Karuna Rani Jain v. CIT

139 ITR 703High Court1983#19145 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2024 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 115JBSection 153Section 10(38)Section 14ASection 144BSection 14A(2)Section 156

Issues it is cited on

section 150section 65book profitssection 115jbincome-tax officersection 153section 15section 143prescribedtransfersection 14section 143(3)

Judgments citing Karuna Rani Jain v. CIT

RAYMIX CONCRETE INDIA PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-5(1), , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2771/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2771/Chny/2024 Assessment Years: 2015-16 Raymix Concrete India Private Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of Income No.1/107 & 108, Agr Tower, Tax, P.H.Road, Nerkundram, Corporate Circle-5(1), Chennai- 600 107 Chennai. [Pan: Aaecr6993A] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Ms.Lekha,C.A प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.08.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Ms.Lekha,C.AFor Respondent: Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 37

…(Kar), even though the separate sheet containing the tax computations had not been signed by the Income-tax Officer. The Punjab and Haryana High Court has also taken the same view Karuna Rani Jain v. CIT [1989]178 ITR 321. In CIT v. Krishwanti Punjabi [1983] 139 ITR 703 (Cal), Form No. I.T. 30 served on the assessee was not signed and the court remitted the matter back to find out if any determination of tax had been made before the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed under the Act for the completion of an assessment. All these decisions emphasise that all that is needed is that there must be some writ…

WRITEMEN MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-7(1)(3), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1516/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ashwin D Gowda, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 153Section 56(2)(viib)

…ough the separate sheet containing the tax computations had not been signed by the Income-tax Officer. The Punjab and Haryana High Court has also taken the same view Karuna Rani Jain v. CIT [1989] 178 ITR 321. In CIT v. Krishwanti Page 19 of 24 Punjabi [1983] 139 ITR 703 (Cal), Form No. I.T. 30 served on the assessee was not signed and the court remitted the matter back to find out if any determination of tax had been made before the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed under the Act for the completion of an assessment. All these decisions emphasise that all that is needed is that there must be some writ…

ACIT-1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BENNETT COLEMAN & COMPANY LIMITED, MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed and revenue is dismissed

ITA 1520/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bleι.Τ.Α. No.1387/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd. The Times Of India Building, Dr. Dadabhai Naoroji Road Fort, Mumbai-400 001 [Pan: Aaacb4373Q] Vs National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्य्थी / (Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1520/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Acit-1(1)(1), Mumbai Vs Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd. The Times Of India Building, Dr. Dadabhai Naoroji Road Fort, Mumbai-400 001 [Pan: Aaacb4373Q] Assessee By : Shri P.J. Pardiwala A/W. Shri Madhur Agrawal, Shri Jas Sanghavi, Shri Yash Prakash & Shri Vikas Poojary Revenue By : Shri S. Srinivasu Cit Dr A/W. Shri Ashok Ambastha, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2024 2 आदेश/Order आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Ι.Τ.Α. No.1387/Mum/2023 & 1520/Mum/2023 Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. Per Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w. Shri MadhurFor Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu CIT DR a/w. Shri Ashok
Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 14ASection 14A(2)Section 153

…84]145 ITR 246 (Kar), even though the separate sheet containing the tax computations had not been signed by the I.T.O. The Punjab & Haryana High Court has also taken the same view in Karuna Rani Jain v. CIT[1989]178_ITR 321. In CIT v. Krishwanti Punjabi [1983]139 ITR 703 (Cal), Form No. I.T. 30 served on the assessee was not signed and the Court remitted the matter back to find out if any determination of tax had been made before the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed under the Act for the completion of an assessment. All these decisions emphasise that all that is needed is that there must be some writ…

BENNETT COLEMAN & CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE. , DELHI

ITA 1387/MUM/2023[2018--2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2024

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bleι.Τ.Α. No.1387/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd. The Times Of India Building, Dr. Dadabhai Naoroji Road Fort, Mumbai-400 001 [Pan: Aaacb4373Q] Vs National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्य्थी / (Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1520/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Acit-1(1)(1), Mumbai Vs Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd. The Times Of India Building, Dr. Dadabhai Naoroji Road Fort, Mumbai-400 001 [Pan: Aaacb4373Q] Assessee By : Shri P.J. Pardiwala A/W. Shri Madhur Agrawal, Shri Jas Sanghavi, Shri Yash Prakash & Shri Vikas Poojary Revenue By : Shri S. Srinivasu Cit Dr A/W. Shri Ashok Ambastha, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2024 2 आदेश/Order आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Ι.Τ.Α. No.1387/Mum/2023 & 1520/Mum/2023 Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. Per Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w. Shri MadhurFor Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu CIT DR a/w. Shri Ashok
Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 14ASection 14A(2)Section 153

…84]145 ITR 246 (Kar), even though the separate sheet containing the tax computations had not been signed by the I.T.O. The Punjab & Haryana High Court has also taken the same view in Karuna Rani Jain v. CIT[1989]178_ITR 321. In CIT v. Krishwanti Punjabi [1983]139 ITR 703 (Cal), Form No. I.T. 30 served on the assessee was not signed and the Court remitted the matter back to find out if any determination of tax had been made before the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed under the Act for the completion of an assessment. All these decisions emphasise that all that is needed is that there must be some writ…

Karuna Rani Jain v. CIT (139 ITR 703) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax