CIT v. Suman Tea & Plywood Industries (P) Ltd.

226 ITR 34High Court1997#17269 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2020.

Judgments citing CIT v. Suman Tea & Plywood Industries (P) Ltd.

ACIT(It), Circle - 1(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Gifford LLP, London

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 405/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…ew ground not set forth in the memorandum of the appeal or in the additional grounds cannot be taken. Similar ruling rendered by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the following cases were brought to our notice: i) Suman Tea and Plywood Industries reported in 226 ITR 34(Cal) ii) Gokul Chand Agarwal (202 ITR 14) iii) Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Surat-1 Vs. Gomti Silk Mills Ltd. In Special Civil Application No.15301 of 2017 and Special Civil Application No.15302 of 2017 dated August 29, 2017 and reported in 2017-TIOL-1768- HC-AHMIT.” 17. His next submission was that the power to rectify a mistake u/s 254(2) of…

ACIT(It), Circle - 1(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Gifford LLP, London

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 404/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…ew ground not set forth in the memorandum of the appeal or in the additional grounds cannot be taken. Similar ruling rendered by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the following cases were brought to our notice: i) Suman Tea and Plywood Industries reported in 226 ITR 34(Cal) ii) Gokul Chand Agarwal (202 ITR 14) iii) Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Surat-1 Vs. Gomti Silk Mills Ltd. In Special Civil Application No.15301 of 2017 and Special Civil Application No.15302 of 2017 dated August 29, 2017 and reported in 2017-TIOL-1768- HC-AHMIT.” 17. His next submission was that the power to rectify a mistake u/s 254(2) of…

ACIT(It), Circle - 1(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Gifford LLP, London

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 403/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…ew ground not set forth in the memorandum of the appeal or in the additional grounds cannot be taken. Similar ruling rendered by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the following cases were brought to our notice: i) Suman Tea and Plywood Industries reported in 226 ITR 34(Cal) ii) Gokul Chand Agarwal (202 ITR 14) iii) Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Surat-1 Vs. Gomti Silk Mills Ltd. In Special Civil Application No.15301 of 2017 and Special Civil Application No.15302 of 2017 dated August 29, 2017 and reported in 2017-TIOL-1768- HC-AHMIT.” 17. His next submission was that the power to rectify a mistake u/s 254(2) of…

The ACIT, Kottayam vs. Kerala Forest Development Corporation Ltd, Kottayam

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 441/COCH/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 2(24)

…there is no cost of acquisition. Therefore, the entire amount has to be treated as not taxable. For this proposition, the ld. representative has placed reliance on the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in CIT vs Suman Tea & Plywood Industries (P) Ltd (1997) 226 ITR 34 (Cal); Supreme Court judgment in the case of CIT vs B.C. Srinivasa Setty (1981) 128 ITR 294 (SC) and the judgment of the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs E.C. Jacob (1973) 89 ITR 88 (Ker) affirmed in 128 ITR 294 (SC). 10. On the contrary, Smt. S. Vijayaprabha, the ld. DR submitted that admittedly, the trees were grown spontaneously. The ju…

The ACIT, Kottayam vs. Kerala Forest Development Corporation Ltd, Kottayam

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 440/COCH/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 2(24)

…there is no cost of acquisition. Therefore, the entire amount has to be treated as not taxable. For this proposition, the ld. representative has placed reliance on the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in CIT vs Suman Tea & Plywood Industries (P) Ltd (1997) 226 ITR 34 (Cal); Supreme Court judgment in the case of CIT vs B.C. Srinivasa Setty (1981) 128 ITR 294 (SC) and the judgment of the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs E.C. Jacob (1973) 89 ITR 88 (Ker) affirmed in 128 ITR 294 (SC). 10. On the contrary, Smt. S. Vijayaprabha, the ld. DR submitted that admittedly, the trees were grown spontaneously. The ju…