ITO v. S. Radha Krishnan

254 ITR 561Supreme Court of India2002#15461 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2023.

Judgments citing ITO v. S. Radha Krishnan

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1, Aurangabad vs. M/S Partha Multitrade India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 685/PUN/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.682 To 685/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12 & 2013-14 Dcit, Central Circle-1, Vs. M/S. Partha Multitrade Aurangabad. India Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As Swift Ventures Pvt. Ltd.), Flat No.1/5, A. S. Yadav Chawl Pada, Nr. Mahakali Mandir, Dahisar, Mumbai-400068. Pan : Aalcs3668L Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari Assessee By : None Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Common Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 30.06.2022 For The Assessment Years 2009-10 To 2011-12 & 2013-14 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Four Appeals Of The Revenue, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal Of The Revenue In Ita No.685/Pun/2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari
Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

…t. Ltd. does not amount to double taxation of same income in the hands of the assessee, as the assessee is different from M/s Mahalaxmi TMT Pvt. Ltd.. Reference can be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO vs. S. Radha Krishnan, 254 ITR 561 (SC). The occasion to make protective assessment would arise, only in case Assessing Officer is in doubt as to the assessee who had received the money. The concept of protective assessment was explained by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Lalji Haridas vs. ITO, 43 ITR 387 as under :- “……… In cases where it appears to the IT authorities that…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1, Aurangabad vs. M/S Partha Multitrade India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 684/PUN/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.682 To 685/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12 & 2013-14 Dcit, Central Circle-1, Vs. M/S. Partha Multitrade Aurangabad. India Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As Swift Ventures Pvt. Ltd.), Flat No.1/5, A. S. Yadav Chawl Pada, Nr. Mahakali Mandir, Dahisar, Mumbai-400068. Pan : Aalcs3668L Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari Assessee By : None Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Common Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 30.06.2022 For The Assessment Years 2009-10 To 2011-12 & 2013-14 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Four Appeals Of The Revenue, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal Of The Revenue In Ita No.685/Pun/2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari
Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

…t. Ltd. does not amount to double taxation of same income in the hands of the assessee, as the assessee is different from M/s Mahalaxmi TMT Pvt. Ltd.. Reference can be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO vs. S. Radha Krishnan, 254 ITR 561 (SC). The occasion to make protective assessment would arise, only in case Assessing Officer is in doubt as to the assessee who had received the money. The concept of protective assessment was explained by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Lalji Haridas vs. ITO, 43 ITR 387 as under :- “……… In cases where it appears to the IT authorities that…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1, Aurangabad vs. M/S Partha Multritrade India Pvt Ltd (Earlier Known As Swift Ventures Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 683/PUN/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.682 To 685/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12 & 2013-14 Dcit, Central Circle-1, Vs. M/S. Partha Multitrade Aurangabad. India Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As Swift Ventures Pvt. Ltd.), Flat No.1/5, A. S. Yadav Chawl Pada, Nr. Mahakali Mandir, Dahisar, Mumbai-400068. Pan : Aalcs3668L Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari Assessee By : None Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Common Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 30.06.2022 For The Assessment Years 2009-10 To 2011-12 & 2013-14 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Four Appeals Of The Revenue, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal Of The Revenue In Ita No.685/Pun/2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari
Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

…t. Ltd. does not amount to double taxation of same income in the hands of the assessee, as the assessee is different from M/s Mahalaxmi TMT Pvt. Ltd.. Reference can be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO vs. S. Radha Krishnan, 254 ITR 561 (SC). The occasion to make protective assessment would arise, only in case Assessing Officer is in doubt as to the assessee who had received the money. The concept of protective assessment was explained by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Lalji Haridas vs. ITO, 43 ITR 387 as under :- “……… In cases where it appears to the IT authorities that…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1, Aurangabad vs. M/S Partha Multitrade India Pvt Ltd (Earlier Known As Swift Ventures Pvt Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 682/PUN/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.682 To 685/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12 & 2013-14 Dcit, Central Circle-1, Vs. M/S. Partha Multitrade Aurangabad. India Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As Swift Ventures Pvt. Ltd.), Flat No.1/5, A. S. Yadav Chawl Pada, Nr. Mahakali Mandir, Dahisar, Mumbai-400068. Pan : Aalcs3668L Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari Assessee By : None Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Common Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 30.06.2022 For The Assessment Years 2009-10 To 2011-12 & 2013-14 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Four Appeals Of The Revenue, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal Of The Revenue In Ita No.685/Pun/2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari
Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

…t. Ltd. does not amount to double taxation of same income in the hands of the assessee, as the assessee is different from M/s Mahalaxmi TMT Pvt. Ltd.. Reference can be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO vs. S. Radha Krishnan, 254 ITR 561 (SC). The occasion to make protective assessment would arise, only in case Assessing Officer is in doubt as to the assessee who had received the money. The concept of protective assessment was explained by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Lalji Haridas vs. ITO, 43 ITR 387 as under :- “……… In cases where it appears to the IT authorities that…

Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax-Range-1, Bilaspur vs. South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Bilaspur

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 3/BIL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Nov 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury,Jm Sl.

For Appellant: S/ShriAjitKorde, S.R. RaoFor Respondent: ShriR.K. Singh
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 220(2)

…the expenditure incurred by it in the earlier year. The Assessing Officer rejected the contentions of the assessee in the matter of double taxation relying upon the decision rendered by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO Vs. S. Radhakrishnan (2002) 254 ITR 561 (SC). The Assessing Officer further observed that the assessee company has failed to prove that the expenditure claimed is equivalent to facility allowed. Hence, by treating it as far beyond business purposes, the Assessing Officer disallowed the entire expenditure of Rs.2336.88 lacs. 70. During the First Appellate Proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) fol…

Joint.Commissioner of Income Tax Range -I, Bilaspur(Cg) vs. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd, Bilaspur(Cg)

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 21/BIL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Nov 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury,Jm Sl.

For Appellant: S/ShriAjitKorde, S.R. RaoFor Respondent: ShriR.K. Singh
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 220(2)

…the expenditure incurred by it in the earlier year. The Assessing Officer rejected the contentions of the assessee in the matter of double taxation relying upon the decision rendered by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO Vs. S. Radhakrishnan (2002) 254 ITR 561 (SC). The Assessing Officer further observed that the assessee company has failed to prove that the expenditure claimed is equivalent to facility allowed. Hence, by treating it as far beyond business purposes, the Assessing Officer disallowed the entire expenditure of Rs.2336.88 lacs. 70. During the First Appellate Proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) fol…

ITO v. S. Radha Krishnan (254 ITR 561) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax