Gilbert & Barkar Manufacturing Company, USA (1978) 111 ITR 529 (Bom). (iv) D.M. Neterwalla v. Commissioner of Income-tax

122 ITR 880High Court1980#22220 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,001 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2019.

Judgments citing Gilbert & Barkar Manufacturing Company, USA (1978) 111 ITR 529 (Bom). (iv) D.M. Neterwalla v. Commissioner of Income-tax

Shri Om Prakash Patidar (HUF), Indore vs. The ITO 2(4), Indore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 220/IND/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore03 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 131(1)Section 143(3)

…e. For this proposition, he relied on the following case law: 9 [ITA No.220/Ind/2017] [Shri Om Prakash Patidar (HUF), Indore] ITR 529 (Bom.) (ii) Steel containers Lt.d v. Commissioner (1978) 112 ITR 995 (Cal.) and (iii) D.M. Neterwalla v. Commissioner (1980) 122 ITR 880 (Bom.) The above decisions point out to one thing that the Tribunal has power to allow the Revenue to raise a ground for the first time before it. It is also held therein that the Tribunal can uphold disallowance under another section. In the light of the above decisions we hold that mentioning of a wrong section is not fatal to making an assessm…

Asst CIT Cen Cir 29, Mumbai vs. Shah Rukh Khan, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 5767/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri N.K.Pradhan, Am Dy. Commissoner Of Income-Tax, Shri Shah Rukh Khan Central Circle-4(2), Mumbai 44-Mannat, B.J. Road, Band बिधम/ (Erstwhile Assistant Commissioner Of Income Stand, Bandra (West), Tax, Central Circle-29, Mumbai) Mumbai-400 050. Vs. R. No. 1918, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aahpk3293L (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

For Appellant: Shri Hiro RaiFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin, D.R

Section 112Section 143(2)Section 23(1)(a)Section 271(1)(c)

…f Income Tax, Mumbai Vs. Mahalaxmi Textiles Mills Ltd. (1967) 66 ITR 710 (SC). (iii) Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City-1, Vs Gilbert & Barkar Manufacturing Company, USA (1978) 111 ITR 529 (Bom). (iv) D.M. Neterwalla vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (1980) 122 ITR 880 (Bom). The ld. A.R further to support his contention that because of the failure on the part of the A.O to strike off the irrelevant default in the body of the „SCN‟, the assessee had remained divested of any opportunity of putting forth its case before the A.O that no penalty under the aforesaid statutory provision was liable to be imposed in hi…

C.K. Ramakrishna, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 is dismissed

ITA 550/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2015AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Raghavendra Chakravarthi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Yadav, CIT (D.R)

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 68Section 69

…proposition, he relied on the following case law : (i) CIT vs. Gilbert and Barker Manufacture Inc. Co. U.S.A. 1977 CTR (Bom) 347 : (1978) 111 ITR 529 (Bom). (ii) Steel Containers Ltd. vs. CIT (1978) 112 ITR 995 (Cal), and (iii) D.M. Neterwalla vs. CIT (1980) 122 ITR 880 (Bom). The above decisions point out to one thing that the Tribunal has power to allow the Revenue to raise a ground for the first time before it. It is also held therein that the Tribunal can uphold 8 disallowance under another section. In the light of the above decisions we hold that mentioning of a wrong section is not fatal to making an asse…