Gangadhar Behera v. State of Orissa

8 SCC 381Reported decision2002#18294 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 346,713 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2024.

Issues it is cited on

section 147(1)section 148(1)section 116section 147(a)first proviso to section 147beyond four yearspaper companyshell companymere change of opinionlive linkborrowed satisfactionincome escaping assessment

Judgments citing Gangadhar Behera v. State of Orissa

Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Surat, Gujrat vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 5(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the three appeal for AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14 of the assessee are allowed

ITA 759/KOL/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.757 To 759/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. ………. Appellant (Pan: Aafcp2218P) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Appeared For Appellant. Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 26.08.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: The Captioned Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years (In Short “Ay”) 2011-12 To 2013-14 Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 03.11.2022 Arising Out Of The Separate Assessment Orders U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Act By Acit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata Dated 31.12.2018. Since Grounds Of Appeal Raised In These Appeals Are Common & Facts Are Identical, Except Variance In Amount, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Dispose Of All These Appeals By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

…e doing only wrong things. It has to be kept in mind that the maxim “Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus’ meaning false in one thing is false in everything has no application in India as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gangadhar Behera vs. State of Orissa (2002) 8 SCC 381. Here in this case the information from Investigation Wing is only that Shri Ajit has admitted to be providing accommodation entry to “Bathwal Group” and to beneficiaries. However, when we examine the jurisdiction of AO, we have to look at the ‘reasons recorded’ on a standalone basis. So in the absence of the list of beneficiaries Page 26 of 31…

Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Surat, Gujrat vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 5(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the three appeal for AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14 of the assessee are allowed

ITA 758/KOL/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.757 To 759/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. ………. Appellant (Pan: Aafcp2218P) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Appeared For Appellant. Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 26.08.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: The Captioned Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years (In Short “Ay”) 2011-12 To 2013-14 Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 03.11.2022 Arising Out Of The Separate Assessment Orders U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Act By Acit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata Dated 31.12.2018. Since Grounds Of Appeal Raised In These Appeals Are Common & Facts Are Identical, Except Variance In Amount, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Dispose Of All These Appeals By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

…e doing only wrong things. It has to be kept in mind that the maxim “Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus’ meaning false in one thing is false in everything has no application in India as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gangadhar Behera vs. State of Orissa (2002) 8 SCC 381. Here in this case the information from Investigation Wing is only that Shri Ajit has admitted to be providing accommodation entry to “Bathwal Group” and to beneficiaries. However, when we examine the jurisdiction of AO, we have to look at the ‘reasons recorded’ on a standalone basis. So in the absence of the list of beneficiaries Page 26 of 31…

Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Surat, Gujrat vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 5(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the three appeal for AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14 of the assessee are allowed

ITA 757/KOL/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.757 To 759/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. ………. Appellant (Pan: Aafcp2218P) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Appeared For Appellant. Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 26.08.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: The Captioned Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years (In Short “Ay”) 2011-12 To 2013-14 Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 03.11.2022 Arising Out Of The Separate Assessment Orders U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Act By Acit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata Dated 31.12.2018. Since Grounds Of Appeal Raised In These Appeals Are Common & Facts Are Identical, Except Variance In Amount, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Dispose Of All These Appeals By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

…e doing only wrong things. It has to be kept in mind that the maxim “Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus’ meaning false in one thing is false in everything has no application in India as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gangadhar Behera vs. State of Orissa (2002) 8 SCC 381. Here in this case the information from Investigation Wing is only that Shri Ajit has admitted to be providing accommodation entry to “Bathwal Group” and to beneficiaries. However, when we examine the jurisdiction of AO, we have to look at the ‘reasons recorded’ on a standalone basis. So in the absence of the list of beneficiaries Page 26 of 31…

D.C.I.T.Circle-6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Coal Sale Co.Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross-objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2364/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble Vice- & Shri A.T. Varkey, Hon’Ble]

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…e doing only wrong things. It has to be kept in mind that the maxim “Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus’ meaning false in one thing is false in everything has no application in India as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gangadhar Behera vs. State of Orissa (2002) 8 SCC 381. Here in this case the information from Investigation Wing is only that Shri Ajit has admitted to be providing accommodation entry to “Bathwal Group” and to beneficiaries. However, when we examine the jurisdiction of AO, we have to look at the ‘reasons recorded’ on a standalone basis. So in the absence of the list of beneficiaries attached to the r…

The State of Karnataka vs. Hassan Thermal Power Private Limited

WA/190/2020HC Karnataka12 Mar 2021

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

Section 4

…ified in setting aside the order dated 17.12.2018. 30. The learned Senior counsel for respondent No.1 further stated that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission vs. Reliance Energy, reported in (2007) 8 SCC 381 while interpreting the legislative intent delineating the scope of powers of KERC under Section 86(1)(f) of the Act of 2003 has held that the State Commission has only the power to adjudicate upon the disputes between the licencees and generating company. It follows that the Commission cannot adjudicate disputes relating to the grievances of…

Gangadhar Behera v. State of Orissa (8 SCC 381) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax