What is Income-tax Officer, Cannanore v. M.K. Mohammed Kunhi authority for?

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has powers of widest amplitude, identical to those of an appellate court under the Code of Civil Procedure, enabling it to take all necessary steps to prevent an appeal from being rendered nugatory. This includes the power to stay proceedings.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Income-tax Officer, Cannanore v. M.K. Mohammed Kunhi come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 142(1), Section 144, Section 147, Section 148, Section 151, Section 190.

Income-tax Officer, Cannanore v. M.K. Mohammed Kunhi (71 ITR 815)

Q: How many judgments cite Income-tax Officer, Cannanore v. M.K. Mohammed Kunhi?

19 judgments on BharatTax cite Income-tax Officer, Cannanore v. M.K. Mohammed Kunhi (71 ITR 815), spanning 2016 to 2025.

Anil Kumar Meena, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(3), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 834/JPR/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kanodia, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 147Section 148Section 250

…facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable hardship likely to be caused by coercive recovery, it is respectfully prayed that recover of demand be stayed during pendency of this appeal, in line with principles laid down in ITO v. M.K. Mohammed Kunhi (71 ITR 815 SC). Ground No. 6 : Assessee craves to alter, modify, change grounds of appeal before hearing. Reply: The appellant reserves the right to add, modify or withdraw grounds of appeal at the time of hearing in accordance with settled appellate practice. Annexures (Evidence Filed):  P.B. No. 30 to 38 : Passport copies and Italian identity  P.B 39 to…

Pranjali Enterprises P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. The ITO-5(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee is dismissed being not maintainable

ITA 1523/MUM/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Om Prakash Kantआअसं. 1523/मुं/2020 ("न. व. 2017-18) Pranjali Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., 53, Anand Bhuvan, Banganga Road, Walkeshwar, Mumbai 400 006. Pan: Aaecp-7957-Q ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Income Tax Officer-5(2)(4), Room No.566, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Mumbai- 400 020. अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Vimal Punmiya ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri B.K.Bagchi सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 06/05/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 09/06/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri B.K.Bagchi

Section 154Section 250Section 253Section 270ASection 271

…reported as 153 ITD 642(Del-Trib). The ld.Authorized Representative for the assessee submitted that Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal after placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ITO vs.M.K. Mohammad Kuni reported as 71 ITR 815 (SC) has held that the Tribunal has inherent power to entertain stay application and grant stay. The ld.Authorized Representative for the assessee further submitted that order of CIT(A) rejecting grant of stay is passed u/s. 250 of the Act. The ld.Authorized Representative for the assessee further placed reliance on the decision 3 rendered in th…

Sale Mohammmed Padamsee & Co, Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT-25, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs of Rs 10,000

ITA 6849/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Him & Directing The Appellant To Pay 20% Of The Demand As Per Circular No. 1914 R.W. On Dt. 29-02-2016. The Order Rejecting The Stay Application Be Set Aside.

Section 220(6)

…fact that Section 220(6) deals only with the powers of the Assessing Officer, for grant of stay during the pendency of first appeal, and contrasting the same with the powers of the Tribunal, Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of ITO Vs M K Mohd Kunhi [(1969) 71 ITR 815 (SC)], had observed that, “Section 255(5) of the Act does empower the Appellate Tribunal to regulate its own procedure, but it is very doubtful if the power of stay can be spelt out from that provision. In our opinion the Appellate Tribunal must be held to have the power to grant stay as incidental or ancillary to its appellate jurisdiction. This…

Solidity Developers P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 11(2)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1772/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ravish Soodsolidity Developers Private Dy. Commissioner Of Income Ltd., Maratha Mandir Marg, Tax -11(2)(2), Babasaheb Gawde Chowk, Vs. Mumbai. Mumbai Central, Mumbai-400008 Pan – Aaocs0518G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Kamal Matalia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abdul Hakeem M., D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 43B

…terim order: I t i s p r a y e d t o i s s u e d i r e c t i o n t o L A O n o t t o i n i t i a t e p r o s e c u t i o n proceedings pending disposal of this appeal in view of the ratio of Hon’ble SC decision in the case of ITO v. M.K. Mohammad Kunhi [1969] 71 ITR 815 and Honble ITAT delhi bench decision in the case of Oracle India (P.) Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner of Income -tax, Range 13, Ne w Delhi [2017] 88 taxmann.com 241 (Delhi - Trib.). 7. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming penalty when the LAO was not clear as to what the offence was, that is, Concealment of income or f urnishing inaccurate particula…