Commissioner of Income-tax v. M.K.K.R. Muthukaruppan Chettiar

78 ITR 69Supreme Court of India1970#25627 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,607 Indian tax judgments — from 2024 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 147 Section 148 Section 68 Section 133(6)Section 139 Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

Judgments citing Commissioner of Income-tax v. M.K.K.R. Muthukaruppan Chettiar

ACIT-19(3), Mumbai vs. Rishabh Avnish Mody, Mumbai

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

ITA 8101/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

For Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad (CIT DR)

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 56Section 68

…he assessee gave up grounds Nos. 2 to 5 before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner would be of no consequence. In this connection, reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. M.K.K.R. Muthukaruppan Chettiar [1970] 78 ITR 69. The following passages from that judgment are relied upon by the learned counsel for the assessee: "It is not necessary to decide whether the observations made by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in his order declining to assess the income of the Hindu undivided family operated to lift the bar of limitation as regards the assessment of income…

Adonis Marketing (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 9(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1769/KOL/2024[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Feb 2025AY 2009-2010

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

…967] 65 ITR 359 (All.), Sool Chand RamSewak v. CIT [1969] 73 ITR 466 (All.), S.P.Kochhar v. ITO [1 984] 145 ITR 2551 (All.) Trustees of H.E.H. Nizam’s Supplemental Family Trust v. CIT [2000] 242 ITR 3812 (SC) and CIT v. M.K.K.R. Muthu Karuppan Chettiar [1970] 78 ITR 69 (SC), etc. Page 5 of 6 I.T.A. No.: 1769/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Adonis Marketing Pvt. Ltd. 7. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Vegetable Products Ltd. reported in 88 ITR 192 (SC) that if two reasonable constructions of a taxing provision are possible, that construction which favours the assessee must…

ITO, WD.9(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 35/KOL/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.35/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata……………….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd……............…..........................…..…..... Respondent 69, Jamunalal Bajaj Street, Kolkata- 700007. [Pan: Aafcm6496E] C.O. No.6/Kol/2023 (A/O I.T.A. No.35/Kol/2021) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd……............…..........................…....... Cross-Objector 69, Jamunalal Bajaj Street, Kolkata- 700007. [Pan: Aafcm6496E] Vs Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata …………..….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 07, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 15, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: This Appeal By The Revenue & Corresponding Cross-Objection By The Assessee Have Been Preferred Against The Order Dated 08.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 263

…67] 65 ITR 359 (All.), Sool Chand Ram Sewak v. CIT [1969] 73 ITR 466 (All.), S.P.Kochhar v. ITO [19 84] 145 ITR 2551 (All.) Trustees of H.E.H. Nizam’s Supplemental Family Trust v. CIT [2000] 242 ITR 3812 (SC) and CIT v. M.K.K.R. Muthu Karuppan Chettiar [1970] 78 ITR 69 (SC), etc. 14. In the present case the petitioner filed a Supplementary Affidavit stating that against the order of the CIT (Appeals) an appeal was filed before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal which has been dismissed on 28-1-1997 (vide Annexure-SA 1). Hence the order of the CIT (Appeals) stands confirmed. In the circumstances it is not necessary…