K. Ramasamy v. CIT

261 ITR 358High Court2003#20185 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,627 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2019.

Judgments citing K. Ramasamy v. CIT

Titan Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd., Durgapur vs. DCIT, Circle - 1(2), Kolkata

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 2250/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2012-13 Titan Engineering Co. Pvt. V/S. Dcit, Circle-1(2), Ltd., Sanjibi Sarani, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, 7Th Floor, Chowringhee Durgapur-713210 [Pan No.Aabct 4321 K] Square, Kolkata-69 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri H.V. Bhardwaj, Fca अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shrishankar Halder, Jcit-Sr-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 07-05-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 17-05-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Kolkata’S Order Dated 05.09.2018 Passed In Case No.18161/Cit(A)-1/Kol./Cir.-1(2)/2015-16, Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. Learned Counsel Representing Assessee Does Not Press For First Substantive Ground Raised In The Instant Appeal Challenging Liquidated Damage Disallowance Of ₹85,099/- Made In Both The Lower Proceedings Keeping In Mind Smallness Of The Amount. 3. This First Substantive Ground Is Rejected As Not Pressed. 4. Next Comes The Estimated Ad Hoc Disallowance Of Site Expense Amounting To ₹4,74,241/- In Both The Lower Proceedings. The Cit(A)’S Detailed Discussion To This Effect Reads As Follows:-

Section 143(3)

…t it is the right of the Income-tax authorities to consider genuineness of the transactions and to penetrate the veil and ascertain the truth. It is within their power to consider whether a particular transaction was to evade tax. In K. Ramasamy v. CIT [2003] 261 ITR 358 (Mad), it was held that veil can be pierced in exceptional circumstances. The Income-tax authorities are entitled to look at the reality of the transaction. Moreover, the decisions in ITO v. Diza Holdings P. Ltd. [2002] 255 ITR 573 (Ker); Raunaq Ram Nand Lal v. CIT [2002] 254 ITR 617 (P&H); Smt. Iva Gogoi v. CIT [2002] 254 ITR 576 (Gauhati); CIT…

DCIT, Circle-3(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Lal Baba Seamless Tubes Pvt. Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes, while the appeal of the Revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1637/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 68

…I.T.A. Nos. 1033 & 1637/KOL/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 M/s. Lalbaba Seamless Tubes Pvt. Limited IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-President (KZ) and Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member I.T.A. No. 1033/KOL/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 M/s. Lalbaba Seamless Tubes Pvt. Limited,.................................Appellant 13A, Rangers Club, Govt. Place East, Kolkata-700 069 [PAN: AABCL 2668 M] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,……………………………...............Respondent Circle-3(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolka…

Lal Baba Seamless Tubes (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes, while the appeal of the Revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1033/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 68

Krishiraj Trading Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, the revenue ‟s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6524/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No 6524/Mum/2011 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/S. Krishiraj Trading Ltd. Addl. Commissioner Of Income B/9 Th Floor, Trade World, Tax Circle-6(2) बिधम/ Kamala Mill Compd., S.B. Marg, R.No. 563, Aayakar Bhavan, Lower Parel, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai – 400013. Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No 6840/Mum/2011 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) A.C.I.T. Circle-6(2) M/S. Krishiraj Trading Ltd. R.No. 563, Aayakar Bhavan, B/9 Trade World, Kamala Mill बिधम/ M.K. Road, Compd., S.B. Marg, Lower Churchgate, Parel, Vs. Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400013. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaack2257N (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Reepal G. TradshawalaFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 144ASection 14ASection 234B

…e of preference shares by relying the decision in the case of Indo Tech Electric C. Vs DCIT appeal no 2209 and 2210of 2006 dated 16.12.2010, Workmen of Associated Rubber Industry Ltd Vs Associated Rubber Industry Ltd( 1986)157 ITR77, K. Ramasway Vs CIT (2003) 261 ITR 358, Jaggilal Kamlapat Vs CIT (1969)73ITR702 and CIT Vs Indian Express Newspapers (Madurai) P Ltd 238 ITR 701. 16. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) who allowed the appeal of the assessee by holding that the AO failed to investigate the matter and bring on records any materials except the information fro…