Hasham Abbas Sayyad v. Usman Abbas Sayyad & Ors. (2 SCC 355)

SRI. ANNESH,UDUPI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHIKMANGALUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1179/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 124Section 127Section 144Section 147Section 234

…ct could also apply when the department wants transfer of a case, and Sections 120 and 124 of the Act are not attracted. 22. Counsel for the petitioner had relied upon judgment of the Supreme Court in Hasham Abbas Sayyad Vs. Usman Abbas Sayyad & Ors., (2007) 2 SCC 355 which draws distinction between a person or authority lacking inherent jurisdiction which makes the order passed by them a nullity, and therefore, principle of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence or even res judicata which are procedural in nature, would not have any application. Such orders passed without jurisdiction would suffer lack of coram non…

INCOME TAX OFFICER 8(3)(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S.VIBGYOR TEXOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, whereas appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 1484/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3), M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 616, 6Th Floor, Aayakar 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400015. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner Of 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Income Tax-8(3)(2), Mumbai-400015. Vs. Mumbai. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Pavan Ved, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Achal Sharma, CIT-DR/

Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 264ASection 40

…ct could also apply when the department wants transfer of a case, and Sections 120 and 124 of the Act are not attracted. 22. Counsel for the petitioner had relied upon judgment of the Supreme Court in Hasham Abbas Sayyad Vs. Usman Abbas Sayyad & Ors., (2007) 2 SCC 355 which draws distinction between a person or authority lacking inherent jurisdiction which makes the order passed by them a nullity, and therefore, principle of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence or even res judicata which are procedural in nature, would not have any application. Such orders passed without jurisdiction would suffer lack of coram non…

M/S.VIBGYOR TEXOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-8(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, whereas appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 487/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3), M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 616, 6Th Floor, Aayakar 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400015. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner Of 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Income Tax-8(3)(2), Mumbai-400015. Vs. Mumbai. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Pavan Ved, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Achal Sharma, CIT-DR/

Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 264ASection 40

…ct could also apply when the department wants transfer of a case, and Sections 120 and 124 of the Act are not attracted. 22. Counsel for the petitioner had relied upon judgment of the Supreme Court in Hasham Abbas Sayyad Vs. Usman Abbas Sayyad & Ors., (2007) 2 SCC 355 which draws distinction between a person or authority lacking inherent jurisdiction which makes the order passed by them a nullity, and therefore, principle of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence or even res judicata which are procedural in nature, would not have any application. Such orders passed without jurisdiction would suffer lack of coram non…

THE ITO., WARD-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. GAYATRI INTERMEDIATES PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3074/AHD/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad)

For Appellant: Shri Lalit P. Jain, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Tushar Hemani & P.B. Parmar

Section 41Section 41(1)

…ble to tax under s. 41(1) - Time-barred debts taken to P & L a/c - Unilateral act of assessee debtor in writing back time-barred debts does not amount to cessation of liability, hence not chargeable under s. 41 (1)- CIT vs. Sugauli Sugar Works (P) Ltd. (1999) 2 SCC 355 relied on. 3.6.7. Further in the case of Ambica Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT (1964) 54 ITR 167 (Guj.), it has been held as under:- Business income- Profits chargeable to tax under s. 10(2A) - Unpaid and unclaimed wages due to and payable by the company to its workers - Amount acknowledged as liability in the balance sheet every year - Does not became time ba…

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6 vs. NEW WORLD SYNTHETICS LIMITED,

ITA/806/2018HC Delhi27 Aug 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 260Section 41(1)

…ITA No. 806-2018 Page 1 of 7 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA No. 806/2018 % Reserved on: 09th August, 2018 Pronounced on:27th August, 2018 THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Advocate. versus NEW WORLD SYNTHETICS LIMITED, ..... Respondent Through CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR SANJIV KHANNA, J. Present appeal by the Revenue under Section 260 A of the Income Tax…

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 8 vs. M/S SUPER MALLS PVT. LTD.,

ITA/449/2016HC Delhi22 Nov 2016

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 14(1)(e)Section 25B(8)

…e of other premises in the petition for eviction. 33. I have recently in Sunil Kumar Goyal Vs. Hrbans Singh 2017 SCC OnLine Del 9289, relying on Bhairab Chandra Nandan Vs. Ranadhir Chandra Dutta (1988) 1 SCC 383; M.L. Prabhakar Vs. Rajiv Singhal (2001) 2 SCC 355; and, S. Harbant Singh Sahni Vs. Vinod Sikari 189 (2012) DLT 215 held that once the facts which are alleged to have been concealed have come before the Court and the Court had occasion to consider the same and after considering the same, finds in favour of the landlord, the petition for eviction cannot be dismissed on the ground of concealmen…

Hasham Abbas Sayyad v. Usman Abbas Sayyad & Ors.