Hemalatha Gargya v. CIT (259 ITR 1)

M/S AYODHYA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (FORMELY AYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY),LUCKNOW vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW

ITA 145/LKW/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.A. & Sh Mradul AgarwalFor Respondent: Sh. Ghiyasuddin CIT(DR) & Sh.Mazahar Akram, CIT

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 58

…, that the dismissal of SLP in limine could not operate as a confirmation of the reasoning in the decision sought to be appealed against. For this proposition, it placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hemlata Gargya vs. CIT (2003) 259 ITR 1 (SC) and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kunhayammed & Ors vs State Of Kerala & Anr (2000) 245 ITR 360 (SC), in which their Lordships had held that an order refusing special leave to appeal did not stand substituted in place of the order under challenge. It was submitted that the mere dismissal of the SLP by the Hon’ble Supreme Cou…

M/S AYODHYA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY(FORMERLY AYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY),AYODHYA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

ITA 143/LKW/2021[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.A. & Sh Mradul AgarwalFor Respondent: Sh. Ghiyasuddin CIT(DR) & Sh.Mazahar Akram, CIT

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 58

…ity, that the dismissal of SLP in limine could not operate as a confirmation of the reasoning in the decision sought to be appealed against. For this proposition, it placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hemlata Gargya vs. CIT (2003) 259 ITR 1 (SC) and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kunhayammed & Ors vs State Of Kerala & Anr (2000) 245 ITR 360 (SC), in which their Lordships had held that an order refusing special leave to appeal did not stand substituted in place of the order under challenge. It was submitted that the mere dismissal of the SLP by the Hon’ble Supreme Court a…

M/S AYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPEMENT AUTHORITY,FAIZABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

ITA 520/LKW/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.A. & Sh Mradul AgarwalFor Respondent: Sh. Ghiyasuddin CIT(DR) & Sh.Mazahar Akram, CIT

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 58

…hat the dismissal of SLP in \nlimine could not operate as a confirmation of the reasoning in the decision sought to be \nappealed against. For this proposition, it placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme \nCourt in Hemlata Gargya vs. CIT (2003) 259 ITR 1 (SC) and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme \nCourt in Kunhayammed & Ors vs State Of Kerala & Anr (2000) 245 ITR 360 (SC), in which their \nLordships had held that an order refusing special leave to appeal did not stand substituted in \nplace of the order under challenge. It was submitted that the mere dismissal of the SLP by the \nHon’ble Supreme…

M/S AYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPEMENT AUTHORITY,FAIZABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

ITA 518/LKW/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.A. & Sh Mradul AgarwalFor Respondent: Sh. Ghiyasuddin CIT(DR) & Sh.Mazahar Akram, CIT

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 58

…hat the dismissal of SLP in \nlimine could not operate as a confirmation of the reasoning in the decision sought to be \nappealed against. For this proposition, it placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme \nCourt in Hemlata Gargya vs. CIT (2003) 259 ITR 1 (SC) and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme \nCourt in Kunhayammed & Ors vs State Of Kerala & Anr (2000) 245 ITR 360 (SC), in which their \nLordships had held that an order refusing special leave to appeal did not stand substituted in \nplace of the order under challenge. It was submitted that the mere dismissal of the SLP by the \nHon’ble Supreme…

TR PCHAMUTHU NOW KNOWN AS TR PAARIVENDHAR,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 231/CHNY/2023[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2024AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, IRS, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68Section 69

…the ld. CIT(A). 5. The ld. CIT(A) vide its order dated 19.10.2006 had directed the Assessing Officer to give credit of Rs.47,73,185/- under payment of tax following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hemalatha Gargya vs. CIT & Another, 259 ITR 1. Aggrieved, against the order of the ld. CIT(A), assessee filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal vide its order in ITA No.55/Mds/2007 & CO No.20/Md/2007 dated 10.12.2008 remand the matter back to the file of the ld. Assessing Officer on the issue of substance of addition of Rs.1,50,10,…

THE ITO,, ALAPPUZHA vs. M/S.EXTRAWEAVE P. LTD, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 448/COCH/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Extraweave Pvt. Ltd. Arattukulangara Complex 264B/Cmc 1 Vs. A.N. Puram, Alapuzha 688011 Sakteeswara Junction Cherthala 688524 Pan – Aabce5438L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 10BSection 10B(3)Section 143(2)Section 195Section 195(6)Section 40

…Court so as to indicate the imprimatur on the reasoning and/or the ratio decidendi of the High Court in the judgment. In such circumstances, there is no merger of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Hemalatha Gargya v. CIT (2003) 259 ITR 1/128 Taxman 190, has held that dismissal of SLP in limine: "could not operate as a confirmation of the reasoning in the decision sought to be appealed against... ..... ". Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala (2000) 245 ITR 360/113 Taxman 470, in which their Lordships have held that an order refus…