ITO v. Ryam Sugar Co. Ltd.

105 ITR 819High Court1976#18629 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 359,850 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2021.

Judgments citing ITO v. Ryam Sugar Co. Ltd.

Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd., Ludhiana vs. ACIT, C-7, Ludhiana

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

ITA 1554/CHANDI/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Oct 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri R.L Negiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1554/Chd/2019 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 Nahar Industrial Enterprises The Acit, Circle-7, बनाम Limited, Focal Point, Aayakar Bhawan, Ludhiana Rishi Nagar, Ludhiana Tan No: Aaccn3563A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Navdeep Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sandeep Dahiya, CIT (DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)

…. State Bank of Hyderabad vs DCIT, ITA No. 449/Hyd/2015 (ITAT, Hyd). 3. Aventis Pharma Ltd vs DCIT, ITA No. 4179/Mum/2003 (ITAT, Mumbai) 4. Engineering Professional Co. Pvt Ltd vs DCIT, CA No. 1997/2019 (Gujarat High Court) 5. ITO Vs Ryam Sugar Company Ltd – 105 ITR 819 (Cal. High Court) 5. The Ld. counsel further placing reliance on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tata Iron & Steel Company Ltd 231 ITR 285 - 287 (SC) submitted that the assessee’s case is covered by the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case. Accordingly, the Ld. counsel submitted that since the…

M/S Chitrakala Investment Trade & Business Finance Ltd., Manipal vs. DCIT, Udupi

In the result, the appeals filed by all the assessees are dismissed

ITA 1324/BANG/2012[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 May 2017AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava1. 2. 3. 1. M/S.Mangala Investments Ltd. Syndicate House, Manipal-576 104. Pan: Aaacm 8838 R 2. M/S.Sea Rock Investments Ltd., Syndicate House, Manipal-576104. Pan:Aaccs 4700 N 3. M/S.Chitrakala Investments Trade & Business Finance Ltd. Syndicate House, Manipal-576104. Pan: Aaacc 7246 H ... Appellant Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Udupi. ... Respondent Assessees By : Ms. Prathibha, Advocate. Respondent : Dr.Shakir Hussain, Cit(A) Date Of Hearing : 30/01/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/05/2017 O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : These Are Appeals Filed By Three Assessees Against Identical Orders Of The Cit(A), Mysore, For The Assessment Year 1996-97. Ita Nos.1322 To 1324/Bang/2012 Page 2 Of 14 2. Since In All These Appeals Common Issues Are Involved, We Propose To Dispose Of The Same Vide This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Respondent: Dr.Shakir Hussain, CIT(A)
Section 2(47)

…view that the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer has to be found in the remand order itself and the officer cannot ignore or act contrary ITA Nos.1322 to 1324/Bang/2012 Page 10 of 14 to or in excess of the said order. In ITO v. Ryam Sugar Co. Ltd. [1976] 105 ITR 819 (Cal), a similar situation arose in relation to an assessment made under the Income-tax Act of which only one part was challenged in appeal. The appeal having been allowed, the question arose as to whether the whole matter was wide open before the Income-tax Officer or his jurisdiction was limited to the specific question considered in appeal. Th…

M/S Sea Rock Investments Ltd., Manipal vs. DCIT, Udupi

In the result, the appeals filed by all the assessees are dismissed

ITA 1323/BANG/2012[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 May 2017AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava1. 2. 3. 1. M/S.Mangala Investments Ltd. Syndicate House, Manipal-576 104. Pan: Aaacm 8838 R 2. M/S.Sea Rock Investments Ltd., Syndicate House, Manipal-576104. Pan:Aaccs 4700 N 3. M/S.Chitrakala Investments Trade & Business Finance Ltd. Syndicate House, Manipal-576104. Pan: Aaacc 7246 H ... Appellant Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Udupi. ... Respondent Assessees By : Ms. Prathibha, Advocate. Respondent : Dr.Shakir Hussain, Cit(A) Date Of Hearing : 30/01/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/05/2017 O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : These Are Appeals Filed By Three Assessees Against Identical Orders Of The Cit(A), Mysore, For The Assessment Year 1996-97. Ita Nos.1322 To 1324/Bang/2012 Page 2 Of 14 2. Since In All These Appeals Common Issues Are Involved, We Propose To Dispose Of The Same Vide This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Respondent: Dr.Shakir Hussain, CIT(A)
Section 2(47)

…view that the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer has to be found in the remand order itself and the officer cannot ignore or act contrary ITA Nos.1322 to 1324/Bang/2012 Page 10 of 14 to or in excess of the said order. In ITO v. Ryam Sugar Co. Ltd. [1976] 105 ITR 819 (Cal), a similar situation arose in relation to an assessment made under the Income-tax Act of which only one part was challenged in appeal. The appeal having been allowed, the question arose as to whether the whole matter was wide open before the Income-tax Officer or his jurisdiction was limited to the specific question considered in appeal. Th…

M/S Mangala Investments Ltd., Manipal vs. DCIT, Udupi

In the result, the appeals filed by all the assessees are dismissed

ITA 1322/BANG/2012[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 May 2017AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava1. 2. 3. 1. M/S.Mangala Investments Ltd. Syndicate House, Manipal-576 104. Pan: Aaacm 8838 R 2. M/S.Sea Rock Investments Ltd., Syndicate House, Manipal-576104. Pan:Aaccs 4700 N 3. M/S.Chitrakala Investments Trade & Business Finance Ltd. Syndicate House, Manipal-576104. Pan: Aaacc 7246 H ... Appellant Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Udupi. ... Respondent Assessees By : Ms. Prathibha, Advocate. Respondent : Dr.Shakir Hussain, Cit(A) Date Of Hearing : 30/01/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/05/2017 O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : These Are Appeals Filed By Three Assessees Against Identical Orders Of The Cit(A), Mysore, For The Assessment Year 1996-97. Ita Nos.1322 To 1324/Bang/2012 Page 2 Of 14 2. Since In All These Appeals Common Issues Are Involved, We Propose To Dispose Of The Same Vide This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Respondent: Dr.Shakir Hussain, CIT(A)
Section 2(47)

…view that the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer has to be found in the remand order itself and the officer cannot ignore or act contrary ITA Nos.1322 to 1324/Bang/2012 Page 10 of 14 to or in excess of the said order. In ITO v. Ryam Sugar Co. Ltd. [1976] 105 ITR 819 (Cal), a similar situation arose in relation to an assessment made under the Income-tax Act of which only one part was challenged in appeal. The appeal having been allowed, the question arose as to whether the whole matter was wide open before the Income-tax Officer or his jurisdiction was limited to the specific question considered in appeal. Th…

ITO v. Ryam Sugar Co. Ltd. (105 ITR 819) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax