CIT Vs. Mangat Ram Hazarimal Kuthiala 125 ITR 91 (P & H).\nii. Nagarmal Baijnath v. CIT

51 ITR 285Supreme Court of India1964#18024 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Issues it is cited on

section 159section 18section 44reassessment proceedingssection 142(1)appeal before the tribunalsection 148transfersection 147personcompanyindia

Judgments citing CIT Vs. Mangat Ram Hazarimal Kuthiala 125 ITR 91 (P & H).\nii. Nagarmal Baijnath v. CIT

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

…iscontinued or where a firm is dissolved. The Ld. CIT(A) has relied on following precedents to support his above view: i. CIT Vs. Mangat Ram Hazarimal Kuthiala 125 ITR 91 (P & H). ii. Nagarmal Baijnath Vs. CIT 201 ITR 538 (SC) iii. CIT Vs. Raja Reddy Mallaram 51 ITR 285 (SC). iv. CIT Vs. Star Andheri Estate 208 ITR 573 (Bom.) v. CIT Vs. Paily Pillai & Co. 243 ITR 557 (Ker.) 11. In the case of CIT Vs. Mangat Ram Hazarimal Kuthiala (supra), the issue was in respect of penalty imposed u/s.271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act. In the said case, as per the facts on record, the assessee firm carried on the business of explo…

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

…iscontinued or where a firm is dissolved. The Ld. CIT(A) has relied on following precedents to support his above view: i. CIT Vs. Mangat Ram Hazarimal Kuthiala 125 ITR 91 (P & H). ii. Nagarmal Baijnath Vs. CIT 201 ITR 538 (SC) iii. CIT Vs. Raja Reddy Mallaram 51 ITR 285 (SC). iv. CIT Vs. Star Andheri Estate 208 ITR 573 (Bom.) v. CIT Vs. Paily Pillai & Co. 243 ITR 557 (Ker.) 11. In the case of CIT Vs. Mangat Ram Hazarimal Kuthiala (supra), the issue was in respect of penalty imposed u/s.271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act. In the said case, as per the facts on record, the assessee firm carried on the business of explo…

M/S. Steecon Infrastructure, Jodhpur vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), Jodhpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 61/JODH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Steecon Infrastructure Income Tax Officer 1(4) 85, Subhash Nagar, Pal Road, Paota Jodhpur- 242008 Vs. Jodhpur- 342008 Pan No. Acdfs3423Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Piyush Chajed and Mr SumitFor Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, AR
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…me Court, the view taken in those assessee is not correct. The decisions of the Supreme Court, to which he has invited our attention, are C.A. Abraham Income-tax Officer, Kotiayam [1961] 41 İTR 425 (SC) Commissioner of Income-tax v. Raja Reddy Mallaram [1964] 51 ITR 285 (SC) and Shivram Poddar v. Income-tax Officer, Calcutta [1964] 51 ITR 823 (SC) In Abraham's case (supra), the question before the Supreme Court related to the validity of the penalty orders made against the partners of a firm, which had been dissolved and had discontinued its business and the question was whether, if in the process of assessment o…

Pico Deepali Overlays Consortium, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi

In the result, ITA No. 4929/Del/2018 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4929/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishipico Deepali Overlays Consortium, Vs. Acit, (By Deepali Designs Exhibits P. Ltd As Central Circle-8, Alleged Member), New Delhi Plot No. 17, 2Nd & 3Rd Floor, Central Market, Punjabi Bagh West, New Delhi Pan: Aabap1880F (Appellant) (Respondent) Deepali Designs & Exhibits Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, As Alleged Member Of M/S. Pico Central Circle-8, Deepali Overlays Consortium, New Delhi Plot No. 17, 2Nd & 3Rd Floor, Central Market, Punjabi Bagh West, New Delhi Pan: Aabap1880F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 153ASection 177Section 177(3)Section 2(7)Section 253

…income, after serving a notice upon one of its members, can be enforced against the other members who were not served, and proceedings for recovery of arrears of tax so assessed can be initiated against such other members [ CIT v. Raja Reddy Mallaram, (1964) 51 ITR 285(SC). It I also not in dispute that the authorized representatives were duly authorized by AOP. No provision of law was shown to us that in case of assessment of AOP , all the members must authorize the person who is the respesent the AOP. Therefore now it is beyond doubt the assessee is correctly assessed as an AOP. Therefore now the only grievanc…

Deepali Designs & Exhibits Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, ITA No. 4929/Del/2018 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1561/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishipico Deepali Overlays Consortium, Vs. Acit, (By Deepali Designs Exhibits P. Ltd As Central Circle-8, Alleged Member), New Delhi Plot No. 17, 2Nd & 3Rd Floor, Central Market, Punjabi Bagh West, New Delhi Pan: Aabap1880F (Appellant) (Respondent) Deepali Designs & Exhibits Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, As Alleged Member Of M/S. Pico Central Circle-8, Deepali Overlays Consortium, New Delhi Plot No. 17, 2Nd & 3Rd Floor, Central Market, Punjabi Bagh West, New Delhi Pan: Aabap1880F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 153ASection 177Section 177(3)Section 2(7)Section 253

…income, after serving a notice upon one of its members, can be enforced against the other members who were not served, and proceedings for recovery of arrears of tax so assessed can be initiated against such other members [ CIT v. Raja Reddy Mallaram, (1964) 51 ITR 285(SC). It I also not in dispute that the authorized representatives were duly authorized by AOP. No provision of law was shown to us that in case of assessment of AOP , all the members must authorize the person who is the respesent the AOP. Therefore now it is beyond doubt the assessee is correctly assessed as an AOP. Therefore now the only grievanc…