CIT Vs Suretech Hospital & Research Centre Ltd. 293 ITR 53 (Bomb.), CIT v. Parimal, Kandi Chanda

295 ITR 252High Court2007#17624 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 68 Section 115BBE Section 143(3)Section 144B Section 148 Section 2(1A)Section 234A Section 234B

Judgments citing CIT Vs Suretech Hospital & Research Centre Ltd. 293 ITR 53 (Bomb.), CIT v. Parimal, Kandi Chanda

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. SHRI DULHE RAM MEENA, JAIPUR

ITA 288/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev sogani, C.A. &For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69

…Assessing Officer. In view of provisions of section 250(4) and Rule 46A(4) and the fact of CIT-(A) powers being co-terminus with that of assessing officer. Reliance is placed on following judicial pronouncements:  CIT vs Poddar Swadesh Udyog (P.) Ltd [2007] 295 ITR 252 (Gauhati) 11 DCIT vs. Shri Dulhe Ram Meena [Para7] It would appear from above that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has the powers to make such further enquiry as he thinks fit or, alternately, he may require the Assessing Officer to make such further enquiry and to report the result of the same to him. It is clear from the above provi…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, BALLARI, BALLARI vs. SHA GANESHMAL JEWARRAJ BOHRA, KOPPAL

In the result, both the appeal by the revenue and the CO by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1202/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar S.V., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sridhar E., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 115BSection 131Section 148Section 68

…it clearly shows that the revenue has no case on merits. The ld. AR also relied on following judgments:- (1) CIT, Central Patna v. Sagar Construction (P) Ltd. [2015] 56 taxmann.com 434 (Patna) (2) CIT v. Poddar Swadesh Udyog (P) Ltd. [2008] 168 Taxman 182 / 295 ITR 252 (Gauhati) ITA No.1202 & CO 30/Bang/2024 Page 10 of 20 (3) CIT v. Chandra Kant Chanu Bhai Patel [2011] 13 taxmann.com 131 (Delhi) (4) CIT v. Ramneet Singh [2010] 189 Taxman 263 (P&H) (5) CIT v. Shaw Wallace Distilleries Ltd. [2021] 124 taxmann.com 510 (Karnataka) (6) CIT v Vegetable Products Ltd. [1973] 88 ITR 192 (SC) 8. Considering the rival…

ITO, WAR-4(1), JAIPUR vs. SHRI AMIT AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 267/JPR/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

For Appellant: Shri G.M. Mehta (CA)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (PCIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 143(3)Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68

…Mr.Shahrukh Khan 20 ITA 267/JP/2020_ ITO Vs Amit Agarwal Vs DCIT (2007) 13 SOT 61 (Mumbai), CIT Vs Suretech Hospital & Research Centre Ltd. 293 ITR 53 (Bomb.), CIT Vs Parimal, Kandi Chanda (2007) 291 1TR 77 (Gau), CIT Vs Poddar Swadesh Udyog (P) Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 252 (Gau), Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah Vs CIT (1998) 231 ITR 1 (Born), Surmukh Singh Vs ITO (2008) 115 TTJ (Asr) 852, ITO Vs Dwarka Prasad (1998) 60 TTJ (Pat) 292 and various other cases it was held that in exercise of powers under section 250, CIT(A) is entitled to admit additional evidence which he may think necessary for facilitating further enquiry,…

DCIT CEN CIR 8(1), MUMBAI vs. SURESH GAGGAR, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year

ITA 1332/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Dcit Cc – 8(1), Shri Suresh Gaggar, Room No. 656, 6Th Floor, 302, Gaurav Apartments, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Gokuldham, Goregaon (East), Mumbai - 400020 Vs. Mumbai - 400063 Pan: Ablpg3809K (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Manjunatha Swamy (Dr) Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta (Ar) Date Of Hearing: 06/11/2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 05/02/2018

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta (AR)For Respondent: Shri Manjunatha Swamy (DR)

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B(1)Section 2Section 68Section 69

…the Ld. CIT(A) as an additional evidence during the appellate proceedings. Only a few documents were produced before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. counsel relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT vs. Poddar Swadesh Udyog P. Ltd. 295 ITR 252 (Gauhati) and the decision of the Mumbai Tribunal rendered in ITO vs. Bombay Octrio Co, ITA No 6949/Mum/2010 submitted that since the CIT(A) has coterminous powers with that of the AO, the Ld. CIT(A) can consider the material which is necessary for deciding the issue in question. 11. We have perused the material on record including the findings o…

ASST CIT RG 10(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. OJAS MALL MANAGEMENT P LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 7322/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Ram Lal Negi A C I T – 10(3)(1) M/S. Ojas Mall Management P. Ltd. Room No. 218, 2Nd Floor Knowledge House, Off Jogeshwari Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vikroli Link Road, Shaym Nagar Mumbai 400020 Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai 400060 Pan – Aaaco8406H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek SharmaFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Joshi

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…f this arguments, the learned A.R. placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements: - (i) Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah vs. CIT (1998) 231 ITR 1 (Bom) (ii) B.L. Choudhary vs. CIT (1976) 105 ITR 371 (Orissa) (iii) CIT vs. Poddar Swadesh Udyog P. Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 252 (Gauhati) 3.4 In rejoinder, the learned D.R. submitted that the arguments put forth by the learned A.R. in support of the action of the learned CIT(A) in the 4 M/s. Ojas Mall Management P. Ltd. impugned order are factually erroneous and untenable in law. It is further submitted that the judicial pronouncements cited by the learned A.R. (supra) do…