Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat I, Ahmedabad v. Bhanji Kanji’s Shop

68 ITR 416High Court1968#21238 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,001 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 1951Section 1934Section 1961Section 1962Section 10Section 10(20A) of Income-tax ActSection 13(h) of U.P. Industrial Development ActSection 13(k) of U.P. Industrial Development Act

Judgments citing Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat I, Ahmedabad v. Bhanji Kanji’s Shop

M/S U.P State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., Kanpur vs. Astt. Commissioner of Income Tax-VI, Kanpur

ITA 4/LKW/2004[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow14 Oct 2025AY 1996-97
For Appellant: Sh. Pankaj Shukla, Adv & ShubhamFor Respondent: Sh. Puneet Kumar, CIT DR
Section 10Section 17Section 2Section 2(5)Section 2(7)Section 8(2)

…he notices under section 10 were not served on the principal officer of the company. However, the ld. CIT(A) turned down this ground of appeal by relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT-1, Ahmedabad vs. Bhanji Kanji Shop 68 ITR 416 (Gujarat). Thereafter, it was argued that the assessee was not a credit institution as defined in section 2(5A) nor a finance company as defined in section 2(5B) of the Interest Tax Act and thus the Act did not apply to the assessee. It also argued that since it was a State Government Company, it should be treated like the State Government and no…

M/S U.P State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., Kanpur vs. Astt. Commissioner of Income Tax-VI, Kanpur

ITA 3/LKW/2004[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow14 Oct 2025AY 1995-96

Bench: Sh. Subhash Malguria & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyinterest Tax Appeal Nos.3 & 4/Lkw/2004 A.Ys.1995-96 & 1996-97

For Appellant: Sh. Pankaj Shukla, Adv & ShubhamFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 10Section 17Section 2Section 2(5)Section 2(7)Section 8(2)

…he notices under section 10 were not served on the principal officer of the company. However, the ld. CIT(A) turned down this ground of appeal by relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT-1, Ahmedabad vs. Bhanji Kanji Shop 68 ITR 416 (Gujarat). Thereafter, it was argued that the assessee was not a credit institution as defined in section 2(5A) nor a finance company as defined in section 2(5B) of the Interest Tax Act and thus the Act did not apply to the assessee. It also argued that since it was a State Government Company, it should be treated like the State Government and no…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Sudev Industries Ltd

ITA/805/2005HC Delhi31 May 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 230A(1)Section 260ASection 282(2)

…pted by the accountant, who was working for the assessee firm as well as for the two partner companies. Reference was made to an earlier decision of Gujarat High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat I, Ahmedabad versus Bhanji Kanji’s Shop, (1968) 68 ITR 416, wherein notice for re-assessment served on a temporary employee of a dissolved firm was held to be as valid service, observing that the conditions mentioned in Section 63 (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1922 similar to Section 282 of the Act, i.e. Income Tax Act, 1961, were not exhaustive and it was permissible to serve notice by way of modes not…

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/S Sudev Industries Limited

ITA-805/2005HC Delhi31 May 2018
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 230A(1)Section 260ASection 282(2)

…pted by the accountant, who was working for the assessee firm as well as for the two partner companies. Reference was made to an earlier decision of Gujarat High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat I, Ahmedabad versus Bhanji Kanji’s Shop, (1968) 68 ITR 416, wherein notice for re-assessment served on a temporary employee of a dissolved firm was held to be as valid service, observing that the conditions mentioned in Section 63 (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1922 similar to Section 282 of the Act, i.e. Income Tax Act, 1961, were not exhaustive and it was permissible to serve notice by way of modes not…

Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat I, Ahmedabad v. Bhanji Kanji’s Shop (68 ITR 416) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax