CIT v. United Trading Co.

212 ITR 532High Court1995#23626 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,001 Indian tax judgments — from 2025 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 112Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 189Section 263Section 45(4)

Issues it is cited on

section 2(31)section 42section 159section 18reassessment proceedingssection 142(1)appeal before the tribunalprevious yearsection 148transfersection 147person

Judgments citing CIT v. United Trading Co.

M/S Manilal P. Savla & Company, Pune vs. ACIT, Circle 5, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2394/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2394 & 2393/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Manilal P. Savla & Company, 24, Bhawani Peth, Pune-411042 Vs. Acit, Circle-5, Pune Pan: Aabfm9782A अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri M.R. Bhagwat Department By : Shri Vidya Ratan Kishore Date Of Hearing : 03-09-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24-11-2025 आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Above Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Both Dated 27.09.2024 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)”/“Nfac"] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2017-18. For The Sake Of Convenience, Both These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri M.R. BhagwatFor Respondent: Shri Vidya Ratan Kishore
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 189Section 189(1)Section 189(2)Section 69A

…is the case of Assessing Officer that the said sum belong to the period during which the assessee firm was in existence and carried out its business. In fact the case of the assessee is well supported by the following decisions: I. CIT Vs. United Trading Co. 212 ITR 532 (Raj.). II. Banyan & Berry Vs. CIT 222 ITR 831 (Guj.). 16. In the case of United Trading Co. (supra) the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan has explained the scope of Sec. 189 and it is held as under: “5. We have considered the matter. A deeming fiction is created by s.189 in respect of a business or profession carried on by the firm which is discon…

M/S Manilal P. Savla & Company, Pune vs. ACIT, Circle 5, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2393/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2394 & 2393/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Manilal P. Savla & Company, 24, Bhawani Peth, Pune-411042 Vs. Acit, Circle-5, Pune Pan: Aabfm9782A अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri M.R. Bhagwat Department By : Shri Vidya Ratan Kishore Date Of Hearing : 03-09-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24-11-2025 आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Above Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Both Dated 27.09.2024 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)”/“Nfac"] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2017-18. For The Sake Of Convenience, Both These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri M.R. BhagwatFor Respondent: Shri Vidya Ratan Kishore
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 189Section 189(1)Section 189(2)Section 69A

…is the case of Assessing Officer that the said sum belong to the period during which the assessee firm was in existence and carried out its business. In fact the case of the assessee is well supported by the following decisions: I. CIT Vs. United Trading Co. 212 ITR 532 (Raj.). II. Banyan & Berry Vs. CIT 222 ITR 831 (Guj.). 16. In the case of United Trading Co. (supra) the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan has explained the scope of Sec. 189 and it is held as under: “5. We have considered the matter. A deeming fiction is created by s.189 in respect of a business or profession carried on by the firm which is discon…

Arthi Baliga, Chennai vs. ACIT, NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1559/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1559/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Arthi Baliga, Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of No. 15, Flat No. 3-C, Coral Woods Income Tax, Chennai-4, Apartment, Sri Ram Nagar, South Chennai. Street, Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018. [Pan:Bkjpb5416P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ravi Kannan, Advocate & Shri Varun Ranganathan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 05.12.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai-4, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Kannan, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…cannot refer to assessment in perpetuity and relied on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Banyan & Berry vs. CIT 222 ITR 831(Gujarat) and the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of CIT v. United Trading Co 212 ITR 532 (Rajasthan). Referring to section 46 of the Partnership Act with reference to entitlement of partners to the surplus of the firm after debts and liabilities of the firm, without mentioning what were debt and liabilities of the firm in question were, the ld. DR argued that contractual liabilities of partners cannot be extended to assessability of…

CIT v. United Trading Co. (212 ITR 532) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax