Kakrala Krishna Murthy & Another v. CIT

216 ITR 206High Court1981#23652 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2023.

Judgments citing Kakrala Krishna Murthy & Another v. CIT

Viswanathan Securities P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-26(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 135/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Mehra, CAFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)Section 292B

…ustan Lever vs. R.B. Wadkar (2004) 268 ITR 332 (Bom); NDTV System vs. ITO (2013) 255 CTR 113 (Bom) etc. When a statutory functionary makes order on certain grounds, it cannot be supplemented by fresh reason as observed Kakrala Krishna Murthy & Another vs. CIT 216 ITR 206 (AP). Thus, the reasons are required to be read as they were recorded by the Assessing Officer. No substitution or deletion is permissible. No additions can be made to those reasons. No inference can be allowed to be drawn based on reasons not recorded. It is for the Assessing Officer to disclose and open his mind through reasons recorded by him.…

The ITO, Cochin vs. Sri.Ambady Krishna Menon, Cochin

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection filed

ITA 4/COCH/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…69 ITR255 (Punjab & Haryana) c) C1T Vs. Vega Auto Accessories (P) Ltd. (2012) 212 Taxman 95 (Karnataka). d) Mohanlal V. Nakum Vs. C1T (2002) 255 ITR 649 (Bom) e) Radhey Chandrika Prasad vs. CIT (1983) 139 ITR 274 (All.) f) Kakarla Krishnamurthy vs. CIT (1981) 216 ITR 206 (AP) g) Mahalakshmi Rice Mills vs. CIT (1981) 129 ITR 53 (Karn.) Prayer The Respondent humbly prays the order issued by the Hon’ble CIT(Appeals- I) deleting the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) may be upheld and assessee may be allowed to live peacefully in old age without any penalty threats/harassments. 3. The assessee has filed a petition acco…

Smt. Taruna Verma, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2833/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishismt Taruna Verma, Vs. Ito, A-340, Shastri Nagar, Delhi Ward-19(3), Pan:Akfpv1950P New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anshu Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

…ed that the court cannot go beyond the recorded reason, nor can it take into account any supplementary reasons which didn’t enter into the mind of the assessing authority at the time of issuing the reassessment notice." g) Kakarla Krishna Murthy v. CIT [1995] 216 ITR 206 "15 In Mohender Singh Gill v. Chief Election Comm., AIR 1978 SC 51, 858, it is held that "when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain ground, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by…