How many judgments cite ITO v. Murlidhar Bhagwan Das?

100 judgments on BharatTax cite ITO v. Murlidhar Bhagwan Das (52 ITR 335), spanning 2009 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does ITO v. Murlidhar Bhagwan Das come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 147, Section 148, Section 153A, Section 143(3), Section 150, Section 149.

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

Issues it is cited on

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

Judgments citing ITO v. Murlidhar Bhagwan Das

ITO, Ward-7(3), Hyd, Hyderabad vs. Kosetty Kishore, Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 342/HYD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Esther N. Hangal

Section 132Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH ‘A', HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER S.No. ITA No. AY Appellant Respondent/ Cross Objector 1&2 342/H/15 Income-tax Kosetty and Kishore, Officer, Ward – C.O. No. 2009-10 Hyderabad. 7(3), Hyderabad. 65/H/16 PAN – AKJPK7013Q 3 & 4 343/H/15 Kosetty and 2009-10 -do- Nagaraju, C.O. No. Hyderabad. 66/H/16 PAN – AEDPR 3702Q 5 765/H/17 2009-10 Asst. Shri K. Gopal Commissioner of Raj, Income-tax, Circle Hyderabad. – 7(1), Hyderabad. PAN – AIBPK 1167E 6 773/H/17 2009-10 Shri K. Gopal Raj, Dy. Hyderabad.…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Housing & Urban Development Corporation Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, Assessee’s appeal vide ITA No

ITA 6151/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. Gagan Kumar, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. K.J. Singh, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…use the aforesaid 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 Kikabhai Premchand v/s CIT 24 ITR 506 (SC), ITO v/s Murlidhar Bhagwan Das [1964] 52 ITR 335 (SC), CIT v/s British Paints India Ltd. 188 ITR 44 (SC) and CIT v/s Basant Rai Takht Singh 1 ITR 197 (SC), 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. The profits made; and the l…

M/S. Housing & Urban Development Corporation Ltd. (Hudco), New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, Assessee’s appeal vide ITA No

ITA 5705/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. Gagan Kumar, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. K.J. Singh, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

Km. Preeti Singh, Meerut vs. ITO, Noida

ITA 6909/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. M.P. Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Surender Pal, Sr. DR

Section 253(3)Section 253(5)

…0). It is well settled that each year is separate and self-contained period. Income Tax is annual in its structure and organization. We take strength from decisions reported at Kikabhai Premchand vs. CIT 24 ITR 506(SC); ITO vs. Murlidhar Bhagwan Das [1964] 52 ITR 335 (SC); CIT vs. British Paints India Ltd. 188 ITR 44(SC) and CIT vs. Basant Rai Takht Singh 1 ITR 197 (SC) for the proposition that each 'previous year' is a distinct unit of time for the purposes of assessment and further, that the profits made; and the liabilities of losses made before or after the relevant previous year are immaterial in assess…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Bioplus Life Sciences Pvt Ltd

In the result, I pass the following:-

ITA/1014/2017HC Karnataka24 Jul 2018

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar Writ Petition No.1014 Of 2017 (T-Kst) Between: M/S. Rainbow Colour Lab, No.13, D.J.C. Complex, Hudson Circle, Bengaluru – 560 027. A Partnership Firm Represented By Its Partner Sri.G.K.Madan Mohan, Aged About 62 Years, S/O Sri.G.V.Krishna Reddy. ...Petitioner (By Sri. M.Thirumalesh, Advocate ) And: 1. State Of Karnataka

Section 12

…interpreted by the apex Court. It was found that if the person is intimately connected with the - 20 - assessee he would be covered by the phrase “assessee or any other person”. The decision given in Income-tax Officer v. Murlidhar Bhagwan Das, [1964] 52 ITR 335 (SC), was accepted and applied. In Murlidhar's case, [1964] 52 ITR 335 (SC), the words “assessee or any other person” were interpreted to mean a person who would be liable to be assessed for a whole or part of the income under appeal or revision. 5. In the case of S. Zoraster & Company (Supplies) Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, [1995] 99 S…

M/S. Seco Overseas Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 6636/DEL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh[A.Y 2010-11] Seco Overseas Ltd. Vs. Ito E-601, Second Floor, Ward-8 (1) Greater Kailash – Ii New Delhi New Delhi – 110048 Pan : Aafcs8881H [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.07.2018 Assessee By : Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Advocate Sh. Shailesh Gupta, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vijay Varma, Cit Dr

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Varma, CIT DR

Section 150(1)Section 2(22)(e)

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘D’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER [A.Y 2010-11] Seco Overseas Ltd. Vs. ITO E-601, Second Floor, Ward-8 (1) Greater Kailash – II New Delhi New Delhi – 110048 PAN : AAFCS8881H [Appellant] [Respondent] Date of Hearing : 16.07.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 18.07.2018 Assessee by : Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Advocate Sh. Shailesh Gupta, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Vijay Varma, CIT DR ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the Commiss…

Anju Manish Gangar, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO WD 22(3)(1), Navi Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed, as above

ITA 7579/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Ravish Soodassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Dr P DanielFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav

Section 144

…aced on various decisions, inter alia, Mathurdas B Mohta vs. CIT (1965) 56 ITR 269 (Bom); Ivan Singh vs. ACIT, order dated 17.05.2013 in ITA No.75/Pnj/2012 for AY 2008-09; AICT vs. Ivan Singh in Tax Appeal 28 of 2013 (Bom); ITO vs. Murlidhar Bhagwandas (1964) 52 ITR 335 (SC). 6. On the other hand, on this aspect, learned DR appearing for the Revenue has defended the decision of the CIT(A) by placing reliance thereon and contended that assessee had herself admitted that the investment belonged to an earlier year and since it was unexplained, no mistake was made by the CIT(A) in directing the assessment of such in…

Siya Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 865/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 865/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Siya Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, Up-12, Pitampura, Ward-8(4), New Delhi-110034 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaics7889N Assessee By : Smt. Rano Jain, Adv. & Sh. Ashish Chadha, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.12.2017 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.12.2012 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xi, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Smt. Rano Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…s (P) Ltd. (1973) 31 STC 293 (SC) " Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. Vs ITO (1961) 41 ITR 191 " Ashok Kumar Sen Vs ITO 132 ITR 707 (Del.) " Sheo Nath Singh Vs AAC (1971) 82 ITR 147 (SC) " Technocraft Industries Vs AO (1990) 186 ITR 514 " Murlidhar Bhagwandas (1961) 52 ITR 335 (SC) " Gardhara Singh (1980) 125 ITR 340 (P&H) " Phool Chand Bajrang Lal (1993) 203 ITR 456 (SC) " ITO Vs Rajeev Aggarwal 89 TTJ 1095 (Del.) " Kishenchand Chellaram Vs CIT 125 ITR 713 (SC) " ACIT Vs G. M. Infrastructure IT(SS) No. 133/Ind/2008 to 135/Ind/2008 " Jyoti Pat Ram Vs ITO (2007) 92 ITD 423 (Luc.) " ACIT Vs Smt. Jyoti Devi (2004) 84 TTJ 6…

I.T.O WD - 1(2), Hooghly vs. Sri Biswajit Chatterjee, Hooghly

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands allowed partly for statistical purpose

ITA 565/KOL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2007-08

Section 131Section 147Section 150(1)

…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…

DCIT Cen Cir 1(4), Mumbai vs. Grasim Industries Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly direct the AO to exclude value of such fringe benefit from the taxable value of fringe benefit. Ground No. 7 is accordingly allowed

ITA 5057/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & C. N. Prasadआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./5057/Mum/2015,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Dcitcent. Circle-1(4), Room No.902, M/S. Grasim Industries Limited 9Th Floor,Old Cgo Building. M.K. Road Corporate Finance Division, Aditya Birla Church Gate,Mumbai-400 020. Centre, A-Wing, Vs. 2Nd Floor, Sk Ahire Marg, Worli Mumbai-400 030 Pan:Aaacg 4464 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By: Shri Vidyadhar- Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Ronak G. Doshi सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/07/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 08/09/2017 लेखा सद"य, राजे"" के अनुसार लेखा सद"य राजे"" के अनुसार/ Per Rajendra A.M.- लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य राजे"" के अनुसार राजे"" के अनुसार Challenging The Order Dtd.30.07.2015 Of The Cit(A)-13,Mumbai,The Assessee Had Filed The Present Appeal.Assessee-Company,Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Trading Filed The Fringe Benefit Tax(Fbt) On 29/09/2009,Showing Value Of Chargeable Fringe Benefit (Fb) At Rs.36.80 Crores.In The Return It Had Offered Various Expenses As Chargeable To Fbt.But,By Way Of A Note It Claimed That Fbt Was Payable On Such Expenditure.The Ao Completed The Assessment U/S.115We(3)Of The Act,On 17.10.2011,Determining The Value Of The Chargeable Fb At Rs. 36,80,51,213/-.

For Appellant: Shri Ronak G. DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Vidyadhar- DR

Section 115W

…ng 5057/M/15 M/s. Grasim Industries Ltd. which the assessee should be precluded from raising such grounds of appeal. In support of his submissions, the Ld. DR relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO Vs Murlidhar Bhagwan Das 52 ITR 335. It is the say of the Ld. DR that jurisdiction of the Tribunal in the hierarchy created by the Act is not higher than that of the ITO. The Tribunal cannot do what the ITO cannot. 3. Per contra, the ld. Senior Counsel relied upon the decision of CIT Vs Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders Pvt. Ltd., 349 ITR 336 and contended that the assessee can take…

Puranmal Delhiwala, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(3)(3), Mumbai

Appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 4541/MUM/2014[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2017AY 1993-94

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4541/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 1993-1994) Puranmal Delhiwala Income Tax Officer 14(3)(3) C/O M/S. Kabra Associates, Cas Earnest House बनाम/ 204, Niranjan Nariman Point Vs. 99, Marine Drive, Mumbai – 400 021. Mumbai – 400 002. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaffp-5709-C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Nitesh Joshi, Ld. Ar ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : B.S.Bist, Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / : 12/05/2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 17 /05/2017 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Nitesh Joshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: B.S.Bist, Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153(3)(ii)Section 254

…gly confined. S.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 S. 143 or S. 144 or S. 147: ITO V Murlidhar Bhagwan Das [1964] 52 ITR 335 (SC) and N.K.T. Sivalingam Chettiar v. CIT[1967]66 ITR 586(SC). The question formulated by the Tribunal raises the point whether the AAC could convert the provisions of S. 147(1) into those of s. 153(3)(ii) of the Act. In view of S. 153(3)(ii) dealing with limitation merely, it is not easy to appreciate the relevance or validity of the point. 9.…

DDIT, Dehradun vs. Bg Exploration & Production India Ltd., Mumbai

In the result ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2227/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishidy. Director Of Income Tax, Bg Exploration & Production India International Taxation, Ltd, Dehradun Bg House, Vs. Lake Boulevard Road, Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai Pan: Aaace4569K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. NC Swain, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92

…DDIT V B G Exploration & Production India Limited ITA no 2227/Del/2014 & CO 13/Del/2015 A Y 2009-10 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I (2)” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI I. C. SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dy. Director of Income Tax, BG Exploration & Production India International Taxation, Ltd, Dehradun BG House, Vs. Lake Boulevard Road, Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai PAN: AAACE4569K (Appellant) (Respondent) CO No. 13/Del/2015 (In ITA No. 2227/Del/2014) (Assessment Year: 2009-10) BG Exploration & Production India Dy. Director of Income Tax, Ltd, Internati…

Shree Shankar Plastic Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3252/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta-ARFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Nayak-DR

Section 133Section 143(3)Section 147Section 254(1)

…arwal 47 ITR 456 (All.) (e) Mathuradas B. Mohta 56 ITR 269 (Bom.) (f) N. Kt. Sivalingam Chettiar 66 ITR 586 (SC) (g)Durga Prasad 57 ITR 583 (All.) (h)Nathalal Dhanjibhai 59 ITR 615 (Guj.) (i) Dave (Mrs. RH) 140 ITR 1035 (Cal.) (j) ITO vs Murlidhar Bhagwan Das 52 ITR 335 (SC) (k)Onkar Nath 64 ITR 347 (All.) (l) CIT vs Hirdey Narain Yogendra Prakash, 82 ITR 136 (All.). (m) CIT vs Rajgarhia (C.M.) 121 ITR 778 (Pat.) (n) Shri Ram Nutrient 14 ITJ 219 (ITAT Indore).(o) Sun Metal Factory (I) (P) Ltd. 124 ITD 14 (Chennai). XXXXX 20. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties. We have also gone through the…

Shri Narayan Das Tolani, Bhopal vs. The ITO 3(1), Bhopal

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 834/IND/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Feb 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C. M. Garg & Shri O.P. Meena

Section 133ASection 142ASection 143(3)Section 150(1)

…ecision, nor was it a point on which it was essential for him to record a finding before appropriately deciding appeal before him. We also observe in the case of Mathuradas B. Mohta, 56 ITR 269 (Bom.), relying on Supreme Court in ITO vs. Murlidhar Bhagwan Das 52 ITR 335, wherein it was held that the jurisdiction of the AAC under section 31 of the 1922 Act was strictly confined to the assessment order of that particular year under appeal. The AAC no doubt was competent to hold whether a particular item or a particular amount was income of that assessment year, but he had no jurisdiction further to Page 7 of 16 Shr…

Johnson Matthey India Private Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeal is allowed in the above terms but in the circumstances with

ITA/14/2013HC Delhi30 Oct 2015

Section 260A

…ed separately. Further the principle of res judicata did not apply to decisions of the income tax authorities. Reliance was placed on the decisions in New Jehangir Vakil Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 137 (SC) and ITO v. Murlidhar Bhagwan Das (1964) 52 ITR 335 (SC). 2015:DHC:8988-DB ITA No. 14 of 2013 Page 16 of 21 Question (i) 30. The first issue that arises for consideration is whether the Revenue was right in rejecting ROCE as a PLI. JMIPL for the AY in question selected TNMM at an entity level. When for AY 2002-2003, it adopted ROCE as the PLI, the R…

Johnson Matthey India Private Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeal is allowed in the above terms but in the circumstances with

ITA-14/2013HC Delhi30 Oct 2015

Section 260A

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Neetee Clothing (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 267/DEL/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Oct 2015AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate and Shri Somil Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. Dam Kanunjna, Senior DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)Section 150Section 80Section 80HSection 80I

…th the second proviso to section 34(3) of the 1922 Act, which is equally applicable in construing section 150(1) of the 1961 Act which is somewhat analogous and corresponds to that provision, the Supreme Court in the case of ITO v. Murlidhar Bhagwan Das [1964 52 ITR 335 & Rajinder Nath v. CIT [1979] 120 ITR 14 has also taken the same view. Same opinion was also expressed by Karnatka 11 ITA No267/Del./2013 High court in the case of consolidated Coffee Ltd - 155 ITR 729 & High Court of Calcutta in the case of Peico Electronics 210 ITR 991. So, therefore, the ld. AR wants us not to interfere with the order of the…

Shriram Capital Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 513/CHNY/2015[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jun 2015AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.512 &513 /Mds/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 & 2011- 2012)

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. N. Rengaraj, IRS, CIT

Section 14A

…5) 193 CTR (MP) 248; (2005) 274 ITR 122 (MP) followed; CIT & Anr. Vs. Foramer France (2003) 185 CTR (SC) 512; (2003) 264 ITR 566 (SC), CIT vs, Banwarilal & Sons (P) Ltd, ( 2002) 175 CTR (Del) 124; (2002) 257 ITR 518 (Del), ITO vs. Murlidhar Bhagwan Das (1964) 52 ITR 335 (SC), Pt. Hazari Lal vs. ITO (1960) 39 ITR 265 ( All),Raj Kishore Prasad vs. ITO (1990) 88 CTR (All) 152; (1992) 195 ITR 438 (All) and Abdul Wahid Gehlot vs. ITO (2005) 93 TTH (Jd) 232 relied on. 19.4 Being so, taking consistent view, we are of the opinion that expenditure is to be allowed as revenue expenditure only. Thus, this ground is allowe…

Shriram Capital Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 512/CHNY/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jun 2015AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.512 &513 /Mds/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 & 2011- 2012)

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. N. Rengaraj, IRS, CIT

Section 14A

Commr.of Income Tax, Simla vs. M/S Green World Corporation

Appeals are disposed of with the aforementioned directions

C.A. No.-003312-003312 - 2009Supreme Court06 May 2009

Section 133Section 133ASection 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 80I

…eeding before it or if the Assessment year in question is also not a matter which would fall for consideration before the higher authority, Section 150 of the Act will have no application. In Income-Tax Officer, A-Ward, Sitapur vs. Murlidhar Bhagwan Das [52 ITR 335 (SC)], it was held: “The proceedings would be in time, if the second proviso to section 34(3) of the Act could be invoked. The question, therefore, is what is the true meaning of the terms of the second proviso to section 34(3) of the Act. It reads: "Provided further that nothing in this section limiting the time within which any act…