ITR 438(Del) CIT vs Nathubhai Desha Bhai 130 ITR 238 (MP) Liquidator, Mysore Agencies P Ltd. v. CIT

175 ITR 120High Court#19628 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2024.

Judgments citing ITR 438(Del) CIT vs Nathubhai Desha Bhai 130 ITR 238 (MP) Liquidator, Mysore Agencies P Ltd. v. CIT

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE vs. INDUS BIOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 863/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri S.S. Godara"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Dcit, Vs. Indus Biotech Pvt. Ltd. Circle-1(1), 1, Rahul Residency, Pune Plot Nos.6 & 7, Off Salunke Vihar Road, Kondhwa, Kondhwa Bk B.O., Pune – 411048 Maharashtra Pan: Aaaci5708E Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 41(1)

…on cannot be made u/s 41 (1) in view of the following decisions: • Steel and General Mills Co. Ltd vs CIT 96 ITR 438 (Del) • CIT vs Nathubhai Desha Bhai 130 ITR 238 (MP) • Liquidator, Mysore Agencies P Ltd vs CIT 114 ITR 853(Karn) • K.V. MoosaKoya & Co vs CIT 175 ITR 120,124 (Ker) • CIT vs Pranlal P Doshi 201 ITR 756 (Guj) 8.4 The third burden which was on A.O. was to establish that cessation if at all has happened, has happened in the year under appeal. After all, liability to tax can be fixed in the year to which it pertains and to no other year. Merely because A.O. chose to enquire about the creditors in this…

ACIT CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI vs. DELMOS AVIATION PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7894/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: or during the hearing of this appeal.”

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 41Section 68

…following decisions: Page 7 of 17 ACIT vs. Delmos Aviation Pvt. Ltd. • Steel and General Mills Co. Ltd vs CIT 96 ITR 438(Del) CIT vs Nathubhai Desha Bhai 130 ITR 238 (MP) Liquidator, Mysore Agencies P Ltd vs CIT 114 ITR 853(Karn) K.V. Moosa Koya & Co vs CIT 175 ITR 120,124(Ker) CIT vs Pranlal P Doshi 201 ITR 756(Guj). 6.8 The third burden which was on A.O. was to establish that cessation if at all has happened, has happened in the year under appeal. After all, liability to tax can be fixed in the year to which it pertains and to no other year. Liability to tax any ceased liability in a particular year does not…

SH. LOK NATH NARANG, PROP,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, GURGAON

ITA 6708/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamblelok Nath Narang, Prop. Vs Ito C/O. M/S. Rra Tax India, Ward-2(1) D-28, South Extension, Part-I Gurgaon New Delhi Pan : Adrpn8014H

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 41(1)Section 68

…e u/s 41(1) in view of the following decisions : i. Steel and General Mills Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 96 ITR 438 (Del) ii. CIT vs. Nathubhai Desha Bhai 130 ITR 238 (MP) iii. Liquidator, Mysore Agencies P. Ltd. vs. CIT 114 ITR 853 (Karn) iv. K.V.Moosa Koya & Co vs. CIT 175 ITR 120, 124 (Ker) v. CIT vs. Pranlal P Doshi 201 ITR 756 (Guj) 7. The Ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer failed to establish that cessation if at all has happened, has happened in the year under appeal as held by Delhi Bench of Tribunal in the case of Madan Lal Brothers. After all, liability to tax can be fixed in the year to which it pertains…

ACIT CIR, 31 (1) ROOM NO. 217, NEW DELHI vs. RNGS CONSORTIUM, NEW DELHI

In the result ITA No. 153/Del/2009 is dismissed

ITA 2238/DEL/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2018AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiasst Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Rngs Consortium, Tax, 8, Aradhana Colony, Circle-31(1), Cr Building, Ip Sector-13, Rk Puram, New Estate, New Delhi Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Vs. M/S. Expotec International Circle-11(1), Ltd, 8, Aradhana Colony, Rk New Delhi Puram, Sector-13, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 145(3)Section 44A

…to the provisions of law." (emphasis supplied) 34. The appellant also refered to and relied upon the case of Topandas Kundanmal vs. CIT: 114 ITR 237 (Guj.). Addl. CIT vs. New Jehangir Vakil Mills Co. Ltd.. 117 ITR 849 (Guj.). K. V. Moosa Koya and Co. vs. ITO: 175 ITR 120 (Ker.), CIT vs. Mysore Sugar Company Limited: 183 ITR 113 (Kar.), CIT vs. Abdul Mannan Shah Mohammed: 248 ITR 614 (Bom.) and CIT vs. Bavla Gopalak Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Mandli Limited: 253 ITR 97 (Guj ) 35.. It was further pointed out by the appellant that in the assessment order at page-6 the assessing officer has placed reliance on the case…