Hungerford Investment Trade Ltd. v. ITO

231 ITR 175Supreme Court of India1998#23799 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 344,197 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2024.

Judgments citing Hungerford Investment Trade Ltd. v. ITO

Sri.Parayarukandy Vettath Gangadharan, Calicut vs. The DCIT Circle-1(1), Calicut

In the result, the instant appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 157/COCH/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Apr 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasparayarukandy Vettath Gangadharan Dy. Cit, Circle - 1(1) Kerala Transport Company (Decd., Calicut Vs. Represented By Lrs.) K.T.C. Building, Ymca Calicut 673001 [Pan: Adhpg8318B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 150(1)Section 153Section 2(22)(e)Section 268A

…d the ITO to assess it in the hands of the firm. As the time had run out for normal reopening, the second proviso to section 34(3) was pressed into service, and the Supreme Court held that it was rightly done. In Hungerford Investment Trust Ltd. v. ITO [1998] 231 ITR 175, 186 (SC), the AAC directed, for reasons set out in his order, that the assessments should be made on the appellant-company itself and not on it’s agent in India. It was held that this direction cannot be considered as a direction to assess a stranger. In fact, as the original assessment proceedings pertain to the income of the appellant-company,…

Kings Infra Ventures Ltd, Thevara vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1 (2), Kochi

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 25/COCH/2017[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Apr 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Sandeep Gosainkings Infra Ventures Ltd. Asstt. Commissioner Of A-1, 1St Floor, Atria Apartment Income Tax, Opp. Gurudwara Temple Vs. Circle - 1(2) Perumanur Road Kochi Thevara, Kochi [Pan:Aaccv3411D] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant By: Shri Joseph Markose, Sr. Advocate Respondent By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R.

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Markose, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)

…ed by the second proviso to section 34(3), and was accordingly barred by limitation. The said decision, representing the majority view, holds the field to date, having been since applied in several decisions, viz.Hungerford Investment Trade Ltd. vs. ITO[1998] 231 ITR 175 (SC) and CIT vs. Amy Colabawala [2000] 243 ITR 19 (Ker). 4.8 It is thus manifestly clear that an appellate authority cannot issue any direction for any year other than the year under appeal, unless of course a finding qua the said year is necessary and, accordingly, forms an integral part of the disposal of the appeal for the year under appeal.…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Bioplus Life Sciences Pvt Ltd

In the result, I pass the following:-

ITA/1014/2017HC Karnataka24 Jul 2018

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar Writ Petition No.1014 Of 2017 (T-Kst) Between: M/S. Rainbow Colour Lab, No.13, D.J.C. Complex, Hudson Circle, Bengaluru – 560 027. A Partnership Firm Represented By Its Partner Sri.G.K.Madan Mohan, Aged About 62 Years, S/O Sri.G.V.Krishna Reddy. ...Petitioner (By Sri. M.Thirumalesh, Advocate ) And: 1. State Of Karnataka

Section 12

…(ii) Mysore Cements vs. State of Karnataka & Another – (2000) 118 STC 563 (KAR); (iii) Commissioner of CGST vs. M/s.Narbada Industries – CEA 10/2020 & Connected matters Dated 23.05.2022(J & K); (iv) Hungerford Investment Trust Ltd., vs. ITO – (1998) 231 ITR 175 (SC); (v) CIT Bihar & Others vs. Sardar Lakshmir Singh – AIR 1963 SC 1394 (FB); (vi) CIT, Patiala vs. Ambala Flour Mills – AIR 1972 SC 82 (SC); (vii) CIT, UP vs. Mohd. Shakoor Bashir – AIR 1973 SC 2359 (SC); (viii) Rajinder Nath vs. CIT – AIR 1979 SC 1933; (ix) M. CT.Muthuraman vs. ITO Madras – (1968) 69 ITR 432 (Mad.HC); (x) DCIT…