Jai Hanuman Trading Co. v. CIT

110 ITR 36High Court1977#13237 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 344,197 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2024.

Judgments citing Jai Hanuman Trading Co. v. CIT

M/S Ayyanad Service Co-Op Bank Ltd, Ernakulam vs. The ITO, Non Corp Ward 1(5), Kochi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 279/COCH/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasayyanad Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. Income Tax Officer No. 2565, Vazhakkala Non-Corporate Ward - 1(5) Thrikkakara P.O. Vs. C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road Ernakulam 682021 Kochi - 682018 [Pan:Aacaa0824B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Amaljith P.J., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 144Section 147Section 148(1)Section 80P(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountant Member and Shri Manomohan Das, Judicial Member Ayyanad Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. Income Tax Officer No. 2565, Vazhakkala Non-Corporate Ward - 1(5) Thrikkakara P.O. vs. C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road Ernakulam 682021 Kochi - 682018 [PAN:AACAA0824B] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellantby: Shri Amaljith P.J., CA Respondent by: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 24.01.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 31.01.2024 O R D E R Per: Sanjay Arora, AM This is an Appeal by the Assessee directed against the Order dated 17.02.…

DCIT, Central Circle - 1(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Alembic Merchants Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of revenue fails

ITA 1826/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit, Central Cir-1(1), Kolkata Vs. M/S. Alembic Merchants Pvt. Ltd Pan: Aacca 0918Q Appellant Respondent

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153(2)Section 68

…ed within time but was served on the assessee after the expiry of the time limit, it held to be valid- R.K Upadhyaya V Shananhai Patel P.Patel (1987) 166 ITR 163 (SC); CIT v Sheo Kumari Debi (1986) 157 ITR 13 (Pat) (FB) and Jai Hanuman Trading Co P.Ltd (1977) 110 ITR 36 ( P & H ) (FB). Similarly, in framing an assessment time period/limitation period as prescribed in Act on date of issue of notice would apply and not on the date of service of such notice as held in the case of C.B Richards Ellis Mauritius Ltd v. ADIT (2012) 208 Taxmann 322 (Delhi). Further, in the case of CIT v. Major Tikka Khuswant Singh (1995)…

Shri Purshottam Khatri, Bhopal vs. ITO 3(3), Bhopal

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

ITA 741/IND/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore05 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 234ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 48Section 50CSection 74

…liance in this regard is placed on decisions in the cases R.K. Upadhyaya V. Shanabhai P. Patel (1987) 166 ITR 163 (SC); CIT Vs. Sheo Kumari Debi (1986) 157 5 Shri Purshottam Khatri, Bhopal ITR 13 (Pat.) (FB) and Jai Hanuman Trading Co. (P) Ltd. V. CIT (1977) 110 ITR 36 (Punj. Har.) (FB).” 10.4 As the notice was undisputedly issued on 18.3.2016, the notice is held to be legally valid and within the time allowed under law. 9. The A.O. reopened the assessment on the basis of the following reasons:- “As per AIR information available in the case of the assessee, Sold immovable property valued at Rs.30,00,000 or mo…

Major Singh, Amritsar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Amritsar

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed on the afore-said terms

ITA 426/ASR/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar01 Jul 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 426/Asr/2015 Assessment Year: 2005-06

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kalia (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)

…the issue of a valid notice u/s. 148, as explained in R.K. Upadhyaya (supra). The same view had earlier been expressed by the Hon’ble High Courts, including by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, prior there to, as in Jai Hanuman Trading Co. v. CIT [1977] 110 ITR 36 (P&H)(FB); CIT v. Sheo Kumari Devi [1986] 157 ITR 13 (Patna)(FB). There is no reference to, either as regards the assumption of jurisdiction for an assessment u/s. 147, or its completion, to section 143(2) of the Act. Why, in a particular case, the assessee may not file a return in response to the notice u/s. 148(1), as in the instant case, so tha…

Smt. Nirmal Kaur, Amritsar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Amritsar

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 700/ASR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar14 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 700/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. K. R. Jain (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 69

…erence to the date of service of the said notice, and not its’ issue, on the basis of which (i.e., its’ issue) though jurisdiction to reassess is assumed (ref: R.K. Upadhyaya v. Shamabhai P. Patel [1987] 166 ITR 163 (SC); Jai Hanuman Trading Co. v. CIT [1977] 110 ITR 36 (P&H)(FB); CIT v. Sheo Kumari Devi [1986] 157 ITR 13 (Patna)(FB)). Reference in this context be also made to the decision in Grover Nursing Home v. ITO [2001] 248 ITR 493 (P&H). How could proceedings commence without the service of the notice u/s. 148(1), which is a jurisdictional notice? Would that therefore mean that the proceedings have not yet…

Sh. Jaspal Singh S/O Sh. Swaran Singh, Amritsar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Amritsar

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 445/ASR/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar08 May 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 445/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2004-05

For Appellant: Sh. Padam Bahl (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)

Section 144Section 154

…sess stands thus validly assumed in the instant case upon issue of notice u/s. 148(1) on 24/3/2011 (Upadhyaya (R.K.) v. Shanabhai P. Patel [1987] 166 ITR 163 (SC)), referred to during hearing, as also explained earlier in Jai Hanuman Trading Co. v. CIT [1977] 110 ITR 36 (P&H)(FB); CIT v. Sheo Kumari Debi [1986] 157 ITR 13 (Patna)(FB), to cite two. Per the latter of the two, rendered following Jai Hanuman Trading Co. (supra), the departure from the 1922 Act was noted by the Hon’ble Patna High Court. Alluding to the principles of interpretation of statutes, it noted the clear distinction between the words ‘issue’ a…

Late Smt. Mohini Puri Through, Jammu vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Jammu

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

ITA 76/ASR/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 Mar 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 76/Asr/2013 Assessment Year: 2004-05

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)Section 149

…liance is placed on the decision in Ranjit Singh Arora v. Dy. CIT (in ITA No. 176/Asr/2016, dated 13.06.2016/ at PB pgs. 138-141). The ld. Departmental Representative (DR) would object, placing reliance on the decision in Jai Hanuman Trading Co. v. CIT [1977] 110 ITR 36 (P&H)(FB); CIT v. Sheo Kumari Devi [1986] 157 ITR 13 (Patna)(FB) to the effect that it is the issue of notice u/s. 148(1) that is relevant for the purpose, and not its’ service. The service of the notice after the expiry of the stipulated period was thus held as of no consequence. 4. I have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. T…