CIT v. Vippy Solvex Products (P) Ltd.

228 ITR 587High Court1997#20044 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2022.

Judgments citing CIT v. Vippy Solvex Products (P) Ltd.

SHRI. MANJIT KRISHAN MALHOTRA,ABOHAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA

The appeals of the assessee are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

ITA 40/ASR/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Puri, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Chandrajit Singh, CIT DR

Section 263Section 269SSection 271D

…es up for consideration a subsequent event, the assessee would be entitled to make its submission also in regard thereto.—CIT vs. Ralson Industries Ltd. (2005) 197 CTR (MP) 680 : (2005) 276 ITR 368 (MP) set aside; CIT vs. Vippy Solvex Products (P) Ltd. (1997) 228 ITR 587 (MP) overruled; Chunnilal Onkarmal (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (1996) 135 CTR (MP) 1 : (1997) 224 ITR 233 (MP) distinguished. (Paras 7 & 11 to 14) Conclusion : Scope and ambit of a proceeding for rectification of an order under s. 154 and a proceeding for revision under s. 263 are distinct and different; revisional authority is not denuded of its revisio…

SH. MANJIT KRISHAN MALHOTRA,ABOHAR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCME TAX , BATHINDA

The appeals of the assessee are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

ITA 39/ASR/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Puri, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Chandrajit Singh, CIT DR

Section 263Section 269SSection 271D

M/S AB (WINES) STORES,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, KOLKATA-14, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 901/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jul 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No.901/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ab (Wines) Stores -Vs.- Pr. C.I.T., Kolkata-14 Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aajfa 6312 L] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri R.S.Biswas, Cit Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2017 Order

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.S.Biswas, CIT

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)

…nt an aspect not dealt by the AAC. 10.1. We find that the following decisions also would be relevant on the theory of merger :- a) CIT vs Subarna Plantation and Trading Co. Ltd reported in 238 ITR 319 (Cal) b) CIT vs Vippy Solvex Products (P) Ltd reported in 228 ITR 587 (MP) c) CIT vs Sashi Theatre Pvt Ltd reported in 248 ITR 126 (Guj) d) CIT vs Ram Kishore Raj Kishore reported in 135 Taxman 511 (All) e) CIT vs K Sera Sera Productions Ltd reported in 374 ITR 503 (Bom) f) CIT vs Palghad Shadi Mahal Trust reported in 212 ITR 287 (Ker) g) CIT vs Saraff Bandhu P Ltd reported in 216 ITR 833 (Bom) 14 15 M/s. AB (Wine…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHOPAL vs. RALSON INDUSTRIES LTD

Appeal is allowed with the aforementioned direction

C.A. No.-000010-000010 - 2007Supreme Court04 Jan 2007

For Respondent: Ralson Industries Ltd

Section 116Section 143Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263Section 80Section 80H

…or otherwise. The said contention of the assessee was upheld by the Tribunal, inter alia, relying on or on the basis of a decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Vippy Solvex Products Pvt. Ltd. reported in (1997) 228 ITR 587. The Tribunal was furthermore of the opinion that the Order passed under Section 154 of the Act having been made upon due consideration of the explanation of the assessee for the proposed rectification on the point of excess deduction under Section 80HH and 80-I, the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to make may order under Section 263 thereo…