Hyd. Tribu); 8. CIT v. M. Chandra Sekhar

108 CTR 206High Court1992#18657 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 234ASection 234BSection 263Section 37

Judgments citing Hyd. Tribu); 8. CIT v. M. Chandra Sekhar

Worldview Education Services Private Lmited, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-17(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1056/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1056/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2021-2022 Worldview Education Services Private Limited, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Hyderabad – 500 016. Ward-17(1), Telangana. Hyderabad. Pan Aaacw9480F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca C. Maheshwar Reddy राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: G Saratha, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 27.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19.12.2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: CA C. Maheshwar ReddyFor Respondent: G Saratha, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37

…HC); 5. CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167 (Del.-HC); 6. Pr. CIT vs. Deccan Jewellers P. Ltd. 438 ITR 131 (AP- HC); 7. D. Pedda Reddaiah vs. ITO, dated 30.04.2020 (ITAT, Hyd. Tribu); 8. CIT vs. M. Chandra Sekhar 151 ITR 433 (SC). 9. CIT vs. Mulchand Bagri (108 CTR 206 Cal.). 10. CIT vs. D P Karai (266 ITR 113 Guj); 9 ITA.No.1056/Hyd./2025 11. Paul Mathews vs. CIT (263 ITR 101 Ker); 12. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax [2000] 109 Taxman 66 (SC) 3.1. He has submitted that the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court for the State of Telangana in the case of CIT vs. V. Dhana Reddy and Co. [2…

M/S. Siddharth Carbochem Products Ltd, Mumbai vs. PCIT, Circle 1(3) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1156/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Blesiddharth Carbochem Products Ltd V. Pcit, Circle-1(3)(1) 42 B Wing, 4Th Floor, Mittal Tower Room No- 330, Aayakar Bhawan Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021 Maharshi Karve Road Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aabcs1437P

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…sessee explanation are rejected and addition /disallowance are made, the mere absence of discussion would not mean that the AO had not applied his mind to the said provisions, In this connection, reference is invited to the decisions in CIT vs MULCHAND BAGRI (108 CTR 206 CAL), CIT vs D.P KARAI (266 ITR 113 GUJ) AND PAUL MATHEWS VS CIT (263 ITR 101 KARL). 6. Limitation of Proceedings u/s 263 Without prejudice to the above contentions, the assessee would humbly like to put forward that the Notice issued u/s 263 is beyond the limitation time of 2 years from the end of the financial year from the date of passing of o…

Manish Chirania, Ahmadabad vs. Pr.CIT-15, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1161/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Nov 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1161/Kol/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2015-16)

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tibrewal, FCA & Shri Amit Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B”, BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JM &DR. A.L.SAINI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.1161/Kol/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2015-16) Manish Chirania Vs. Pr. CIT-15, Kolkata Balajee Bhawan, 23, Swagat Palace, Opp. Swagat Bungalows BRTS Stop, Ambli Bopal Road, Ahmedabad-380058 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ACMPC 1866 E (Assessee) .. (Revenue) Assesseeby : Shri A.K. Tibrewal, FCA & Shri Amit Agarwal, Advocate Respondent by :Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT DR सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date of Hearing : 12/09/2019 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 08/11/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per D…

Axcel Global Services, Mumbai vs. CIT 13, Mumbai

In the result, Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2446/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Cn Prasad & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal: (A.Y : 2009-10) M/S Axcel Global Services Vs. The Cit 13 Prabhat Palace, Behind Laxmi Bhawan Aayakar Bhavan Lajpatrai Road, Vile Parle West M.K.Marg Mumbai – 400 056 New Marine Lines Pan : Aaofa1550D Mumbai – 400 056 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri AV SondeFor Respondent: Shri RP Meena
Section 10ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…amined the details and allowed the claim of the Assessee the assessment order cannot be said to be erroneous. (a) CIT Vs. Shri Govindram Seksariya Charity Trust[166 ITR 580] (M.P) (b) CIT Vs. Rathan Coal Ash Co. [171 ITR 141] (M.P) (c) CIT Vs. Mulchand Bagri [108 CTR 206] (Cal) The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submits that the Assessing Officer has made proper inquiries and therefore the Ld. CIT cannot revise the assessment order unless he comes to conclusion that there is an error in the assessment order. For this proposition he places reliance on the following decisions. (a) CIT Vs. Trustees Anupam Charitable…