Khatau Junkar Ltd. v. K S Pathania

196 ITR 55High Court1992#1063 most cited

What is Khatau Junkar Ltd. v. K S Pathania authority for?

A disallowance under Section 143(1)(a)(iii) for a 'prima facie inadmissible' claim is only permissible if its inadmissibility is evident on the face of the return, requiring no further inquiry. If a claim necessitates further investigation, it cannot be disallowed without providing the assessee an opportunity of hearing.

103

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Khatau Junkar Ltd. v. K S Pathania · 196 ITR 55 · Section 143(1)(a) · Section 143(1)(a)(iii) · prima facie inadmissible · disallowance without hearing · opportunity of hearing · summary assessment · assessment procedure · natural justice

Sections most often in play

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 143(1)(a)Section 11(1)(a)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)(a)Section 80PSection 11

Issues it is cited on

section 44ab(a)section 143(1)(a)(iii)section 143(1)(a)(i)processing under section 143(1)section 143(1)(a)(iv)section 186section 243esection 234fsection 10aasection 36(l)(va)section 116section 143(1)(a)

Judgments citing Khatau Junkar Ltd. v. K S Pathania

VIKAS GOYAL,BENGALURU vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

ITA 501/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 220(2)Section 234ASection 250

…djustments under section 143(1) of the Act is somewhat co-terminus with the power to rectify a mistake apparent from the record under section 154 of the Act. 9.2 The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Khatau Junkar Ltd. v. K.S. Pathania, Dy. CIT [1992] 196 ITR 55 (Bom.) has held as follows- “This is because the scope of the powers to make prima facie adjustments under s.143(1)(a) is somewhat co-terminous with the power to rectify a mistake apparent from the record under s.154 In its literal sense, 'prima facie' means on the fact of it. Hence, on the face of the return and the documents and accounts accomp…

RADIANT TEXTILES PRIVATE LIMITED,PATIALA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, PATIALA, PATIALA

In the result, the appeal stands dismissed

ITA 444/CHANDI/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.444/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S Radiant Textiles Pvt. Ltd. Acit Circle Patiala बनाम/ Village Chounth, Patiala Road Aaykar Bhawan Vs. Samana-147101 Patiala 147001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcr-1175-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-09-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2019-20 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 13-02-2025 In The Matter Of A Rectification Order Passed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 154 Of The Act On 28-11-2023. The Only Grievance Of The Assessee Is Application Of Correct Rates Of Taxes.

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 145ASection 154

…Officer to issue a notice u/s 143(2) of the Income-tax Act and, after affording 'A' an opportunity of being heard, decide the matter strictly in accordance with law. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following judicial precedents: • Khatau Junkar Ltd., 196 ITR 55, (Bombay HC) • Ravi Bajaj Design Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO, 926/DEL/2012, (Delhi ITAT) 16. Hence, the very adjustment in the intimation is without authority of law and liable to be quashed. In the light of above facts, circumstances, legal position and submission, it is prayedthat the above grounds may please be allowed. Our findings and Adjudication 5. W…

HOLY CROSS CHURCH ,MUMBAI vs. ITO EXEM.WARD 1(3), MUMBAI

ITA 3526/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Smt.Beena Pillai (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Holy Cross Church Ito(Exem)-Ward 1(3) Senapati Bapat Marg 619, 6Th Floor Lower Parel, Mumbai Vs. Cumballa Hill Telephone 400 013. Exchange, Peddar Road Mumbai-400 026. Pan : Aaath2240R Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Ms. Vasanti Patel & Shri
Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Mumbai “E” Bench, Mumbai. Before Smt.Beena Pillai (JM) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (AM) Holy Cross Church ITO(Exem)-Ward 1(3) Senapati Bapat Marg 619, 6th Floor Lower Parel, Mumbai Vs. Cumballa Hill Telephone 400 013. Exchange, Peddar Road Mumbai-400 026. PAN : AAATH2240R Appellant Respondent : Ms. Vasanti Patel & Shri Assessee by M.A. Gohel : Shri Hemanshu Joshi Revenue by : 09/09/2025 Date of Hearing Date of pronouncement : 25/09/2025 O R D E R Per Omkareshwar Chidara (AM) :- In the above cited appeal, the appellant has stated that the Ld. CPC has made an adjournment u…

SURAJ CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 19(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2350/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () I.T.A. No. 2347/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 51Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

…should be given to the assessee. 10. Reliance is placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Khatau Junkar Ltd. Vs. K.S. 8 ITA Nos 2350/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2021-22 Suraj Co operative Housing Society Limited Pathania reported in (1992) 196 ITR 55, wherein Hon’ble Court while dealing with phrase “prima facie inadmissible” in clause (iii) of section 143(1)(a) of the Act held that, the word “prima facie” means, on the face of it, the claim is not admissible. Hon’ble court held that, it also means that the claim should be such that it does not require any further inquiry before the disallowanc…

SURAJ CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 19(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2349/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () I.T.A. No. 2347/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 51Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

…should be given to the assessee. 10. Reliance is placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Khatau Junkar Ltd. Vs. K.S. 8 ITA Nos 2350/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2021-22 Suraj Co operative Housing Society Limited Pathania reported in (1992) 196 ITR 55, wherein Hon’ble Court while dealing with phrase “prima facie inadmissible” in clause (iii) of section 143(1)(a) of the Act held that, the word “prima facie” means, on the face of it, the claim is not admissible. Hon’ble court held that, it also means that the claim should be such that it does not require any further inquiry before the disallowanc…

SURAJ CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 19(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2348/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () I.T.A. No. 2347/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 51Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

…should be given to the assessee. 10. Reliance is placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Khatau Junkar Ltd. Vs. K.S. 8 ITA Nos 2350/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2021-22 Suraj Co operative Housing Society Limited Pathania reported in (1992) 196 ITR 55, wherein Hon’ble Court while dealing with phrase “prima facie inadmissible” in clause (iii) of section 143(1)(a) of the Act held that, the word “prima facie” means, on the face of it, the claim is not admissible. Hon’ble court held that, it also means that the claim should be such that it does not require any further inquiry before the disallowanc…

SURAJ CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 19(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2347/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () I.T.A. No. 2347/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 51Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

…should be given to the assessee. 10. Reliance is placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Khatau Junkar Ltd. Vs. K.S. 8 ITA Nos 2350/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2021-22 Suraj Co operative Housing Society Limited Pathania reported in (1992) 196 ITR 55, wherein Hon’ble Court while dealing with phrase “prima facie inadmissible” in clause (iii) of section 143(1)(a) of the Act held that, the word “prima facie” means, on the face of it, the claim is not admissible. Hon’ble court held that, it also means that the claim should be such that it does not require any further inquiry before the disallowanc…

GREENOVOC SPECIALTY COATINGS PRIVATE LIMITED ,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 15(1)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3284/MUM/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 115BSection 143(1)

…115BAB. 5 ITA No. 3284/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2024-25 Greenovoc Specialty Coatings Private Limited 4.4 In support of the submission Ld.AR placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Khatau Junkar Ltd. Vs. K.S. Pathania reported in (1992) 196 ITR 55, wherein Court while dealing with phrase “prima facie Hon’ble inadmissible” in clause (iii) of section 143(1)(a) of the Act held that, the word “prima facie” means, on the face of it, the claim is not admissible. Hon’ble court held that, it also means that the claim should be such that it does not require any further inquiry before the disallowanc…

YASHWANTRAO CHAVAN MAHARASHTRA OPEN UNIVERSITY,NASHIK vs. EXEMPTION CIRCLE,A BAD, AURANGABAD

ITA 505/PUN/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jun 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Section 11Section 11(3)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)

…following decisions, he submitted that the issue being a debatable one, no adjustment can be made by the CPC u/s 143(1) of the Act: a) CIT vs. M/s. Mekins Agro Products Ltd. vide ITTA No.111 of 2003 b) Khatau Junkar Ltd. & Anr. vs. Pathania & Anr reported in 196 ITR 55 (Bom) 10. He accordingly submitted that the order of the Ld. Addl / JCIT(A) being not in accordance with law should be set aside and the grounds raised by the assessee be allowed. 11. The Ld. DR on the other hand strongly supported the order of the Ld. Addl / JCIT(A). He submitted that the assessee had applied the accumulated amount of Rs.90,70,20…

DCIT, SWARGATE PUNE vs. GRIHUM HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1883/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Mutha and Abhilash HiranFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143(1)Section 2(91)Section 36(1)(va)

…2014) 364 ITR 144 (SC) (b) West Coast Paper Mills vs. ACIT (2024) 164 taxmann.com 712 (Bom) (c) JKs Employee Welfare Trust vs. ITO (1993) 199 ITR 765 (Raj) (d) Vodafone Idea Ltd. vs. ACIT (2020) 424 ITR 664 (SC) (e) Khatau Junkar Ltd. vs. K.S. Pathania (1992) 196 ITR 55 (Bom) (f) Rajesh Kumar vs. DCIT (2006) 157 Taxman 168 (SC) (g) Sahara India (Firm) vs. CIT (2008) 300 ITR 403 (SC) (h) Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT (1999) 236 ITR 671 (Cal) (i) M/s. New Bridge Centre Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT vide ITA No.1620/Bang/2017 order dated 26.06.2020 (j) DCIT vs. Microland Limited vide ITA No.1154/Bang/…

KOKUYO CAMLIN LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. CENTRALISED PROCESSING UNIT/ DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6572/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Kokuyo Camlin Limited Cit- 2(1)(1) 48/2, Hilton House, Midc Aayakar Bhavan Central Road, Marol Midc Vs. M.K. Road Industry Estate, Mumbai Mumbai-400 400 091. 020. Pan : Aaacc1647E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Hemanshu JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh S. Athavale
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 41Section 43B

…e appellant, it is observed that reliance is placed on the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court decision of Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd. Vs. Ld. CIT(A) Pune (93 taxman.con 63)(Bombay) A.Y. 1993-94. Similarly, reliance was placed on the decision of Khatau Jankar Ltd. (196 ITR 55) (Bombay) and CIT Vs. GVK Industries Ltd. (147 taxman.com 281)(Telangana) for the proposition that on debatable issues, additions under section 143(1)(a) cannot made. But, the impugned case, relates to A.Y. 2021-22 and from 1.4.2008, the section 143(1)(a) itself is replaced and section 143(1) was introduced and under section 143(1), the additions…

SETH RB MOONDHRA MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,BANI PARK ,JAIPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION(1), JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 610/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Mrs. Prabha Rana, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary
Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 2

…ct claim that is apparent from any information in the return. The scope of permissible adjustments under section 143(1)(a) for the relevant year is much narrower. 1.12. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of KhatauJunkar Ltd. v. K.S. Pathania reported in (1992) 196 ITR 157 , has observed that, where a claim has been made which requires further inquiry, it cannot be disallowed without hearing the parties and/or giving the party an opportunity to submit proof in support of its claim. In the absence of section 143(1)(a) being read in the above manner i.e. debatable issues cannot be adjusted by way of intimation under…

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ULTRATECH CEMENT LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 821/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2025AY 2011-12
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 801ASection 80I

…ection 154 of the Act is bad in law. In this\ncase, reliance was also placed on various case laws i.e.Beena Rahul\nMishra vs CIT & others (185 ITR 361), T.S. Balram ITO v. Volkart\nBrothers & Others (82 ITR 50) (SC),Khatau Junkar Ltd. vs K.S.\nPathania [1992] 196 ITR 55 (Bom),Satish Kumar Aggarwal v. Deputy\nCommissioner of Income-tax [2012] 20 taxmann.com 172 (Delhi ITAT)\nand Additional CIT v. Chemical Limes (149 ITR 325) (Raj).Based on the\nabove decisions, it is stated that the proposed action to withdraw the\nclaim under section 801A cannot be classified as a mistake apparent\nfrom records.\n4.4.\nIt was als…

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF INTERLOCKING SURGEONS,SOLAPUR, MAHARASHTRA vs. THE ITO, EXEMPTION WARD 1(2), PUNE, MAHARASHTRA

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2817/PUN/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Feb 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2816, 2817 & 2560/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2014-15 & 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay K. Dhivare
Section 154Section 167ASection 167BSection 250

…facie adjustment that could be made under Section 143(1)(a), relied on Instruction No.1814 dated 04.041989. Hon’ble Bombay High Court also referred to the decision of its Co-ordinate Bench in Khatau Junkar Ltd. And Another vs K.S. Pathania reported in (1992) 196 ITR 157 (Bom) and held that the word “prima facie inadmissible” in clause (iii) of Section 143(1)(a)’ means, ‘on the face of it the claim is not admissible’. Hon’ble High Court observed that, it means the claim does not require any further inquiry before deemed disallowed. 5.2 Hon’ble Court further observed that where a claim was made which require furt…

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF INTERLOCKING SURGEONS,SOLAPUR, MAHARASHTRA vs. THE ITO, EXEMPTION WARD 1(2), PUNE, MAHARASHTRA

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2816/PUN/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Feb 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2816, 2817 & 2560/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2014-15 & 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay K. Dhivare
Section 154Section 167ASection 167BSection 250

…facie adjustment that could be made under Section 143(1)(a), relied on Instruction No.1814 dated 04.041989. Hon’ble Bombay High Court also referred to the decision of its Co-ordinate Bench in Khatau Junkar Ltd. And Another vs K.S. Pathania reported in (1992) 196 ITR 157 (Bom) and held that the word “prima facie inadmissible” in clause (iii) of Section 143(1)(a)’ means, ‘on the face of it the claim is not admissible’. Hon’ble High Court observed that, it means the claim does not require any further inquiry before deemed disallowed. 5.2 Hon’ble Court further observed that where a claim was made which require furt…

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF INTERLOCKING SURGEONS,SOLAPUR, MAHARASHTRA vs. THE ITO, EXEMPTION WARD 1(2), PUNE, PUNE, MAHARASHTRA

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2560/PUN/2024[AAATN9300L]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Feb 2025

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2816, 2817 & 2560/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2014-15 & 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay K. Dhivare
Section 154Section 167ASection 167BSection 250

…facie adjustment that could be made under Section 143(1)(a), relied on Instruction No.1814 dated 04.041989. Hon’ble Bombay High Court also referred to the decision of its Co-ordinate Bench in Khatau Junkar Ltd. And Another vs K.S. Pathania reported in (1992) 196 ITR 157 (Bom) and held that the word “prima facie inadmissible” in clause (iii) of Section 143(1)(a)’ means, ‘on the face of it the claim is not admissible’. Hon’ble High Court observed that, it means the claim does not require any further inquiry before deemed disallowed. 5.2 Hon’ble Court further observed that where a claim was made which require furt…

SMITA S MEHTA,KOLKATA vs. ASST DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

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

ITA 599/KOL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 250Section 54F

…Sachin Mehta. doubt or debate. This is clear from the language of the section and is supported by the authority as well as the circulars issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes in this connection. In the case of Khatau Junkar Ltd. v. K.S. Pathania [1992] 196 ITR 55, a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court held that (at page 71): "This is because the scope of the powers to make prima facie adjustments under Section 143(1 )(a) is somewhat coterminous with the power to rectify a mistake apparent from the record under Section 154..., In its literal sense, 'prima facie' means on the face of it, Hence, on the fa…

DAMODAR JOMA KHOT,PANVEL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1303/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

Section 10(37)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 28

…it shall be granted to the assessee. The scope of an intimation under section 143(1)(a) has been considered by a Division Bench of this court, to which one of us (Mrs. Sujata Manohar, J.) was a party, in the case of Khatau Junkar Ltd. v. K.S. Pathania [1992] 196 ITR 55 (Bom.). In view of the ratio which is laid down in that judgment the 1st respondent had no jurisdiction under section 143(1)(a) to reopen the account of the 7 assessee and to recalculate the quantum of income of the assessee by allowing or disallowing certain deductions as set out hereinabove. The intimation dated 3-8-1990 is, therefore, set aside…

ABBOTT HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Ground No. 3 with its Sub-Grounds is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2756/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Gagan Goyalabbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. 3, Corporate Park, Sion Trombay Road, Mumbai - 400 071 Pan: Aaack3935D ..... Appellant Vs. Acit 2(1) (1) R. No. 561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Marg, Mumbai- 400 020 ..... Respondent & Acit 2(1) (1) R. No. 561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Marg, Mumbai- 400 020 ...... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Ld. DR
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 43B

…see is aggrieved and is in appeal before us. 3 Learned counsels for the assessee, has a three-fold submission. His first plea is that in the light of law laid down by Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, in the case of Khatau Junkar Ltd. v. K S Pathania [(1992) 196 ITR 55 (Bom.)] the scope of prima facie disallowance under section 143(1) Abbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. is inherently very limited and only such a disallowance can be made under this statutory provision as can be conclusively held to inadmissible based on material on record. It is submitted that a claim backed by the binding judicial precedents of Hon'ble…

AVIAXPERT PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 3(1), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 87/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.87/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Avia Xpert Pvt. Ltd. Ito, E-178, East Of Kailash, Vs. Ward 3(1), New Delhi. C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaica7960L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 154(3)Section 36(1)(va)

…82 ITR 50 (SC)] 2. CIT Vs. Hero Cycles (P) Ltd. [(1997) 228 ITR 463 (SC)] 3. CIT Vs. Krishak Bharati Co-opeative Ltd. [(2004) 266 ITR 208 (Del)(HC)] 4. Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd. vs. CIT [(2018) 404 ITR 564 (Bom) (HC)] 5. Khatau Junkar Ltd. vs. DCIT [(1992) 196 ITR 55 (Bom) (HC)]. 7. Ld. Counsel for the assessee also placed reliance on the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Mahavir Drilling Company (273 ITR 201) for the proposition that when there are divergent views of High Courts existing on the date of grant of relief to the assessee, Assessing Officer is not justified in 5…

Showing 1–20 of 103 · Page 1 of 6

Khatau Junkar Ltd. v. K S Pathania (196 ITR 55) — Cited in 103 Judgments | BharatTax