Jagjit Sugar Mills Co. Ltd.vs. CIT, 210 ITR 468 (Punjab & Haryana); CIT v. Puthuthotam Estates Ltd.

84 ITR 502High Court1972#14559 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2018.

Judgments citing Jagjit Sugar Mills Co. Ltd.vs. CIT, 210 ITR 468 (Punjab & Haryana); CIT v. Puthuthotam Estates Ltd.

DCIT - 9(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Hazaria Cryogenic Engg. & Const. Management P. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 2124/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2018AY 2002-2003

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Ravish Soodआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./2124/Mum/2007, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2002-03 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" D.C.I.T-9(2), M/S.Hazaria Cryogenic Engineering & Room No.218, 2Nd Floor, Construction Management Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Technimont, Icb House, Vs. M.K.Road, Chincholi Bunder,Plot No.504, Mumbai- 400 020. Link Road,Malad(W),Mumbai-400 064. Pan: Aabch0272M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Jayant Kumar, Dr Assessee By: Shri Ketan Ved सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 10/10/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 03/01/2018 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद"य सद"य, राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार/ Per Rajendra A.M.- लेखा लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging The Order,Dated 12/12/2006,Of The Cit (A)-Ix, Mumbai, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Has Filed The Present Appeal.Assessee-Company,Engaged In Business Of Management Services, Filed Its Return Of Income On 31/10/2002,Declaring Total Income Of Rs.1.32 Crore.The Ao Complet -Ed The Assessment,On30/03/2005,U/S.143(3)Of The Act,Determining Its Income At Rs.11.65 Crores.

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Shri Jayant Kumar, DR
Section 143(3)Section 200Section 254(1)Section 40

…n the subsequent AY.after about two months,that payment was not made in time,that the proviso talked of payment or deduction, that the FAA did not take notice of the conditions provided in the proviso. He referred to the case of Puthuthotam Estates(1943)Ltd. (127 ITR 481).The Authorised Representative (AR) referred to the demand notice issued by the AO u/s. 156 of the Act and to the order giving effect to the order of the FAA. He also relied upon the cases of Modi Olivetti Ltd(263 CTR 28) of the honorable Allahabad High Court and Hazira Marine Engineering and Construction Management Private Ltd.(ITA/7512/Mum/2005…

Jagjit Sugar Mills Co. Ltd.vs. CIT, 210 ITR 468 (Punjab & Haryana); CIT v. Puthuthotam Estates Ltd. (84 ITR 502) — Cited in 7 Judgments | BharatTax