Income-tax Officer v. Asok Textiles Ltd.

233 ITR 700High Court1998#15382 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2020.

Judgments citing Income-tax Officer v. Asok Textiles Ltd.

Manju Choudhary, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle-38, Kolkata

In the result, we cancel this order and allow the appeal of the assessee

ITA 893/KOL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Dec 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara)

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 194ASection 197Section 250Section 40

…34 ITR 143 (SC). Moreover there is no scope for two opinions in application of the Section 40(a)(ia) because this is overriding. The AO overlooked to apply the mandatory provision and the lapse comes under rectification. (CIT v. Kesaria Tea Co. Ltd.) (1998) (233 ITR 700) (Ker).” 3. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal challenging both the jurisdiction of the AO to invoke his powers u/s 154 of the Act, on the ground that the issue in question is not a mistake apparent on record and that it is a highly debatable issue. The ld. CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order. At para 4.8 of his order he held as fol…

Income Tax Officer, Bangalore vs. Late Smt. Lakshmamma, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1696/BANG/2016[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Feb 2019AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vp & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Respondent: Miss Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 154

…v. CIT (ITA 3205/2005) ChaturbujDwarda Kapadia – 260 ITR 491 (Bom.) SourashtraKatch Stock Exchange – Civil Appeal No.1171 of 2004 (SC) India Tin Industries Pvt. Ltd. – 166 ITR 454 (Kar.) Quilen Marine Produce Co. – 157 ITR 448 (Ker.) Kesaria Tea Co. Ltd. – 233 ITR 700 (Ker.) M/s.MinitexAerotools Pvt. Ltd. – ITA 1228/Bang/13 – ITAT Bangalore. Smt.Shiromi Banerjee – MP No.56/Bang/11 – ITAT Bangalore Larsen and Toubro Ltd. –WP No.2855 of 2016 (Bom.) 5. The grounds of appeal, Assessing Officer’s observations/ explanations, appellant’s written submissions made have been taken into consideration while disposing…

Income Tax Officer, Bangalore vs. Late Smt. Lakshmamma, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1695/BANG/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Feb 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vp & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Respondent: Miss Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 154

…v. CIT (ITA 3205/2005) ChaturbujDwarda Kapadia – 260 ITR 491 (Bom.) SourashtraKatch Stock Exchange – Civil Appeal No.1171 of 2004 (SC) India Tin Industries Pvt. Ltd. – 166 ITR 454 (Kar.) Quilen Marine Produce Co. – 157 ITR 448 (Ker.) Kesaria Tea Co. Ltd. – 233 ITR 700 (Ker.) M/s.MinitexAerotools Pvt. Ltd. – ITA 1228/Bang/13 – ITAT Bangalore. Smt.Shiromi Banerjee – MP No.56/Bang/11 – ITAT Bangalore Larsen and Toubro Ltd. –WP No.2855 of 2016 (Bom.) 5. The grounds of appeal, Assessing Officer’s observations/ explanations, appellant’s written submissions made have been taken into consideration while disposing…

Income Tax Officer, Bangalore vs. Late Sri.A.S.Narayana Raju, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1694/BANG/2016[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Feb 2019AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vp & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Respondent: Miss Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 154

…v. CIT (ITA 3205/2005) ChaturbujDwarda Kapadia – 260 ITR 491 (Bom.) SourashtraKatch Stock Exchange – Civil Appeal No.1171 of 2004 (SC) India Tin Industries Pvt. Ltd. – 166 ITR 454 (Kar.) Quilen Marine Produce Co. – 157 ITR 448 (Ker.) Kesaria Tea Co. Ltd. – 233 ITR 700 (Ker.) M/s.MinitexAerotools Pvt. Ltd. – ITA 1228/Bang/13 – ITAT Bangalore. Smt.Shiromi Banerjee – MP No.56/Bang/11 – ITAT Bangalore Larsen and Toubro Ltd. –WP No.2855 of 2016 (Bom.) 5. The grounds of appeal, Assessing Officer’s observations/ explanations, appellant’s written submissions made have been taken into consideration while disposing…

Income Tax Officer, Bangalore vs. Late Sri.A.S.Narayana Raju, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1693/BANG/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Feb 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vp & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Respondent: Miss Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 154

…v. CIT (ITA 3205/2005) ChaturbujDwarda Kapadia – 260 ITR 491 (Bom.) SourashtraKatch Stock Exchange – Civil Appeal No.1171 of 2004 (SC) India Tin Industries Pvt. Ltd. – 166 ITR 454 (Kar.) Quilen Marine Produce Co. – 157 ITR 448 (Ker.) Kesaria Tea Co. Ltd. – 233 ITR 700 (Ker.) M/s.MinitexAerotools Pvt. Ltd. – ITA 1228/Bang/13 – ITAT Bangalore. Smt.Shiromi Banerjee – MP No.56/Bang/11 – ITAT Bangalore Larsen and Toubro Ltd. –WP No.2855 of 2016 (Bom.) 5. The grounds of appeal, Assessing Officer’s observations/ explanations, appellant’s written submissions made have been taken into consideration while disposing…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Mr Piyush Gupta, Ghaziabad

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 3879/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri C.M. Garg:Asstt. Yr: 2008-09 Acit, Circle 48(1), Vs. Piyush Gupta, New Delhi. 8, Green Avenue, Abhey Khand Ii, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad. Pan: Aatpg 5012 B ( Appellant ) (Respondent) Appellant By : Ms. Rakhi Bimal Sr. Dr Respondent By : Shri Gagan Kumar Ca Date Of Hearing : 10/05/2016. Date Of Order : 13/05/2016. O R D E R Per S.V. Mehrotra, A.M:

For Appellant: Ms. Rakhi Bimal Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Gagan Kumar CA
Section 115WSection 139(1)Section 139(3)Section 139(5)Section 142Section 154Section 49Section 72Section 73Section 74

…In this regard ld. counsel has referred to following decisions: - M.K. Venkatachalm v. Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (1958) 34 ITR 143 (SC); - Income-tax Officer vs. Asok Textiles Ltd. (1961) 41 ITR 732 (SC); and - CIT Vs. Kesaria Tea Co. Ltd. (1998) 233 ITR 700 (Kerala). 12.1. Ld. counsel has also referred to CBDT Circular no. 14(XL-35), wherein it has been, inter alia, observed as under: “(3) Officers of the Department must not take advantage of ignorance of an assessee as to his rights. It is one of their duties to assist a taxpayer in every reasonable way, particularly in the matter of claiming and…