CIT vs Ram Chettiar 55 ITR 630 (SC); (iii) CIT v. Krishna Kutty Menon

272 ITR 439High Court2005#17473 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,487 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Judgments citing CIT vs Ram Chettiar 55 ITR 630 (SC); (iii) CIT v. Krishna Kutty Menon

Commissioner of Income Tax Exemptions Kolkata vs. M/S Tata Medical Centre Trust

Appeal stands dismissed and the connected

ITAT/186/2023HC Calcutta26 Sept 2023

Bench: The Assessing Officer In The Course Of The Proceedings Subsequent To The Order Passed Under Section 148A(D) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 19Th April, 2023. 2. During The Pendency Of The Proceedings The Assessment Has Been Completed & The Assessment Order Has Been Passed On 13.03.2025 Which Is Sought To Be Brought

For Appellant: Mr. Pranit Bag, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Advocate

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148ASection 154

…pal Commissioner of Income-tax –versus- Coal India Ltd., reported in (2023) 146 taxmann.com 546 (Calcutta) as well as the decision of the learned Single Bench of this Court in the case of Indian Tubes Co. Ltd. –versus- Income-tax Officer reported in (2005) 272 ITR 439 (Calcutta) and the Single Bench decision of the High Court of Karnataka in EIT Services India (P.) Ltd. –versus- Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax reported in (2024) 159 taxmann.com 424 (Karnataka) and also for the other propositions reliance was placed on the decision of the High Court of Bombay in Metro Auto Corporation –versus- Income-tax…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-6(2)(1), Bangalore vs. Sri C Gangadhara Murthy, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2400/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuthe Dy. Commissioner Of Vs Shri C. Gangadhara Murthy Income-Tax, No. 322, 3Rd A Corss, 2Nd Block Circle - 6(2)(1) 3Rd Stage, Basaveshwaranagar Bangalore . Bangalore 560079. Pan – Agipg 2668 N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2

…t and several High Courts of the Country:- (i) Trustees of Nizam Supplementary Family trust vs CIT 242 ITR 381 (Supreme Court); (ii) CIT vs Ram Chettiar 55 ITR 630 (SC); (iii) CIT vs Krishna Kutty Menon 181 ITR 237 (Kerala HC); (iv) Indian Tube Co. Ltd vs ITO 272 ITR 439 (Calcutta HC); (v) CIT vs K.M.Pachayappan 304 ITR 264 {Madras HC); (vi) CIT vs Abad Fisheries 246 CTR 513 (Kerala HC); (vii) CIT vs Qatalys Software Software Technologies 308 ITR 249 (Madras HC); (viii) CIT vs TCP Ltd 323 ITR 346 (Madras HC); 10. In the case of Abad Fisheries 246 CTR 513 (Kerala),(2011) 16 taxman.com 398 (Kerala) 2012) 204 Taxman…

M/S. Emta Coal Ltd., ( Erstwhile Known As M/S. Eastern Mineral & Trading Agency ), Kolkata vs. ACIT, Central Circle - 3(1), Kolakta

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2422/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Sri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble) Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Emta Coal Ltd…………………………………………..............................…….............Appellant 5B, Nandlal Basu Sarani Kolkata – 700 071 [Pan : Aacce 3506 G]

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

…owing case- law:-  CIT vs. P Krishnan Kutty Menon reported in 181 ITR 237 [Kerala] CIT vs. P Krishnan Kutty Menon reported in 181 ITR 237 [Kerala] CIT vs. P Krishnan Kutty Menon reported in 181 ITR 237 [Kerala]  The Indian Tube Co. Ltd. vs. ITO reported in 272 ITR 439 [Cal.} The Indian Tube Co. Ltd. vs. ITO reported in 272 ITR 439 [Cal.} The Indian Tube Co. Ltd. vs. ITO reported in 272 ITR 439 [Cal.}  CIT vs. S. Raman Chettiar [1965] SCR (1) 883 CIT vs. S. Raman Chettiar [1965] SCR (1) 883  Trustees of H.E.H. The Nizam’s Supplemental Family Trust vs. CIT reported in 242 Trustees of H.E.H. The Nizam’s Supplem…

DCIT, Cir-5(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Coal India Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of assessee is allowed

ITA 638/KOL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 May 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 143(3)Section 148

…reassessment framed pursuant to the second 4 ITA No.638/Kol/2017 & CO .38/Kol/2017 Coal India Ltd. AY 2008-09 notice was quashed. The Ld. AR also cited the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Indian Tubes Co. Ltd. Vs. ITO (2005) 272 ITR 439(Cal) wherein the Hon’ble High court held that “so long as those returns were not assessed in accordance with law, there was no scope for issuing further notice under section 148.” Therefore, second notice u/s. 148 of the Act issued by the AO was quashed. Therefore, the Ld. AR urged before us that framing of reassessment order dated 29.03.2014 (se…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sng Developers Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee as well as the appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 735/DEL/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2016AY 2003-04

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…tion 148, the first notice dated 19.03.2010 issued under sec. 148 has become redundant. The finding of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) is contrary to the judicial pronouncements in the case of Indian Tube Co. Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer (2005) 272 ITR 439 (Cal.), Sukhlal Ice & Cold Storage Co. Vs. Income Tax Officer (1993) 199 ITR 129 (All.) and Ashok Kumar Dixit Vs. Income Tax Officer (1992) 198 ITR 669 (All.) C.O. No. 110/Del/2012 AY: 2003-04 ii. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred in law and on facts by not giving any finding on…