. Srinivasu Cit Dr A/W. Shri Ashok Ambastha, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2024 2 आदेश/Order आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Ι.Τ.Α. No.1387/Mum/2023 & 1520/Mum/2023 Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. Per Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w. Shri MadhurFor Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu CIT DR a/w. Shri Ashok
Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 14ASection 14A(2)Section 153

…Court because it had not challenged the Tribunal's order in appropriate proceedings. The Karnataka High Court, however, did have occasion later to consider the question directly and upheld an assessment made in similar circumstances in CIT v. R Giridhar[1984]145 ITR 246 (Kar), even though the separate sheet containing the tax computations had not been signed by the I.T.O. The Punjab & Haryana High Court has also taken the same view in Karuna Rani Jain v. CIT[1989]178_ITR 321. In CIT v. Krishwanti Punjabi [1983]139 ITR 703 (Cal), Form No. I.T. 30 served on the assessee was not signed and the Court remitted the ma…

BENNETT COLEMAN & CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE. , DELHI

ITA 1387/MUM/2023[2018--2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2024

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bleι.Τ.Α. No.1387/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd. The Times Of India Building, Dr. Dadabhai Naoroji Road Fort, Mumbai-400 001 [Pan: Aaacb4373Q] Vs National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्य्थी / (Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1520/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Acit-1(1)(1), Mumbai Vs Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd. The Times Of India Building, Dr. Dadabhai Naoroji Road Fort, Mumbai-400 001 [Pan: Aaacb4373Q] Assessee By : Shri P.J. Pardiwala A/W. Shri Madhur Agrawal, Shri Jas Sanghavi, Shri Yash Prakash & Shri Vikas Poojary Revenue By : Shri S. Srinivasu Cit Dr A/W. Shri Ashok Ambastha, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2024 2 आदेश/Order आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Ι.Τ.Α. No.1387/Mum/2023 & 1520/Mum/2023 Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. Per Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w. Shri MadhurFor Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu CIT DR a/w. Shri Ashok
Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 14ASection 14A(2)Section 153

…Court because it had not challenged the Tribunal's order in appropriate proceedings. The Karnataka High Court, however, did have occasion later to consider the question directly and upheld an assessment made in similar circumstances in CIT v. R Giridhar[1984]145 ITR 246 (Kar), even though the separate sheet containing the tax computations had not been signed by the I.T.O. The Punjab & Haryana High Court has also taken the same view in Karuna Rani Jain v. CIT[1989]178_ITR 321. In CIT v. Krishwanti Punjabi [1983]139 ITR 703 (Cal), Form No. I.T. 30 served on the assessee was not signed and the Court remitted the ma…

CIT v. R. Giridhar (145 ITR 246) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax