Indian Aluminium Co Ltd. v. CIT

162 ITR 788High Court#13879 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 250 Section 148 Section 142(1)Section 144 Section 249(3)Section 249(4)Section 250(6B)Section 69A

Issues it is cited on

section 249(2)section 249(3)section 249 section 24 commissioner (appeals)income from other sources section 25 condonation of delay section 69a opportunity of being heard section 69 section 148

Judgments citing Indian Aluminium Co Ltd. v. CIT

DAS PROCESSORS,RAJNANDGAON,RAJNANDGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1 RAJNANDGAON, RAJNANDGAON

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

ITA 780/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 780/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19) Das Processors, 44 Vardhman Nagar Vs Income Tax Officer-1 Jain School Road, Rajnandgaon, Rajnandgaon, Fci Road, Chhattisgarh-491441 Near Raipur Naka Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh-491441 Pan: Aaifd6768Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : None. राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 12/03/2026 Pronouncement

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 250Section 263

…on-admitting the appeal on the issue of limitation. The right of appeal is a valuable right and unless expressly taken away or abandoned, it could not be held that the appellant had abandoned or lost such right by implication [Indian Aluminium Co Ltd. Vs. CIT 162 ITR 788 (Cal.)]. The right to appeal is not merely a matter of procedure. It is a substantive right. The Act read with the Notification F. No. S.O. 3296 (E), dated 25-9-2020 put specific restrictions and limitations on the scope and manner of 5 Das Processors vs. ITO-1, Rajnandgaon exercise of the right of filing appeal and also limitations & powers of…

KAMLESH SHARMA, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

ITA 70/RPR/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 70/Rpr/2026 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2020-21) Kamlesh Sharma, House No.109, Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Harihant Nagar, Sarona, Tax, Circle-1(1), Central Revenue Ring Road No.1, Raipur-492001, Cg Building, Civil Lines, Raipur-492001 Pan: Bppps4514C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : None (Adjournment Petition Filed) राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 06/03/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am: This Appeal For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2020-21 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18.12.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [‘Cit(A)’], National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’), Delhi Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’).

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Petition filed)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151ASection 249(3)Section 250Section 57Section 69

…as not duly corroborated with supporting evidences. The right of appeal is a valuable right and unless expressly taken away or abandoned, it could not be held that the appellant had abandoned or lost such right by implication [Indian Aluminium Co Ltd. Vs. CIT 162 ITR 788 (Cal.)]. The right to appeal is not merely a matter of procedure. It is a substantive right. The Act read with the 5 Kamlesh Sharma vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1) Notification F. No. S.O. 3296 (E), dated 25-9-2020 put specific restrictions and limitations on the scope and manner of exercise of the right of filing appeal and also limitations & powers of…

VINOD KUMAR KAILASHCHANDRA VERMA, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

ITA 69/RPR/2026[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 69/Rpr/2026 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16) Vinod Kumar Khailashchandra Verma, Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), House No.496/9, Avanti Vihar, Sector-2, Central Revenue Building, Telibandha, Raipur-492001 (C.G.) Civil Lines, Raipur, C.G. 492001 Pan: Aanpv5964B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : None. (Adjournment Petition Filed.) राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 06/03/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am:

For Appellant: None. (Adjournment petition filed.)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250Section 69A

…n- admitting the appeal on the issue of limitation. The right of appeal is a valuable right and unless expressly taken away or abandoned, it could not be held that the appellant had abandoned or lost such right by implication [Indian Aluminium Co Ltd. Vs. CIT 162 ITR 788 (Cal.)]. The right to appeal is not merely a matter of procedure. It is a substantive right. The Act read with the Notification F. No. S.O. 3296 (E), dated 25-9-2020 put specific restrictions and limitations on the scope and manner of exercise of the right of filing appeal and also limitations & powers of the Appellate Authorities. Considering th…

SAVITA SANJAY MARGHADE,DURG, CHHATTISGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHILAI

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

ITA 849/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 849/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2013-14) Savita Sanjay Marghade, Mig-658, Vs Income Tax Officer, Aaykar Bhavan, Padmanabhpur, Durg, Chhattisgarh. Opposite Geet Talkies, 491001 New Civic Centre, Sector 6 Bhilai Nagar, Chhattisgarh. 490006 Pan: Aktpm6715H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : None. राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 17/02/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am: This Appeal For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2013-14 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.10.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [‘Cit(A)’], National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’), Delhi Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 148Section 249(3)Section 250

…ka Engineering Co. 63 Taxman 510/194 ITR 645 (SC)]. The right of appeal is a valuable right and unless expressly taken away or abandoned, it could not be held that the appellant had abandoned or lost such right by implication [Indian Aluminium Co Ltd. Vs. CIT 162 ITR 788 (Cal.)]. The right to appeal is not merely a matter of procedure. It is a substantive right. 10. In view of the above, we are of the considered view that the appellant assessee deserves reasonable opportunity of being heard to make shortcomings or non-compliance if any. Therefore, considering all facts of the case. afore-stated observations and…

RAJAT KUMAR GUPTA, RAMANUJGANJ,BALRAMPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1, AMBIKAPUR, AMBIKAPUR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as above

ITA 737/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 736 & 737/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Rajat Kumar Gupta, V Income Tax Officer-1, Near Power House Road, S Kharsiya Marg, Tatapani, Ramanujganj, S.O., Near Ambika Petrol Pump, Surguja- 497220, C.G. Ambikapur-497335, C.G. Pan: Bpfpg5887N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) . . िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : None राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 23.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 05.01.2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: Since Facts, Grounds & Issues Involved Therein Are Common & Identical; Therefore, These Appeals Were Heard Together For Adjudication By This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 148Section 250Section 44ASection 69Section 69A

…ka Engineering Co. 63 Taxman 510/194 ITR 645 (SC)]. The right of appeal is a valuable right and unless expressly taken away or abandoned, it could not be held that the appellant had abandoned or lost such right by implication [Indian Aluminium Co Ltd. Vs. CIT 162 ITR 788 (Cal.)]. The right to appeal is not merely a matter of Rajat Kumar Gupta Vs ITO-1, Ambikapur procedure. It is a substantive right. The right must be determined according to the effect the order has on the aggrieved appellant and not merely upon the form or language in which it has been concluded by the Authority concerned [Jaikishan Gopikishan &…

RAJAT KUMAR GUPTA, SURGUJA,AMBIKAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1, AMBIKAPUR, AMBIKAPUR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as above

ITA 736/RPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 148Section 250Section 44ASection 69Section 69A

…ka Engineering Co. 63 Taxman 510/194 ITR 645 (SC)]. The right of appeal is a valuable right and unless expressly taken away or abandoned, it could not be held that the appellant had abandoned or lost such right by implication [Indian Aluminium Co Ltd. Vs. CIT 162 ITR 788 (Cal.)]. The right to appeal is not merely a matter of Rajat Kumar Gupta Vs ITO-1, Ambikapur procedure. It is a substantive right. The right must be determined according to the effect the order has on the aggrieved appellant and not merely upon the form or language in which it has been concluded by the Authority concerned [Jaikishan Gopikishan &…

JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, GURGAON

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

ITA 6698/DEL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jun 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiassessment Year : 2005-06 Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Dcit, Circle- 1(1), Jindal Centre, Gurgaon. 12, Bhikaji Cama Place, Vs. Delhi.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 80I

…ntly held by the Courts that the right to appeal is a valuable substantive right and unless expressly taken away or abandoned, it cannot be held that the assessee has abandoned or lost such right by any implication(s) :- (i) Indian Aluminuin Co. Ltd. v. CIT: 162 ITR 788 (Cal.); (ii) CIT v. Bengal Card Board Industries & Printers (P.) Ltd.: 176 ITR 196. (iii) Nagpur Zilla Krushi Audyogik Sahakari Sangh Ltd. v. ITO: 207 ITR 213 (Bom.). (iv) Janardhan Reddy v. The State: AIR 1951 SC 124. 11 12. He accordingly submitted that the right to appeal being a valuable right cannot be taken away/dismissed because of any su…