Gentle CJ and Yahya Ali, J., in CIT v. O. RM. M. SM. SV. Sevugan

16 ITR 59High Court1948#22868 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 358,351 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2023.

Judgments citing Gentle CJ and Yahya Ali, J., in CIT v. O. RM. M. SM. SV. Sevugan

ACIT 3(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Hikal Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3517/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharish & Pavan Kumar Gadaleacit – 3(1)(2), Vs. M/S Hikal Ltd Room No. 607, 6Th Floor 717/718, Maker Aayakar Bhavan, Chambers V, Mumbai – 400020. Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaach0383A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Smt .Madhumalti Gosh.Cit Dr Respondent By : Sri.Sanjay Parikh.Ar Date Of Hearing 16.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.01.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Mumbai, Passed U/S 154 & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Smt .Madhumalti Gosh.CIT DRFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjay Parikh.AR

Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 154

…as been held by the AO as not being "income", the same Hikal Ltd.Mumbai. cannot even form part of "book profits" for the purposes of section 115JB. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions: a) Pr. CIT v. Ankit Metal and Power Ltd. (2019) 416 ITR 591 (Cal)- decision of hon'ble Supreme Court in Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. CIT (2002) 255 ITR 273 (SC) has been considered in this decision. b) M/s. Batliboi Limited v. DCIT [ITA No. 6228/M/2017; Order dated 21/5/2021] Accordingly, even on this count, the order u/s. 154 is bad in law. 12) Without prejudice, as per Board Circular no. 14(XL-6) dated 12-5-195…

Shri Urmil D. Patel, Baroda vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(6), Baroda

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2915/AHD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri T.P. Hemani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Lalit P. Jain, Sr. D.R

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154

…139(1) and the same was processed u/s 143(1) at the income disclosed by the appellant in the Return of Income, therefore, there was no "mistake apparent from the record". 5.5 As held by Gentle CJ and Yahya Ali, J., in CIT vs O. RM. M. SM. SV. Sevugan [(1948) 16 ITR 59 (Mad)], "Section 35 «* 1922 Act, corresponding to section 154 of the 1961 Act) has limited application.... Clearly that section.... Permits only some error, which is apparent on the face of the record, to be corrected." Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde vs Mailikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale [AIR 1960 SC 137] held tha…

Virgo Properties P Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1208/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Srinivasan, Jt. CITFor Respondent: 13.07.2017

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 154(3)

…stake u/s. 154 would include an omission in adopting the right figure, even as held by the ld. CIT(A). The AR would, in rejoinder, place reliance on the decisions in the case of CIT v. Hero Cycles [1997] 94 Taxman 271 (SC) and CIT v. O.RM.SM.SV.Sevugan [1948] 16 ITR 59 (Mad), to press home the point that 3 Virgo Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT where a point – of law or of fact, has not been examined at all, the same cannot be regarded as a mistake apparent from record. 4. We have heard the parties, perused the material on record, and given a careful consideration to the matter. The primary facts are not in d…