CIT v. Satnam Transport Co. (Pr.) Ltd.

104 ITR 36High Court1976#21871 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250 Section 271AAC Section 44AD Section 69A

Judgments citing CIT v. Satnam Transport Co. (Pr.) Ltd.

Mavani Nilesh Harishbhai HUF, Porbandar vs. ITO, WD-2(3), Porbandar

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

ITA 422/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot27 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

…narrated in the assessment order and just to quote the wrong section, if any, does not invalidate, ( does not void ) the assessment order. For that reliance is placed on the judgement of Hon`ble High Court of Madras in the case of Madurai Knitting Co. [1976] 104 ITR 36 (Madras), wherein Hon`ble Court held as follows: “Section 35(1) of the 1922 Act, and section 154 of the 1961 Act, are in pari materia. Both confer jurisdiction on an ITO for rectifying mistakes apparent from the record, the only difference being that an appeal is provided under the 1961 Act, against an order under section 154, but in the old Act,…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Vision Town Planners Pvt. Ltd., Noida

ITA 4461/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, C. AFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh [CIT] – D. R

Section 139Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 154

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI] BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Through Video Conferencing) ITA. No. 4461/Del/2014 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) ACIT, M/s. Vision Town Planners Central Circle : 23, Vs. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. B–116, Sector : 44, Noida – 201 301. PAN: AACCV9600Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Rakesh Joshi, C. A.; Department by: Ms. Sunita Singh [CIT] – D. R.; Date of Hearing : 17/09/2021 Date of pronouncement : 18/11/2021 O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA , J. M. 1. This appeal has been filed by the Asst…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Vision Town Planners (P) Ltd., Noida

Accordingly, appeal of the learned AO is allowed

ITA 5210/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit, Vision Town Planners (P) Vs. Central Circle-21, Ltd, New Delhi B-116, Sector-44, Noida Up Pan: Aaccv9600Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR

Section 132Section 143Section 153BSection 153CSection 154

…. RM. Adaikkappa Chettiar v. CIT, (1970) 78 ITR 285(Mad) ; Bidyut Prova Raha v. ITO, (1971) 79 ITR 187(Assam) ; Indra Co. Ltd. v. ITO, (1971) 80 ITR 400(Cal) ; CIT v. Satnam Transport Co. (Pr.) Ltd, (1973) 92 ITR 42(Punj) ; CIT v. Madurai Knitting Co., (1976) 104 ITR 36(Mad) ; Addl. CIT v. Dalmia Magnesite Corporation, (1979) 117 ITR 930(Mad) ; CIT v. Srikishan Dass, (1980) 125 ITR 730(Del) ; Addl. CIT v. Pakco Engg. Pr. Ltd., (1983) 143 ITR 415(Bom) ]. 13. It is well-settled that mere quoting of a wrong section should not deprive a party or a litigant of a deserving relief [ Bata India Ltd. v. Deputy CIT, (1996)…