CIT v. Shree Manjunatheswara Packing Products & Camphor Works 231 ITR 53 (SC). CIT v. Quality

222 ITR 523High Court#17255 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,607 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2022.

Judgments citing CIT v. Shree Manjunatheswara Packing Products & Camphor Works 231 ITR 53 (SC). CIT v. Quality

The Prajatantra Prachar Samity, Cuttack vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1), Cuttack

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed

ITA 80/CTK/2009[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack09 May 2022AY 1993-94

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Hota/Shri S.K,.AgarqwalFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty
Section 27

…raph 3 of the order has been ignored. 4. Rejection of SLP does not mean that decision of HC has been approved. CIT v. Shree Manjunatheswara Packing Products & Camphor Works 231 ITR 53 (SC). CIT v. Quality 224 ITR 77 (Pat). J. K. Charitable Trust v. WTO & Ors. 222 ITR 523 (All). 5. The order relied on by the learned AR follows the decision in the case of SSA's Emerald Meadows (SC, supra) rejecting the Revenue SLP, by a non-speaking order, against the Karnataka HC order holding no substantial question of law arising for determination following the same HC decision in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory…

The Prajatantra Prachar Samity, Cuttack vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1), Cuttack

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed

ITA 79/CTK/2009[1989-90]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack09 May 2022AY 1989-90

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Hota/Shri S.K,.AgarqwalFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty
Section 27

…raph 3 of the order has been ignored. 4. Rejection of SLP does not mean that decision of HC has been approved. CIT v. Shree Manjunatheswara Packing Products & Camphor Works 231 ITR 53 (SC). CIT v. Quality 224 ITR 77 (Pat). J. K. Charitable Trust v. WTO & Ors. 222 ITR 523 (All). 5. The order relied on by the learned AR follows the decision in the case of SSA's Emerald Meadows (SC, supra) rejecting the Revenue SLP, by a non-speaking order, against the Karnataka HC order holding no substantial question of law arising for determination following the same HC decision in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory…

The Prajatantra Prachar Samity, Cuttack vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1), Cuttack

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed

ITA 78/CTK/2009[1985-86]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack09 May 2022AY 1985-86

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Hota/Shri S.K,.AgarqwalFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty
Section 27

…raph 3 of the order has been ignored. 4. Rejection of SLP does not mean that decision of HC has been approved. CIT v. Shree Manjunatheswara Packing Products & Camphor Works 231 ITR 53 (SC). CIT v. Quality 224 ITR 77 (Pat). J. K. Charitable Trust v. WTO & Ors. 222 ITR 523 (All). 5. The order relied on by the learned AR follows the decision in the case of SSA's Emerald Meadows (SC, supra) rejecting the Revenue SLP, by a non-speaking order, against the Karnataka HC order holding no substantial question of law arising for determination following the same HC decision in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory…

Addl CIT Large Tax Payer Unit, Mumbai vs. Reliance Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 4361/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Addl. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Reliance Industries Ltd.,3Rd Income Tax, Large Tax Floor, Maker Payer Unit, Mumbai Chamber-Iv, 222, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacr5055K Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Reliance Industries Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Ltd.,3Rd Floor, Maker Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Chamber-Iv, 222, Mumbai Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacr5055K Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Reliance Industries Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Ltd.,3Rd Floor, Maker Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Chamber-Iv, 222, Mumbai Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacr5055K Appellant) .. Respondent) Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Reliance Industries Ltd.,3Rd Income Tax, Large Tax Floor, Maker Payer Unit, Mumbai Chamber-Iv, 222, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacr5055K Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Reliance Industries Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Ltd.,3Rd Floor, Maker Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 195Section 40Section 43BSection 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM Addl. Commissioner of Vs. M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd.,3rd Income Tax, Large Tax Floor, Maker Payer Unit, Mumbai Chamber-IV, 222, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 PAN/GIR No. AAACR5055K Appellant) .. Respondent) M/s. Reliance Industries Vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income Ltd.,3rd Floor, Maker Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Chamber-IV, 222, Mumbai Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 PAN/GIR No. AAACR5055K Appellant) .. Respondent) M/s. Reliance Industries Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Ltd.,3rd Floor, Maker Tax, Large…

M/S Dhameja Mining, Sikkim vs. ITO, WD-2(4), Asansol

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

ITA 701/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Dec 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: : Shri M.Balaganesh & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(2)Section 194Section 40Section 69A

…f non admission of SLP is as under: a. Rejection of SLP does not mean that decision of HC has been approved.[CIT Vs Quality (Pat) 224 ITR 77,CIT Vs Shree Manjunatheswara Packing Products & Camphor Works (SC) 231 ITR 53,J.K Charitable Trust Vs WTO & Ors. (All) 222 ITR 523] b. Special Leave petition dismissed with speaking order is declaration of law by Supreme Court - After rejection of SLP, lower Courts can review its order - Once SLP is admitted, lower Courts have no jurisdiction to review the order [Kunhayammed & Ors. Vs State of Kerala & Anr. (SC) 245 ITR 360] It can be seen in the instant case, there is no de…

CIT v. Shree Manjunatheswara Packing Products & Camphor Works 231 ITR 53 (SC). CIT v. Quality (222 ITR 523) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax