ITO v. Murlidhar Bhagwan Das

52 ITR 335Supreme Court of India1964#1110 most cited

What is ITO v. Murlidhar Bhagwan Das authority for?

The Supreme Court clarified that an appellate authority's 'finding' must be essential for disposing of the appeal for the relevant assessment year, not an incidental observation about another year's income. Appellate authorities cannot issue directions on matters not directly arising in the appeal for the specific assessment year, especially regarding escaped income, which has separate statutory mechanisms.

100

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2026.

Also referred to as

ITO v. Murlidhar Bhagwan Das · 52 ITR 335 SC · Section 150 Income Tax Act · appellate authority powers · finding or direction · reassessment limitation period · Section 251 · Section 33(4) · scope of appeal order · escaped income · previous year distinct unit

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 143(3)Section 150Section 149Section 251Section 142(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 150(1)section 150(2)section 33(4)section 150section 245hasection 147(a)true and full disclosuresection 10(2)section 34(1)section 33section 18section 148(2)

Judgments citing ITO v. Murlidhar Bhagwan Das

Bholaram Malviya, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer W-16(1)|(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5965/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2023AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Neeraj ManglaFor Respondent: Smt. Vranda U. Matkari (sr. AR)

…of the assessee pertaining to the year in which the money was received could not have been done by the Ld. CIT(A) and for that he relied on the following decisions as under:- (a) Mrs. R. H. Dave Vs. CIT [140 ITR 1035 (Cal)] (b) ITO Vs. Murlidhar Bhagwan Das [52 ITR 335 (SC)] (c) N. Kt Sivalingam Chettiar Vs. CIT [66 ITR 586 (SC)] (d) Bakshish Singh Vs. ITO [93 ITR 178 (SC)] 22 A.Y. 2013-14 Bholaram Malviya (e) ITO Vs. Sri Biswajit Chatterjee in ITA. No.565/Kol/2013 dated 10.11.2017 (f) Shri Sanjay Thakur Vs. DCIT in ITA No. 3785/Del/2015 dated 12.07.2018. 18. Per contra, the Ld. DR vehemently supported the orde…

Estate of Late A.M. Fatima Biwi, Rajapalayam vs. ITO, Ward-1, Virudhunagar

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 2889/CHNY/2019[1987-88]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2023AY 1987-88

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Ms. N. V. Lakshmi (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT) – Ld. DR
Section 144Section 148Section 149Section 150(1)

…153(3)(ii) is not a provision enlarging the jurisdiction of the authority or court. It is a provision which merely raises the bar of limitation for making an assessment order under section 143 or section 144 or section 147—ITO v. Murlidhar Bhagwan Das [1964] 52 ITR 335 (SC) and N. Kt. Sivalingam Chettiar v. CIT [1967] 66 ITR 586 (SC). The question formulated by the Tribunal raised the point whether the AAC could convert the provisions of section 147(1) into those of section 153(3)(ii) of the Act. In view of section 153(3)(ii) dealing with limitation merely, it is not easy to appreciate the relevance or validity…

Shri A.M. Abdul Basheer Rahmanm, Rajapalayam vs. ITO, Ward-1, Virudhunagar

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 2888/CHNY/2019[1987-88]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2023AY 1987-88

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Ms. N. V. Lakshmi (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT) – Ld. DR
Section 144Section 148Section 149Section 150(1)

…153(3)(ii) is not a provision enlarging the jurisdiction of the authority or court. It is a provision which merely raises the bar of limitation for making an assessment order under section 143 or section 144 or section 147—ITO v. Murlidhar Bhagwan Das [1964] 52 ITR 335 (SC) and N. Kt. Sivalingam Chettiar v. CIT [1967] 66 ITR 586 (SC). The question formulated by the Tribunal raised the point whether the AAC could convert the provisions of section 147(1) into those of section 153(3)(ii) of the Act. In view of section 153(3)(ii) dealing with limitation merely, it is not easy to appreciate the relevance or validity…

Direct Media Distribution Ventures Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, RG-6(2)(3)(Present in Charge Acir-RG-6(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue dismissed and appeal of the assessee is also dismissed

ITA 3084/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.2715/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) The Assistant Commissioner Direct Media Distribution Of Income Tax 6(2)(2), Ventures Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Mumbai 135, Continental Building, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Annie Besant Road, Worli, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 048 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aadcd1940Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Mr. Jay BhansaliFor Respondent: Shri. Madhur Agrawal & Manoj
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 47Section 56(1)Section 68

…order of the AO, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment. Further, he has powers to pass such orders in the appeal as he thinks fit. These powers or/direction can affect the third party. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO Vs. Muralidhar Bhagwan Das [52 ITR 335] has discussed the powers of the CIT(A) to analyze what constitutes a “finding” in appeal. The extract of the finding is hereby as under….. 20. Accordingly, the CIT (A) can direct the authorities which are necessary for the disposal of the appeal. The observation of the CIT(A) to assess the transferor, was not necessary for disposal of appeal. It…

ACIT - Circle- 6(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Direct Media Distribution Ventures Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue dismissed and appeal of the assessee is also dismissed

ITA 2715/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.2715/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) The Assistant Commissioner Direct Media Distribution Of Income Tax 6(2)(2), Ventures Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Mumbai 135, Continental Building, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Annie Besant Road, Worli, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 048 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aadcd1940Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Mr. Jay BhansaliFor Respondent: Shri. Madhur Agrawal & Manoj
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 47Section 56(1)Section 68

…order of the AO, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment. Further, he has powers to pass such orders in the appeal as he thinks fit. These powers or/direction can affect the third party. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO Vs. Muralidhar Bhagwan Das [52 ITR 335] has discussed the powers of the CIT(A) to analyze what constitutes a “finding” in appeal. The extract of the finding is hereby as under….. 20. Accordingly, the CIT (A) can direct the authorities which are necessary for the disposal of the appeal. The observation of the CIT(A) to assess the transferor, was not necessary for disposal of appeal. It…

Sri A.M. Abdul Basheer Rahman, Rajapalayam vs. ITO, Ward-2, Virudhunagar

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 3008/CHNY/2019[1987-88]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Nov 2022AY 1987-88

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji &For Respondent: Shri P.Sajit Kumar, (JCIT)- Ld. DR
Section 144Section 148Section 149Section 150Section 150(1)Section 153(3)(ii)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “सी” "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय +ी वी. दुगा1 राव, "ाियक सद2 एवं माननीय +ी मनोज कुमार अ7वाल ,लेखा सद2 के सम9। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपील सं./ ITA No.3008/Chny/2019 (िनधा1रण वष1 / Assessment Year: 1987-88) Estate of Late A.M. Jakh Jaakh The Income Tax Officer (Represented by Shri Mr. A.M. Basheer Ward-2, बनाम/ Rahman) Virudhunagar. Vs. 200, Seethakathi Street, Madurai (TN) Rajapalayam-626 117. !थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AJFPJ-0549-A (अपीलाथ./Appellant) : (/0थ. / Respondent) अ…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, ( Central)-2, Raipur vs. Shri Sanjay Kumar Agrawal, Raipur

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 179/RPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.169 & 179/Rpr/2019 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 & 2016-2017) Acit-2, Raipur Vs Shri Sanjay Kumar Agrawal, Shri Shyam Tower, Kavita Nagar, Main Road, Avanti Vihar, Raipur Pan No. : Afdpa 6944 B (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 145(3)

…of any supporting evidence be extrapolated to another year. Our aforesaid conviction is supported by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of, viz. (i). M.M Ipoh & Ors. Vs. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 106 (SC); (ii). ITO Vs. Murlidhar Bhagwandas (1964) 52 ITR 335 (SC); and (iii). Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. & Anr. Vs. UPI & Ors. (2006) 282 273 (SC). Interestingly, if the observations of the AO are to be accepted, then, it would mean that once an assessee is visited with search proceedings, and he after considering the incriminating documents unearthed during the course of such proceedings comes forth with a…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-2, Raipur vs. Shri Sanjay Kumar Agrawal, Raipur

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 169/RPR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.169 & 179/Rpr/2019 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 & 2016-2017) Acit-2, Raipur Vs Shri Sanjay Kumar Agrawal, Shri Shyam Tower, Kavita Nagar, Main Road, Avanti Vihar, Raipur Pan No. : Afdpa 6944 B (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 145(3)

…of any supporting evidence be extrapolated to another year. Our aforesaid conviction is supported by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of, viz. (i). M.M Ipoh & Ors. Vs. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 106 (SC); (ii). ITO Vs. Murlidhar Bhagwandas (1964) 52 ITR 335 (SC); and (iii). Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. & Anr. Vs. UPI & Ors. (2006) 282 273 (SC). Interestingly, if the observations of the AO are to be accepted, then, it would mean that once an assessee is visited with search proceedings, and he after considering the incriminating documents unearthed during the course of such proceedings comes forth with a…

M/S. Odisha Power Generation Corporation Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 131/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No Ita No.114/Ctk/2014: Assessment Year Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Dilip Kr. Mohanty/Pradyumna Kumar Sahu

…oresaid claim of Rs. 1,60,00,000/- towards ad hoc provision on account of pay revision has not been claimed by the Assessee in the subsequent years. However, in view of Sir Kikabhai Premchand vs. CIT [1953] 24 ITR 506 (SO, ITO vs. Murlidhar Bhagwan Das [19641 52 ITR 335 (SO, CIT vs. British Paints India Ltd. 11991] 54 Taxman 499/188 ITR 44 (SO and CIT vs. Basant Rai Takhat Singh [1933] 1 ITR 197 (PC), it is well settled that each year is separate and self-contained period, Income Tax is annual in its structure and organization. Thus, each previous year is a distinct unit of time for the purposes of assessment. Th…

M/S. Odisha Power Generation Corporation Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 130/CTK/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No Ita No.114/Ctk/2014: Assessment Year Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Dilip Kr. Mohanty/Pradyumna Kumar Sahu

…oresaid claim of Rs. 1,60,00,000/- towards ad hoc provision on account of pay revision has not been claimed by the Assessee in the subsequent years. However, in view of Sir Kikabhai Premchand vs. CIT [1953] 24 ITR 506 (SO, ITO vs. Murlidhar Bhagwan Das [19641 52 ITR 335 (SO, CIT vs. British Paints India Ltd. 11991] 54 Taxman 499/188 ITR 44 (SO and CIT vs. Basant Rai Takhat Singh [1933] 1 ITR 197 (PC), it is well settled that each year is separate and self-contained period, Income Tax is annual in its structure and organization. Thus, each previous year is a distinct unit of time for the purposes of assessment. Th…

M/S. Odisha Power Generation Corporation Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 64/CTK/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No Ita No.114/Ctk/2014: Assessment Year Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Dilip Kr. Mohanty/Pradyumna Kumar Sahu

…oresaid claim of Rs. 1,60,00,000/- towards ad hoc provision on account of pay revision has not been claimed by the Assessee in the subsequent years. However, in view of Sir Kikabhai Premchand vs. CIT [1953] 24 ITR 506 (SO, ITO vs. Murlidhar Bhagwan Das [19641 52 ITR 335 (SO, CIT vs. British Paints India Ltd. 11991] 54 Taxman 499/188 ITR 44 (SO and CIT vs. Basant Rai Takhat Singh [1933] 1 ITR 197 (PC), it is well settled that each year is separate and self-contained period, Income Tax is annual in its structure and organization. Thus, each previous year is a distinct unit of time for the purposes of assessment. Th…

ACIT, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar vs. M/S. Orissa Power Generation Corporation Ltd., Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 288/CTK/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No Ita No.114/Ctk/2014: Assessment Year Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Dilip Kr. Mohanty/Pradyumna Kumar Sahu

…oresaid claim of Rs. 1,60,00,000/- towards ad hoc provision on account of pay revision has not been claimed by the Assessee in the subsequent years. However, in view of Sir Kikabhai Premchand vs. CIT [1953] 24 ITR 506 (SO, ITO vs. Murlidhar Bhagwan Das [19641 52 ITR 335 (SO, CIT vs. British Paints India Ltd. 11991] 54 Taxman 499/188 ITR 44 (SO and CIT vs. Basant Rai Takhat Singh [1933] 1 ITR 197 (PC), it is well settled that each year is separate and self-contained period, Income Tax is annual in its structure and organization. Thus, each previous year is a distinct unit of time for the purposes of assessment. Th…

M/S. Odisha Power Generation Corporation Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 267/CTK/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No Ita No.114/Ctk/2014: Assessment Year Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Dilip Kr. Mohanty/Pradyumna Kumar Sahu

…oresaid claim of Rs. 1,60,00,000/- towards ad hoc provision on account of pay revision has not been claimed by the Assessee in the subsequent years. However, in view of Sir Kikabhai Premchand vs. CIT [1953] 24 ITR 506 (SO, ITO vs. Murlidhar Bhagwan Das [19641 52 ITR 335 (SO, CIT vs. British Paints India Ltd. 11991] 54 Taxman 499/188 ITR 44 (SO and CIT vs. Basant Rai Takhat Singh [1933] 1 ITR 197 (PC), it is well settled that each year is separate and self-contained period, Income Tax is annual in its structure and organization. Thus, each previous year is a distinct unit of time for the purposes of assessment. Th…

ACIT, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar vs. M/S. Odisha Power Generation Corporation Ltd., Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 175/CTK/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No Ita No.114/Ctk/2014: Assessment Year Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Dilip Kr. Mohanty/Pradyumna Kumar Sahu

…oresaid claim of Rs. 1,60,00,000/- towards ad hoc provision on account of pay revision has not been claimed by the Assessee in the subsequent years. However, in view of Sir Kikabhai Premchand vs. CIT [1953] 24 ITR 506 (SO, ITO vs. Murlidhar Bhagwan Das [19641 52 ITR 335 (SO, CIT vs. British Paints India Ltd. 11991] 54 Taxman 499/188 ITR 44 (SO and CIT vs. Basant Rai Takhat Singh [1933] 1 ITR 197 (PC), it is well settled that each year is separate and self-contained period, Income Tax is annual in its structure and organization. Thus, each previous year is a distinct unit of time for the purposes of assessment. Th…

M/S. Odisha Power Generation Corporation Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 173/CTK/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No Ita No.114/Ctk/2014: Assessment Year Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Dilip Kr. Mohanty/Pradyumna Kumar Sahu

…oresaid claim of Rs. 1,60,00,000/- towards ad hoc provision on account of pay revision has not been claimed by the Assessee in the subsequent years. However, in view of Sir Kikabhai Premchand vs. CIT [1953] 24 ITR 506 (SO, ITO vs. Murlidhar Bhagwan Das [19641 52 ITR 335 (SO, CIT vs. British Paints India Ltd. 11991] 54 Taxman 499/188 ITR 44 (SO and CIT vs. Basant Rai Takhat Singh [1933] 1 ITR 197 (PC), it is well settled that each year is separate and self-contained period, Income Tax is annual in its structure and organization. Thus, each previous year is a distinct unit of time for the purposes of assessment. Th…

M/S. Odisha Power Generation Corporation Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 84/CTK/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No Ita No.114/Ctk/2014: Assessment Year Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Dilip Kr. Mohanty/Pradyumna Kumar Sahu

…oresaid claim of Rs. 1,60,00,000/- towards ad hoc provision on account of pay revision has not been claimed by the Assessee in the subsequent years. However, in view of Sir Kikabhai Premchand vs. CIT [1953] 24 ITR 506 (SO, ITO vs. Murlidhar Bhagwan Das [19641 52 ITR 335 (SO, CIT vs. British Paints India Ltd. 11991] 54 Taxman 499/188 ITR 44 (SO and CIT vs. Basant Rai Takhat Singh [1933] 1 ITR 197 (PC), it is well settled that each year is separate and self-contained period, Income Tax is annual in its structure and organization. Thus, each previous year is a distinct unit of time for the purposes of assessment. Th…

DCIT, Bhubaneswar vs. Orissa Power Generation Corporation Ltd, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 114/CTK/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No Ita No.114/Ctk/2014: Assessment Year Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Dilip Kr. Mohanty/Pradyumna Kumar Sahu

…oresaid claim of Rs. 1,60,00,000/- towards ad hoc provision on account of pay revision has not been claimed by the Assessee in the subsequent years. However, in view of Sir Kikabhai Premchand vs. CIT [1953] 24 ITR 506 (SO, ITO vs. Murlidhar Bhagwan Das [19641 52 ITR 335 (SO, CIT vs. British Paints India Ltd. 11991] 54 Taxman 499/188 ITR 44 (SO and CIT vs. Basant Rai Takhat Singh [1933] 1 ITR 197 (PC), it is well settled that each year is separate and self-contained period, Income Tax is annual in its structure and organization. Thus, each previous year is a distinct unit of time for the purposes of assessment. Th…

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-2, Raipur vs. Shri Sanjay Kumar Agrawal, Raipur

ITA 43/RPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhaiआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 43/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S. Sharma, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.K Mishra, CIT DR
Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 245D(4)

…of any supporting evidence be extrapolated to another year. Our aforesaid conviction is supported by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of, viz. (i). M.M Ipoh & Ors. Vs. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 106 (SC); (ii). ITO Vs. Murlidhar Bhagwandas (1964) 52 ITR 335 (SC); and (iii). Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. & Anr. Vs. UPI & Ors. (2006) 282 273 (SC). Interestingly, if the observations of the AO are to be accepted, then, it would mean that once an assessee is visited with search proceedings, and he after considering the incriminating documents unearthed during the course of such proceedings comes forth with a…

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax(Central)-2, Raipur vs. M/S Radheshyam Agrawal, Raipur

ITA 42/RPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhaiआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 42/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Central)-2, Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Radheshyam Agarwal L-24, Avanti Vihar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aacfr8916J ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S. Sharma, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.K Mishra, DR
Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 245D(4)

…of any supporting evidence be extrapolated to another year. Our aforesaid conviction is supported by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of, viz. (i). M.M Ipoh & Ors. Vs. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 106 (SC); (ii). ITO Vs. Murlidhar Bhagwandas (1964) 52 ITR 335 (SC); and (iii). Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. & Anr. Vs. UPI & Ors. (2006) 282 273 (SC). Interestingly, if the observations of the AO are to be accepted, then, it would mean that once an assessee is visited with search proceedings, and he after considering the incriminating documents unearthed during the course of such proceedings comes forth with a…

M/S. G.S. Atwal & Company (Engineers) Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 11(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2115/KOL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Mar 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 148

…cheme provided under the Act. The relevant provisions for taxing the escape income are given u/s 147/263 of the Act. In holding so, we find support and guidance from the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO vs. Murlidhar Bhaghubabu reported in 52 ITR 335 (SC). The relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced below:- “Section 33(4) of 1922 Act only refers to a finding or direction made by an appellate authority and does not itself confer any power on an appellate authority to make a finding or direction. Indeed, section 34 of 1922 Act deals with entirely a different aspect, that of empowering an…