Commissioner of Income Tax v. P.R. Metrani (HUF)

251 ITR 244High Court2001#20111 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2017.

Judgments citing Commissioner of Income Tax v. P.R. Metrani (HUF)

Lalita Anup Anand, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 21(2)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7415/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 May 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2012-13 Smt. Lalita Anup Anand, Income Tax Officer 337, Ashish Indl. Estate, Ward-21(2)(2), बनाम/ Gokhale Road, Room No.111, 1St Floor, Vs. Dadar (West), Piramal Chambers, Parel, Mumbai-400028 Mumbai-400012 Pan No.Aadpa1527B (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee)

…of the view that under the provisions of s. 132(4A) of the Act, there was a presumption about the correctness of the contents of the MoUs but relying upon the decision of the Karnataka High Court in CIT vs. P.R. Metrani (HUF) (2001) 169 CTR (Kar) 149 : (2001) 251 ITR 244 (Kar), it was held that the presumption was rebuttable. It was further held that the assessee had been able to successfully rebut the presumption. 7. Learned counsel for the Revenue reiterated the view expressed by the AO. Unfortunately, we are not in agreement with that view. 8. The facts of the case make it very clear that there were two MoUs e…

Kashinath Tapuriah, Kolkatta vs. DCIT Cen Cir 2, Mumbai

In the result, the penalty appeals for all the seven years under reference are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8339/MUM/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan, Vp & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am Sr. Appellant Respondent A.Ys.

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Karia &For Respondent: Shri Girish Dave &

Section 132(1)Section 132ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…. Approving the decisions in Pushkar Narain Sarraf vs. CIT [1990] 183 ITR 388 (All) and Daya Chand vs. CIT [2001] 250 ITR 327 (Del), and the reversing the decision in (A.Ys. 2001-02 to 2007-08) Kashinath Tapuriah vs. Dy. CIT CIT vs. P. R. Metrani (HUF) [2001] 251 ITR 244 (Kar), it clarified this scope to be very limited, i.e., restricted to a summary assessment toward retaining sufficient assets to meet the demand of tax and/or penalty that may arise in assessment. Section 132, it explains, is a complete code in itself, which cannot intrude into any other provision of the Act and, similarly, the other provisions…

Shri Kashinath Tapuriah, Kolkatta vs. Dy.CIT.C.C.2, Mumbai

In the result, the penalty appeals for all the seven years under reference are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3820/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan, Vp & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am Sr. Appellant Respondent A.Ys.

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Karia &For Respondent: Shri Girish Dave &

Section 132(1)Section 132ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Ved Prakash Choudhary

ITA/903/2007HC Delhi19 Feb 2008

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA

Section 132Section 69

…ITA No.903/2007 Page 1 of 6 * HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI + ITA No.903 of 2007 Judgment reserved on: January 23, 2008 % Judgment delivered on: February 19, 2008 Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-1, New Delhi. ...Appellant Through Mr. R.D. Jolly, Adv. versus Ved Prakash Choudhary E-14, N.D.S.E.-II, New Delhi. ...Respondent Through None Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be…