H.H. Prince Azam Jha Bahadur v. Expenditure

83 ITR 92Supreme Court of India1972#25876 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Judgments citing H.H. Prince Azam Jha Bahadur v. Expenditure

SAGE INTERNATIONAL INC.,USA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INT. TAXATION 3(1)(2), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2214/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Sage International Inc., Vs Acit, 105, Townline Road, 2 Pmb 332, Circle 3(1)(2), Vernon Hills, Foreign United International States, Usa. Taxation, Delhi. Pan-Aaycs9212R Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Pradeep Dinodia, Ca Respondent By Shri Bhuvnesh Kulshrestha, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 28.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 10.04.2023 Order Per Kul Bharat: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Assessing Officer Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) Dated 15.07.2022 For The Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2018-19 .

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 4Section 90

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “D” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.S.PANNU, PRESIDENT & SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year : 2018-19] Sage International Inc., vs ACIT, 105, Townline Road, 2 PMB 332, Circle 3(1)(2), Vernon Hills, Foreign United International States, USA. Taxation, Delhi. PAN-AAYCS9212R APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri Pradeep Dinodia, CA Respondent by Shri Bhuvnesh Kulshrestha, CIT DR Date of Hearing 28.02.2023 Date of Pronouncement 10.04.2023 ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Assessin…

M/S. GOWDARA JAYADEVAPPA SILKS & SAREES,DAVANAGERE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, DAVANAGERE

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

ITA 304/BANG/2021[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Sri.K.Y.Ningoji Rao, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel

…6 ITA No.304/Bang/2021. M/s.Gowdara Jayadevappa Silks & Sarees. settled position of law that the same income cannot be taxed twice in the hands of the assessee. In this contention, I refer to the following judicial pronouncements:- (i) CET v. Raj Kumar Singh 83 ITR 92 (SC). (ii) Kori V.B. v. Asst.Professional Tax Officer 192 ITR 279 (Kar.) (iii) CIT v. Manjunatha Motor Service 197 ITR 321 (Kar.) 8.2 In view of the above judicial pronouncements, I direct the A.O. to examine whether the impugned addition of Rs.3,84,760 is shown as income in assessment years 2007- 2008 and 2008-2009. If it is found by the A.O. tha…

M/S. AVALON BUSINESS ASSOCIATES,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 7030/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Ms.Rashmi Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 10BSection 14Section 143Section 143(2)Section 144Section 145

…be read and understood according to its language. If the plain reading of the language compels the Court to adopt an approach different from that dictated by any rule of logic the Court may have to adopt it, vide Azam Jah Bahadur (H.H. Prince) vs. ETO (1972) 83 ITR 92 (SC). Logic alone will not be determinative of a controversy arising from a taxing statute. Equally, common sense is a 10 I.T.A. No. 7030/Del/2014 stranger and incompatible partner to the IT Act. It does not concern itself with the principles of morality or ethics. It is concerned with the very limited question as to whether the amount brought to…

H.H. Prince Azam Jha Bahadur v. Expenditure (83 ITR 92) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax