CIT v. Shri Kishan Chand Mal

58 ITR 26High Court#25292 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2018.

Judgments citing CIT v. Shri Kishan Chand Mal

Kishan Gopal Mohta, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-35, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 635/KOL/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jan 2018AY 2012-2013

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 310/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Kishan Gopal Mohta -Vs- Jcit, Range-35,Kolkata [Pan: Adqpm 0469 E] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A Nos. 634 & 635/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13 Kishan Gopal Mohta -Vs- Acit, Circle-35,Kolkata [Pan: Adqpm 0469 E] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Bhide, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjune, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(iii)

…In this regard, the assessee placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UCO Bank vs. CIT reported in 32 3 A.Yrs. 2010-11to2012-13 ITR 688 (SC) and Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shri Kishan Chand Mal reported in 58 ITR 26 (Mad). The Ld. CIT ignored all the contentions of the assessee and directed the Ld. AO to adopt the interest paid figure of Rs. 1,61,44,852/- as against Rs. 6,51,821/- considered by the ld. AO for the purpose of working out the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) on the ground that the Ld. AO had not considered the issue in the right perspective. Acc…

Kishan Gopal Mohta, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-35, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 634/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jan 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 310/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Kishan Gopal Mohta -Vs- Jcit, Range-35,Kolkata [Pan: Adqpm 0469 E] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A Nos. 634 & 635/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13 Kishan Gopal Mohta -Vs- Acit, Circle-35,Kolkata [Pan: Adqpm 0469 E] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Bhide, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjune, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(iii)

…In this regard, the assessee placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UCO Bank vs. CIT reported in 32 3 A.Yrs. 2010-11to2012-13 ITR 688 (SC) and Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shri Kishan Chand Mal reported in 58 ITR 26 (Mad). The Ld. CIT ignored all the contentions of the assessee and directed the Ld. AO to adopt the interest paid figure of Rs. 1,61,44,852/- as against Rs. 6,51,821/- considered by the ld. AO for the purpose of working out the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) on the ground that the Ld. AO had not considered the issue in the right perspective. Acc…

Kishan Gopal Mohta, Kolkata vs. JCIT, RG-35, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 310/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jan 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 310/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Kishan Gopal Mohta -Vs- Jcit, Range-35,Kolkata [Pan: Adqpm 0469 E] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A Nos. 634 & 635/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13 Kishan Gopal Mohta -Vs- Acit, Circle-35,Kolkata [Pan: Adqpm 0469 E] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Bhide, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjune, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(iii)

…In this regard, the assessee placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UCO Bank vs. CIT reported in 32 3 A.Yrs. 2010-11to2012-13 ITR 688 (SC) and Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shri Kishan Chand Mal reported in 58 ITR 26 (Mad). The Ld. CIT ignored all the contentions of the assessee and directed the Ld. AO to adopt the interest paid figure of Rs. 1,61,44,852/- as against Rs. 6,51,821/- considered by the ld. AO for the purpose of working out the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) on the ground that the Ld. AO had not considered the issue in the right perspective. Acc…

CIT v. Shri Kishan Chand Mal (58 ITR 26) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax