Gulabchand Motilal v. CIT

174 ITR 117High Court1988#23236 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2020.

Judgments citing Gulabchand Motilal v. CIT

NANDLAL L. KODNANEY,MUMBAI vs. ITO 26(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, both the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 4924/MUM/2014[1992-93]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2020AY 1992-93

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Vikas Awasthy

For Appellant: Shri Mayur A. Shah, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik (Sr. DR)

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)

…pursuant to sec. 263 order and, therefore, is not applicable; the provision of sec. 153(2A) being clearly applicable, and stands accordingly rightly distinguished by the Tribunal in Krishna Devi (Lt.) (supra). The decision in Gulabchand Motilal v. CIT [1988] 174 ITR 117 (MP), also relied upon in W.C. Shaw Pvt. Ltd. (supra), is again in-applicable, as pointed out by the Tribunal in Krishna Devi (Lt.) (supra), inasmuch as the same has been rendered by applying the provision of Explanation 2 to section 153, which does not apply to s. 153(2A), but only to case falling u/s. 153(3)(ii). This is apparent from the fact…

VIVEK FINANCIAL FOCUS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 17(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 6972/DEL/2017[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Goel, C.A. and Shri Rishab Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. D.R

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153Section 250Section 254Section 263Section 264

…ld as under : “32. In the considered view of the Court, the aforesaid decision of the Gujarat High Court fully supports the case of the Assessee here. The decisions of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Gulabchand Motilal v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1988] 174 ITR 117 (MP), the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Bharti Engineering Corporation v. Union of India [2008] 298 ITR 400 (P&H) and Deep Chand Jain v. ITO [1984] 145 ITR 676 (P&H), and the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Paul Noel Rodrigues [2015] 231 Taxman 811 (Kar), all hold likewise. The Kerala High Court in Patel R.P. v. ACIT 2015 (5) KHC 370 he…

BECHTEL INDIA PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT,SPECIAL RANGE-2, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6131/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2008-09 Vs. Addl. Cit, Special Range-2, M/S. Bechtel India Pvt. Ltd., 418, Naurang House, 21 K.G. Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aaacb0298A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Himanshu Sinha, Adv. & Ms. Vrinda Tulshan, Adv. Respondent By Sh. H.K. Choudhary, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 26.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 23.11.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.:

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153(3)Section 154Section 254Section 271Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘I-2’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2008-09 Vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range-2, M/s. Bechtel India Pvt. Ltd., 418, Naurang House, 21 K.G. Marg, New Delhi New Delhi PAN : AAACB0298A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Himanshu Sinha, Adv. & Ms. Vrinda Tulshan, Adv. Respondent by Sh. H.K. Choudhary, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 26.10.2017 Date of pronouncement 23.11.2017 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 27/07/2017 passed by the Additional Com…