CIT v. Vali Brothers

282 ITR 149High Court2005#15534 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 346,713 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 139Section 147Section 263Section 114(f)Section 133(6)Section 144BSection 148Section 154

Issues it is cited on

section 23notice under section 148section 139(1)reassessment proceedingssection 139section 13section 148section 147section 14total incomeinterest

Judgments citing CIT v. Vali Brothers

The Yanam Co Operative Stores Limited, Yanam vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 45/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam15 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Harsha Haridasu, C.AFor Respondent: : Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 237Section 263

…tutory right and directly linked to the income assessed in the return filed in response to notice u/s.148 of the Act. In support of his submission, the Ld. AR relied on the decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vali Brothers (2005) 282 ITR 149 (Allahabad) and Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court in the case of Shri Chitranjan Jaiswal Vs. CIT in C.W.J.C. No.2889 of 2000 on 16.06.2011. The Ld. AR further relied on the decision of the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2017-18 in ITA No.360/Viz/2024 dated 13.12.2024, where under similar facts, the ITA No.45/Viz/2…

Keller (M) Sdn Bhd, Chennai vs. DCIT Intl Tax 1(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1319/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1319/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-2019) Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Keller (M) Sdn Bhd, Income Tax, 7Th Floor, Centennial Square, International Taxation 1(2) No.6A, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Chennai. Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024. [Pan: Aagck 8014M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. Ashik Shah, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit.

For Appellant: Shri. Ashik Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, IRS, CIT
Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 239Section 263

…/CHNY/2023 B. Refund cannot be denied merely on account of non-furnishing of the return Sl.No Name of the case Forum Citation Page No. 14 Tata Chemicals Ltd. Supreme Court 363 ITR 658 126 15 R. Seshammal HC-Madras 237 ITR 185 136 16 Vali Brothers HC- Allahad 282 ITR 149 138 17 A. Balakrishnan HC-Karnataka 290 ITR 227 141 18 Daljit Singh Pyare Lal & HC-P & H 269 ITR 19 146 Co. 19 Karnataka State Co- HC-Karnataka 130 taxmann.com 114 149 operative Apex Bank Ltd. 20 C. Kishan Rao & Co. ITAT 3 ITD 474 155 Hyderabad The ld.Counsel further submitted that the issue which is sought to be revised is already investigated a…

Rajasthan Advance Joint Care Trust, Jaipur vs. ITO, Exemption, Ward 1, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 137/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Khandelwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 239Section 239(1)Section 250

…ramateria contained as per the present case and thus the same are distinguishable and not found applicable in the present case. Whereas on the contrary, the ld. A/R relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vali Brothers, 282 ITR 149 (Allahabad) in which the assessee had filed return in response to notice under section 148 of the Act in which he had claimed refund of advance tax paid by him. The proceedings were dropped and no amount was worked out as refundable to the assessee. Therefore, Hon’ble High Court while sustaining the view of the ITAT had held that excess amount b…

DCIT, Circle-2(2), New Delhi vs. Anant Raj Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal is allowed partly as indicated above

ITA 5238/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Goel, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CA; Ms
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50

…IOL-132-ITAT-JAIPUR g) Smt. Sneh Lata Jain v CIT [2004] 140 Taxman 156 J&K High Court 31 I.T.As. No.4736, 5237 & 5238/DEL/2017 h) Sunflag Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. LTD 2016-TIOL-2729-HC- MUM-IT i) Tiam House Service Ltd. 242 ITR 539(Mad) k) CIT Vs Vali Brothers 282 ITR 149(ALL) l) Smt. Jiby Mathew vs DCIT Kottayam in ITAT no. 523/Coch/2019 vide order dated 09/03/2020 53. The AR also submitted that the procedure should not be the handmaid and not the mistress of legal justice and cause of justice should not be subservient to the rules of procedure and placed reliance on the following judgments: a) Kailash v. Nankh…

DCIT, Circle-2(2), New Delhi vs. Anant Raj Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal is allowed partly as indicated above

ITA 5237/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Goel, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CA; Ms
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50

…IOL-132-ITAT-JAIPUR g) Smt. Sneh Lata Jain v CIT [2004] 140 Taxman 156 J&K High Court 31 I.T.As. No.4736, 5237 & 5238/DEL/2017 h) Sunflag Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. LTD 2016-TIOL-2729-HC- MUM-IT i) Tiam House Service Ltd. 242 ITR 539(Mad) k) CIT Vs Vali Brothers 282 ITR 149(ALL) l) Smt. Jiby Mathew vs DCIT Kottayam in ITAT no. 523/Coch/2019 vide order dated 09/03/2020 53. The AR also submitted that the procedure should not be the handmaid and not the mistress of legal justice and cause of justice should not be subservient to the rules of procedure and placed reliance on the following judgments: a) Kailash v. Nankh…

Anant Raj Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-2(2), New Delhi

The appeal is allowed partly as indicated above

ITA 4736/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Goel, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CA; Ms
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50

…IOL-132-ITAT-JAIPUR g) Smt. Sneh Lata Jain v CIT [2004] 140 Taxman 156 J&K High Court 31 I.T.As. No.4736, 5237 & 5238/DEL/2017 h) Sunflag Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. LTD 2016-TIOL-2729-HC- MUM-IT i) Tiam House Service Ltd. 242 ITR 539(Mad) k) CIT Vs Vali Brothers 282 ITR 149(ALL) l) Smt. Jiby Mathew vs DCIT Kottayam in ITAT no. 523/Coch/2019 vide order dated 09/03/2020 53. The AR also submitted that the procedure should not be the handmaid and not the mistress of legal justice and cause of justice should not be subservient to the rules of procedure and placed reliance on the following judgments: a) Kailash v. Nankh…

CIT v. Vali Brothers (282 ITR 149) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax