India in State of Andhra Pradesh v. M. Ramakishitah & co.

93 STC 406Supreme Court of India1994#10829 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBE Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144 Section 144B Section 147 Section 148 Section 234A

Issues it is cited on

section 202 time barred assessment section 91 section 18 interest u/s 234a section 119 change of opinion section 234a section 153d chief commissioner final assessment order section 69c

Judgments citing India in State of Andhra Pradesh v. M. Ramakishitah & co.

NEHA DIWAN,HINDMOTOR vs. ITO WARD - 23(1), HOOGHLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 630/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115BSection 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

…nnection or relation of any kind or nature whatsoever with the alleged modus operandi of accommodation entry or cash rotation. The assessee has further relied upon the following judicial pronouncements: i. State of Andhra Pradesh vs. M. Ramakrishtaiah & Co. - 93 STC 406 (SC) ii. CIT vs. Shri Narayani Chandrika Trust - 212 ITR 456 (Ker) iii. Government of Wood Works vs. State of Kerala 69 STC 62 referring to the decision and observations of Apex Court in the case of B. J. Shelat vs. State of Gujrat iv. The Hon'ble West Bengal Taxation Tribunal’s decision in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. & Another vs. CTO &…

ALKA CHATURVEDI,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NOIDA

The appeals are allowed and the impugned demand on the basis of non-est orders is quashed

ITA 2488/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh.Anubhav Sharmaita No. 2486/Del/2022, A.Y. 2013-14 Abhimanyu Chaturvedi Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of D-64, Sector 47, Income Tax, Gautam Buddha Nagar, Central Circle-I, Noida Noida- 201303 Pan : Anqpc4031N Appellant Respondent

Section 143Section 153Section 153ASection 234ASection 271Section 69ASection 69C

…d any evidence to show that the emails were sent from ITBA Portal and the affidavits of assessee in that regard are in a paper book. Reliance was placed the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. M. Ramakishitah & co. (1994) 93 STC 406 (SC,) CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Kishore Chand And Sons in ITA no. 522 of 2007 dated 13.03.2008, CAGIT Vs. Kappumalai Estate (1998) 234 ITR 187 (Ker.), Government Wood Works Vs. State of Kerala (1988) 69 STC 62 (Ker) and CIT & Anr. Vs. BJN Hotels Ltd. [2016] 382 ITR 110 (Karn), Kanubhai M. Patel (HUF) V Hiren Bhatt (2011) 334 ITR 25 (Guj.) to submit that…

MALLIKA CHATURVEDI,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NOIDA

The appeals are allowed and the impugned demand on the basis of non-est orders is quashed

ITA 2487/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Section 143Section 153Section 153ASection 234ASection 271Section 69ASection 69C

ABHIMANYU CHATURVEDI,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NOIDA

The appeals are allowed and the impugned demand on the basis of non-est orders is quashed

ITA 2486/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Section 143Section 153Section 153ASection 234ASection 271Section 69ASection 69C

VMWARE SOFTWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 2127/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.2127/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/S.Vmware Software India The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, Kalyani Magnum Income-Tax, Circle 7(1)(2) V. Bangalore. Block-I, 3Rd Floor 165/2 Doraisanipalya, Iim Post Bannerghatta Road Bengaluru – 560 076. Pan : Aaccv4573E. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.T.Suryanaranayana, Advocate Respondent By : Dr.Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit -Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 17.06.2022 Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 24.01.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2012-2013. 2. The Issues Raised In The Appeal Are As Follows:- (I) Validity Of The Impugned Final Assessment Order; (Ii) Transfer Pricing (Tp) Adjustment Of Rs.26,85,43,457 Made By The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo) Towards The International Transactions Of Provision Of Contrct Software Development & Information Technology Enabled Services To The Assessee’S Associated Enterprises (Aes); (Iii) Addition Of Rs.7,62,39,388 Being The Alleged Suppressed Income Of The Assessee; & 2 It(Tp)A No.2127/Bang/2017. M/S.Vmware Software India Private Limited.

For Appellant: Sri.T.Suryanaranayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT -DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

…2017) 79 taxmann.com 336 (Karnataka High Court) (iii) Government Wood Works v. State of Kerala (1988) 69 STC 62 (Kerala HC) (iv) State of Andhra Pradesh v. M.Ramakishtaiah and Co. 8 IT(TP)A No.2127/Bang/2017. M/s.VMware Software India Private Limited. (1994) 93 STC 406 (SC) (v) CIT v. Sincere Construction (2015) 229 Taxman 186 (Allahabad) (vi) ACIT v. Dr.Tulsi Prasad Mohapatra (2012) 27 taxmann.com 125 (Cuttack-Trib.) (vii) Aalaya Jewel Industry Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 93 txmann.com 23 (Chennai-Trib.) 7. As regards the other legal issue is concerned (Ground 17), the learned AR submitted that the final assessmen…

M/S. SHREE BALKISHAN AGARWAL GLASS INDUSTRIES LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 5798/DEL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2005-06 Shree Balkishan Agarwal Glass Vs Dcit, Industries Ltd., Circle-8(1), C/O Sarvam & Associates, New Delhi. 403, Klj Tower North, B-5, Netaji Subhash Place, District Centre, Pitampura, Delhi. Pan: Aabcs2870C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suresh Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.08.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.09.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…AGIT Vs. Kappumalai Estate, 234 ITR 187 (Ker); iv) Government Wood Works Vs. State of Kerala (1988) 69 STC 62 (Ker); v) Cf. K. Mohd. Osman Saheb & Co. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (1971) 27 STC 303 (AP); and vi) Andhra Pradesh Vs. M. Ramakishitah & Co. (1994) 93 STC 406 (SC) 18. So far as the merit of the case is concerned, the counsel submitted that the assessee has accepted an amount of Rs.55 lakh from companies named in the reasons and amount of Rs.2 crores was accepted by cheques on 30th March 2005 which were never encashed and were returned back on 01.04.2005 and an amount of Rs.30,80,000/- from other enti…

M/S. VISION HABITATE & SERVICES PVT. LTD.,SAMBALPUR vs. PR. CIT, SAMBALPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 214/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Aug 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.214/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Vision Habitate & Services Vs. Pr. Cit, Sambalpur-768004 Private Limited, Kadambari Complex, Gole Bazar, Sambalpur-768001 Pan No. : Aadcn 4768 J (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri B.N.Agrawal/Binod Agrawal, Ars राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/08/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, Dated 30.03.2019 For The A.Y.2014-2015 On The Following Grounds :- 1. That The Order U/S. 263 Is Bad In Law As Well As In Facts. 2. That The Order U/S. 263, Stated To Have Been Passed On 30.03.2019, Is Ante Dated & Barred By Limitation, Being Issued & Served Upon The Appellant On 30.04.2019, Which Is After The Expiry Of Period Of Limitation On 31.03.2019. 3. That The Assessment Order Dt.29.12.2016 Making An Addition Of Rs.27,51,100 To The Returned Income U/S.56(2)(Viib) Consequent Upon Valuation Of Book Value Of 4,510 Nos. Of Equity Shares @ Rs.739 Per Share As On 31.03.2013 Allotted On 31.03.2014 @ Rs.1,349 Per Share. Thus, The Difference Of Rs.610 Per Share Multiplied By 4,510 Nos. Of Shares Allotted Coming To Rs.27,51,100 Has Been Added As Above By The Id. Ao. The Said Valuation & The Consequential Addition Has Been Disputed By The Appellant In The Appeal In Form No.35 E-Filed Before The Id.

For Appellant: Shri B.N.Agrawal/Binod AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 56(2)(viib)

…piry of limitation but also be communicated to the Appellant before the expiry of limitation period as aforesaid vide following judicial pronouncements of the Hon'bie Supreme Court, High Courts and Tribunals. a. State of A.P. v. M. Ramakishtaiah & Co, (1994) 93 STC 406 (SC) (Page 8 to 10) Head Note Revision - Limitation of four years - Order in Revision purporting to be passed within four years - Served upon Assessee after substantial delay - no explanation for delay - Presumption that order was not made on the date it purports to have been made and could have been made after expiry of four years - Andhra Prade…

CHEBOLU LAKSHMI,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6/VIZ/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Nov 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.06/Viz/2018 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2007-08) Smt. Chebolu Lakshmi Vs. Income Tax Officer F.No.3, City View Apartment Ward-2(1) Ramnagar Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Adapc6283A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 30.10.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.11.2019 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

…ained. Even after perusal of the relevant record, the learned Government Pleader is not in a position to tell us as to what caused such extraordinary delay. In these circumstances, the ratio of the decision in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Ramakishtaiah and Co., 93 STC 406 is attracted and it must be presumed that the order was not passed on the date on which it was purportedly, passed. In an identical situation, the Supreme Court held : “We are of the opinion that this appeal has be dismissed on the ground urged by the assessee himself. As stated above, the order of the Deputy Commissioner is said to have been made…

KAMAKSHI SHIPPING,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1/VIZ/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.01/Viz/2018 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2012-13) Kamaakshi Shipping Vs. Acit D.No.50-102-14 Circle-1(1) Plot No.186, 2Nd Floor Visakhapatnam North Extension Layout Seethammadhara Visakhapatnam [Pan :Aaifk3528R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri I.Kama Sastry, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 15.07.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2019 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri I.Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

…ained. Even after perusal of the relevant record, the learned Government Pleader is not in a position to tell us as to what caused such extraordinary delay. In these circumstances, the ratio of the decision in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Ramakishtaiah and Co., 93 STC 406 is attracted and it must he presumed that the order was not passed on the date on which it was purportedly, passed. In an identical situation, the Supreme Court held : “We are of the opinion that this appeal has be dismissed on the ground urged by the assessee himself. As stated above, the order of the Deputy Commissioner is said to have been made…

PUSHP STEELS & MINING (P) LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 20(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 6094/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Suresh Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT(DR) &

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153(1)Section 68

…making an order of assessment before the prescribed date and in view of the judgments of the Kerala High Court in the cases of CAGIT vs Kappumalai Estate 234 ITR 187 (Ker) and another judgment reported in 69 STC 62 and other decisions of 327 STC 303 (AP) and 93 STC 406 (SC), the order to make the assessment is complete and effective once the same goes beyond the control of authority concerned. It was also submitted on behalf of the assessee that the assessing officer in any case should have taken care to pass the order before the limitation date in the manner that he is able to get the process completed by pos…