Haji Lal Mohd Biri Works v. CIT

275 ITR 496High Court2005#4912 most cited

What is Haji Lal Mohd Biri Works v. CIT authority for?

When an assessee follows the mercantile system of accounting, a statutory liability is incurred and becomes deductible at the time it is raised or accrued, irrespective of whether a dispute is raised later. An appellate authority admitting additional evidence must record reasons and provide an opportunity for the Assessing Officer to respond.

24

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Haji Lal Mohd. Biri Works v. CIT · 275 ITR 496 · 3 SCC 659 · mercantile system of accounting · accrual of liability · deduction of expenses · additional evidence · Rule 46A · section 143(2) · section 143(3)

Also reported as

3 SCC 659

Sections most often in play

Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144

Issues it is cited on

application of incomeappeal before the tribunalprevious yeartransfersection 14indiatotal incomedocumentinterest

Judgments citing Haji Lal Mohd Biri Works v. CIT

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE,PUNE, PUNE vs. SHREE WARANA VIBHAG SHIKSHAN MANDAL , WARNANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 987/PUN/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 11Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 80G

…additional evidence filed by the assessee before him. In support thereof, the Ld. DR placed reliance on the following decisions : i. Pravir Polymers Private Limited Vs. ITO in Writ petition No. 2440 Of 2023 (Bom.); ii. Haji Lal Mohd. Biri Works Vs. CIT (2005) 275 ITR 496 (All.); iii. ITO Vs. Prem Kumar Jindal (2009) 27 SOT 228 (ITAT). 7. The Ld. AR, on the other hand, supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and reiterated the submissions made by the assessee before him. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee holds a valid certificate of registration u/s 12 of the Act since the year 2003. The assessee is also havin…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 1, BELLARY vs. M/S AURO MINERALS , HOSPET

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed and that of the Assessee allowed

ITA 1543/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathy

For Appellant: Shri. Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Srinivas T. Bidari, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)

…ed on a mere issuance of a demand notice against the Assessee and becomes deductible at that point of time. The factum of the Assessee raising a dispute against such a demand does not ruin the incurring of liability. In Haji Lal Mohd. Biri Works v. CIT (1997) 3 SCC 659 SC it was explained by referring ITA Nos.1543, 1329/Bang/2016 Page 33 of 38 to the decisions in Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1972) 3 SCC 252 and CIT v. Kalinga Tubes Ltd. (1996) 2 SCC 277 that "when the Assessee is following mercantile system of accounting, in case of sales tax payable by the Assessee, the liability to pay sales tax would…

M/S AURO MINERALS ,HOSPET vs. JOINT COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX BELLARY RANGE , BELLARY

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed and that of the Assessee allowed

ITA 1329/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathy

For Appellant: Shri. Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Srinivas T. Bidari, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)

…ed on a mere issuance of a demand notice against the Assessee and becomes deductible at that point of time. The factum of the Assessee raising a dispute against such a demand does not ruin the incurring of liability. In Haji Lal Mohd. Biri Works v. CIT (1997) 3 SCC 659 SC it was explained by referring ITA Nos.1543, 1329/Bang/2016 Page 33 of 38 to the decisions in Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1972) 3 SCC 252 and CIT v. Kalinga Tubes Ltd. (1996) 2 SCC 277 that "when the Assessee is following mercantile system of accounting, in case of sales tax payable by the Assessee, the liability to pay sales tax would…

MOHD. IMRAN,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 2(3), GHAZIABAD

ITA 6741/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.S. Sainiassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 44A

…authority should record reasons for admitting such evidence at appeal stage and gives an opportunity for the Assessing Officer to meet such additional evidence. The need for following this procedure was pointed out in Haji Lal Mohd. Biri Works vs. CIT [2005] 275 ITR 496 (All.). This procedure is required to be rigidly followed by the first appellate authority. 3. Where additional evidence is sought to be relied upon, the assessee is expected under Rule 46A to give explanation as to why it could not be filed before the Assessing Officer. The usual reason is normally that the Assessing Officer had not given the as…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. JITF WATERWAYS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the cross appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6616/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs. Jitf Waterways Ltd., Circle-13(2), Jindal Tif Centre, New Delhi. 28, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi. Pan: Aabcj7845M Assessment Year: 2010-11 Jitf Waterways Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Jindal Tif Centre, Circle-13(2), 28, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aabcj7845M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate; & Shri Asnshul Sachar & Karan Jain, Cas Revenue By : Shri D.K. Mishra, Sr.Dr & Smt. Naina Soin Kopil, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.11.2018

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate; and Shri Asnshul Sachar &For Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, Sr.DR &
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 68

…231 Taxman 384 (Del); iii) ACIT vs. Mohar Singh, 16 taxmann.com 37, 49 SOT 129 (Raj.); iv) E-4 Entertainment Pvt. Ltd., ITA No.4491/Del/2010, A.Y. 2007-08; v) CIT vs. Ranjit Kumar Choudhary, 288 ITR 179 (Gau.); vi) Haji Lal Mohd Biri Works vs. CIT (2005) 275 ITR 496 (All); vii) ACIT vs. Nirula Handicraft Bazar (P) Ltd., ITA No.3886 (Delhi), Order dated 12.10.2012; viii) ITO 24(2) vs. Kuber Chand Sharma, ITA No.3982/Del/2009 (ITAT, Delhi); & ix) ITO 31(1), New Delhi vs. Bhai Manjit Singh (ITA No.1807/Del/2010). He accordingly submitted that the order of the ld.CIT(A) be reversed and that of the Assessing Of…

M/S. JITF WATERWAYS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the cross appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5810/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs. Jitf Waterways Ltd., Circle-13(2), Jindal Tif Centre, New Delhi. 28, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi. Pan: Aabcj7845M Assessment Year: 2010-11 Jitf Waterways Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Jindal Tif Centre, Circle-13(2), 28, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aabcj7845M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate; & Shri Asnshul Sachar & Karan Jain, Cas Revenue By : Shri D.K. Mishra, Sr.Dr & Smt. Naina Soin Kopil, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.11.2018

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate; and Shri Asnshul Sachar &For Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, Sr.DR &
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 68

…231 Taxman 384 (Del); iii) ACIT vs. Mohar Singh, 16 taxmann.com 37, 49 SOT 129 (Raj.); iv) E-4 Entertainment Pvt. Ltd., ITA No.4491/Del/2010, A.Y. 2007-08; v) CIT vs. Ranjit Kumar Choudhary, 288 ITR 179 (Gau.); vi) Haji Lal Mohd Biri Works vs. CIT (2005) 275 ITR 496 (All); vii) ACIT vs. Nirula Handicraft Bazar (P) Ltd., ITA No.3886 (Delhi), Order dated 12.10.2012; viii) ITO 24(2) vs. Kuber Chand Sharma, ITA No.3982/Del/2009 (ITAT, Delhi); & ix) ITO 31(1), New Delhi vs. Bhai Manjit Singh (ITA No.1807/Del/2010). He accordingly submitted that the order of the ld.CIT(A) be reversed and that of the Assessing Of…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. STAUFF INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 670/PUN/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Pathak and Shri Nimit GujarathiFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma

…आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण “ए” न्यायऩीठ ऩुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE श्री डी. करुणाकरा राव, ऱेखा सदस्य, एवं श्री ववकास अवस्थी, न्याययक सदस्य के समक्ष । BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / ITA Nos.669 & 670/PUN/2014 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10 The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 6, Pune .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/s. Stauff India Private Limited, GAT No. 2340, Pune Nagar Road, Pune – 412207 PAN : AAACK7672D ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Nikhil Pathak and Shri Nimit Gujarathi Revenue…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. STAUFF INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 669/PUN/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Pathak and Shri Nimit GujarathiFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma

…आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण “ए” न्यायऩीठ ऩुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE श्री डी. करुणाकरा राव, ऱेखा सदस्य, एवं श्री ववकास अवस्थी, न्याययक सदस्य के समक्ष । BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / ITA Nos.669 & 670/PUN/2014 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10 The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 6, Pune .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/s. Stauff India Private Limited, GAT No. 2340, Pune Nagar Road, Pune – 412207 PAN : AAACK7672D ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Nikhil Pathak and Shri Nimit Gujarathi Revenue…

P.SAVITHRI,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees for the impugned

ITA 1866/CHNY/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Aug 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

For Respondent: Shri. Arun C. Bharath, CIT
Section 132

…, the appellant’s request for admission of additional evidence under rule 46A is hereby rejected’’. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) also placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Haji Lal Mohd Biri Works vs. CIT 275 ITR 496, that of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bank of Punjab Ltd 286 ITR 630, that of Hon’ble Guahati High Court in the case of CIT vs Ranjit Kumar Choudhury, 288 ITR 179, that of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Bimal Kumar Anant Kumar vs. CIT 288 ITR 278 and that of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of…

P.SAVITHRI,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees for the impugned

ITA 1865/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Aug 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

For Respondent: Shri. Arun C. Bharath, CIT
Section 132

…, the appellant’s request for admission of additional evidence under rule 46A is hereby rejected’’. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) also placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Haji Lal Mohd Biri Works vs. CIT 275 ITR 496, that of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bank of Punjab Ltd 286 ITR 630, that of Hon’ble Guahati High Court in the case of CIT vs Ranjit Kumar Choudhury, 288 ITR 179, that of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Bimal Kumar Anant Kumar vs. CIT 288 ITR 278 and that of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of…

P.SAVITHRI,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees for the impugned

ITA 1864/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Aug 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

For Respondent: Shri. Arun C. Bharath, CIT
Section 132

…, the appellant’s request for admission of additional evidence under rule 46A is hereby rejected’’. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) also placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Haji Lal Mohd Biri Works vs. CIT 275 ITR 496, that of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bank of Punjab Ltd 286 ITR 630, that of Hon’ble Guahati High Court in the case of CIT vs Ranjit Kumar Choudhury, 288 ITR 179, that of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Bimal Kumar Anant Kumar vs. CIT 288 ITR 278 and that of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of…

P.SAVITHRI,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees for the impugned

ITA 1863/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Aug 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

For Respondent: Shri. Arun C. Bharath, CIT
Section 132

…, the appellant’s request for admission of additional evidence under rule 46A is hereby rejected’’. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) also placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Haji Lal Mohd Biri Works vs. CIT 275 ITR 496, that of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bank of Punjab Ltd 286 ITR 630, that of Hon’ble Guahati High Court in the case of CIT vs Ranjit Kumar Choudhury, 288 ITR 179, that of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Bimal Kumar Anant Kumar vs. CIT 288 ITR 278 and that of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of…

P.SAVITHRI,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees for the impugned

ITA 1862/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Aug 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

For Respondent: Shri. Arun C. Bharath, CIT
Section 132

…, the appellant’s request for admission of additional evidence under rule 46A is hereby rejected’’. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) also placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Haji Lal Mohd Biri Works vs. CIT 275 ITR 496, that of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bank of Punjab Ltd 286 ITR 630, that of Hon’ble Guahati High Court in the case of CIT vs Ranjit Kumar Choudhury, 288 ITR 179, that of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Bimal Kumar Anant Kumar vs. CIT 288 ITR 278 and that of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of…

P.SAVITHRI,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees for the impugned

ITA 1861/CHNY/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Aug 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

For Respondent: Shri. Arun C. Bharath, CIT
Section 132

…, the appellant’s request for admission of additional evidence under rule 46A is hereby rejected’’. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) also placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Haji Lal Mohd Biri Works vs. CIT 275 ITR 496, that of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bank of Punjab Ltd 286 ITR 630, that of Hon’ble Guahati High Court in the case of CIT vs Ranjit Kumar Choudhury, 288 ITR 179, that of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Bimal Kumar Anant Kumar vs. CIT 288 ITR 278 and that of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of…

A.VIJAYALAKSHMI,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees for the impugned

ITA 1860/CHNY/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Aug 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

For Respondent: Shri. Arun C. Bharath, CIT
Section 132

…, the appellant’s request for admission of additional evidence under rule 46A is hereby rejected’’. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) also placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Haji Lal Mohd Biri Works vs. CIT 275 ITR 496, that of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bank of Punjab Ltd 286 ITR 630, that of Hon’ble Guahati High Court in the case of CIT vs Ranjit Kumar Choudhury, 288 ITR 179, that of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Bimal Kumar Anant Kumar vs. CIT 288 ITR 278 and that of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of…

A.VIJAYALAKSHMI,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees for the impugned

ITA 1859/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Aug 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

For Respondent: Shri. Arun C. Bharath, CIT
Section 132

…, the appellant’s request for admission of additional evidence under rule 46A is hereby rejected’’. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) also placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Haji Lal Mohd Biri Works vs. CIT 275 ITR 496, that of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bank of Punjab Ltd 286 ITR 630, that of Hon’ble Guahati High Court in the case of CIT vs Ranjit Kumar Choudhury, 288 ITR 179, that of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Bimal Kumar Anant Kumar vs. CIT 288 ITR 278 and that of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of…

A.VIJAYALAKSHMI,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees for the impugned

ITA 1858/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Aug 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

For Respondent: Shri. Arun C. Bharath, CIT
Section 132

…, the appellant’s request for admission of additional evidence under rule 46A is hereby rejected’’. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) also placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Haji Lal Mohd Biri Works vs. CIT 275 ITR 496, that of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bank of Punjab Ltd 286 ITR 630, that of Hon’ble Guahati High Court in the case of CIT vs Ranjit Kumar Choudhury, 288 ITR 179, that of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Bimal Kumar Anant Kumar vs. CIT 288 ITR 278 and that of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of…

A.VIJAYALAKSHMI,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees for the impugned

ITA 1857/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Aug 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

For Respondent: Shri. Arun C. Bharath, CIT
Section 132

…, the appellant’s request for admission of additional evidence under rule 46A is hereby rejected’’. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) also placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Haji Lal Mohd Biri Works vs. CIT 275 ITR 496, that of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bank of Punjab Ltd 286 ITR 630, that of Hon’ble Guahati High Court in the case of CIT vs Ranjit Kumar Choudhury, 288 ITR 179, that of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Bimal Kumar Anant Kumar vs. CIT 288 ITR 278 and that of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of…

A.VIJAYALAKSHMI,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees for the impugned

ITA 1856/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Aug 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

For Respondent: Shri. Arun C. Bharath, CIT
Section 132

…, the appellant’s request for admission of additional evidence under rule 46A is hereby rejected’’. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) also placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Haji Lal Mohd Biri Works vs. CIT 275 ITR 496, that of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bank of Punjab Ltd 286 ITR 630, that of Hon’ble Guahati High Court in the case of CIT vs Ranjit Kumar Choudhury, 288 ITR 179, that of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Bimal Kumar Anant Kumar vs. CIT 288 ITR 278 and that of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of…

A.VIJAYALAKSHMI,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees for the impugned

ITA 1855/CHNY/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Aug 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

For Respondent: Shri. Arun C. Bharath, CIT
Section 132

…, the appellant’s request for admission of additional evidence under rule 46A is hereby rejected’’. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) also placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Haji Lal Mohd Biri Works vs. CIT 275 ITR 496, that of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bank of Punjab Ltd 286 ITR 630, that of Hon’ble Guahati High Court in the case of CIT vs Ranjit Kumar Choudhury, 288 ITR 179, that of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Bimal Kumar Anant Kumar vs. CIT 288 ITR 278 and that of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of…

Showing 1–20 of 24 · Page 1 of 2

Haji Lal Mohd Biri Works v. CIT (275 ITR 496) — Cited in 24 Judgments | BharatTax