(d) Abdul Razak v. CIT

3 ITR 361High Court1935#17559 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,607 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2024.

Judgments citing (d) Abdul Razak v. CIT

Unnikrishnan, Palakkad vs. ITO, Ward-2, Palakkad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 358/COCH/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Sri.Sivadas Chettoor, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Girly Albert, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 14Section 142(1)Section 144Section 4Section 69Section 69A

…rder passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) a maybe set aside with a direction to give a copy of the remand report and an opportunity to rebut the same. The appellant would rely on the decision of the PATNA HIGH COURT in Abdul Razack vs CIT (1935) 3 ITR 361(Pat) and the decision of the Honorable Allahabad high court in Gopinath Naik vs CIT (1936) for ITR 41 attached hereby as Annexure 2 and 3 respectively Ground-10 It is to be noted that as per the law, a personal hearing is to be granted to the appellant. Granting of personal hearing is a statutory right of the assessee as well as a natural right. In…

DCIT, Circle-4, Jaipur vs. M/S Kandoi Metal Powders Manufacturing Company Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 244/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) a
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…upto the assessee to avail of it, consistent with the principal of natural justice, to rebut the same. (a) Chiranji Lal Steel Rolling Mills Vs. CIT 84 ITR 222 (P&H) (b) Namasivayam Chettiar (S.N.) Vs. CIT (1960) 38 ITR 579 (SC) (c) Abdul Razak Vs. CIT (1935) 3 ITR 361 (Pat) (d) Balasubramanian (P.N.) Vs. ITO (1978) 112 ITR 512 (AP) (e) Bagsu Devi Bafna Vs. CIT (1966) 62 ITR 506 (Cal) (f) Cashmir Vastralaya Vs. CIT (1978) 112 ITR 630 (Pat) (v) Munna Lal Murlidhar Vs CIT (1971) 79 ITR 540 (All) The principle of natural justice involve a right in the assessee to inspect the reports and obtain the substance of the a…

DCIT, CC-1, Jaipur vs. Shri Jugal Kishore Garg(Derewala), Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 34/JPR/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Sept 2020AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ambrish Bedi, CIT- DR fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 143(3)

…the assessee to avail of it, constant with the principal of natural justice, to rebut the same. (a) Chiranji Lal Steel Rolling Mills Vs. CIT (1972) 84 ITR 222 (P&H) (b) Namasivayam Chettiar (S.N.) Vs. CIT (1960) 38 ITR 579 (SC) (c) Abdul Razak Vs. CIT (1935) 3 ITR 361 (Pat) (d) Balasubramanian (P.N.) Vs. ITO (1978) 112 ITR 512 (AP) (e) Bagsu Devi Bafna Vs. CIT (1966) 62 ITR 506 (Cal) (f) Cashmir Vastralaya Vs. CIT (1978) 112 ITR 630 (Pat) 5. Addi tion canno t be made on the basi s of state ment of a th ird p arty: - It is a case where the addition has been made only on the basis of statement of Shri N.K. Gupta…

Imsi India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Dehradun

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2506/DEL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 5856/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Ita No. 4277/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Ita No. 5744/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 2506/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Imsi India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Deputy/Assistant Commissioner C/O Luthra & Luthra Law Offices, Of Income Tax, Circle-2, 103, Ashoka Estate, Barakhamba Dehradun, Uttranchal Road, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabci1797A Assessee By : Sh. Ashwani Kumar, Sh. Sudhindra Jain & Sh. Alok Kumar Jain, Cas Revenue By : Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.10.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2007- 08 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 03.10.2011 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Ii, Dehradun & The Other Appeals Of The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 09.02.2012, 20.12.2011 & 30.11.2012 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-I, Dehradun For The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Respectively. 2. Since The Issue Involved Is Common In All These Appeals Which Were Heard Together So These Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kumar, Sh. Sudhindra JainFor Respondent: Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. DR
Section 2Section 234BSection 80Section 80I

…t needs to be emphasized that Court judgments have to be read in the context in which they have been delivered. These judgments do not pertain to the Taxing Statutes, hence no inference can been drawn for the issue at hand. (d) Abdul Razak vs. CIT reported in 3 ITR 361 (Patna):- In this case, the AAC had directed the AO to verify certain calculations and in this context, the AO paid a surprise visit to the assessee's premises and on finding certain books of account, included the findings from them in his report. The appellant pleaded denial of opportunity to explain the books of account on which issue the Hon'ble…

Imsi India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Dehradun

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5856/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 5856/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Ita No. 4277/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Ita No. 5744/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 2506/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Imsi India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Deputy/Assistant Commissioner C/O Luthra & Luthra Law Offices, Of Income Tax, Circle-2, 103, Ashoka Estate, Barakhamba Dehradun, Uttranchal Road, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabci1797A Assessee By : Sh. Ashwani Kumar, Sh. Sudhindra Jain & Sh. Alok Kumar Jain, Cas Revenue By : Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.10.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2007- 08 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 03.10.2011 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Ii, Dehradun & The Other Appeals Of The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 09.02.2012, 20.12.2011 & 30.11.2012 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-I, Dehradun For The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Respectively. 2. Since The Issue Involved Is Common In All These Appeals Which Were Heard Together So These Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kumar, Sh. Sudhindra JainFor Respondent: Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. DR
Section 2Section 234BSection 80Section 80I

…t needs to be emphasized that Court judgments have to be read in the context in which they have been delivered. These judgments do not pertain to the Taxing Statutes, hence no inference can been drawn for the issue at hand. (d) Abdul Razak vs. CIT reported in 3 ITR 361 (Patna):- In this case, the AAC had directed the AO to verify certain calculations and in this context, the AO paid a surprise visit to the assessee's premises and on finding certain books of account, included the findings from them in his report. The appellant pleaded denial of opportunity to explain the books of account on which issue the Hon'ble…

(d) Abdul Razak v. CIT (3 ITR 361) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax