KOTAK MAHINDRA CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER. 367 50.(1987) 3 SCC 544: MADHAV AYAWADANRAO HOSKOT v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA. 51

10 SCC 1Supreme Court of India2014#343 most cited

What is KOTAK MAHINDRA CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER. 367 50.(1987) 3 SCC 544: MADHAV AYAWADANRAO HOSKOT v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA. 51 authority for?

The judgment in Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd. does not appear to be directly cited for a specific income tax proposition in the provided passages. The passages merely list it as one of several cases cited in subsequent judgments, without detailing its specific contribution to the legal reasoning.

250

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2006 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd. · Madhav Ayawadarao Hoskot · case law citation · legal precedent · subsequent judgments

Sections most often in play

Section 1894Section 1961Section 270ASection 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 45(5)Section 56(2)(viii)Section 14

Issues it is cited on

section 2(viii)section 56(viii)section 45(5)(c)section 155(16)section 23(1a)section 104section 45(5)(b)section 145b(1)section 194lakeyman insurancesection 160section 23(2)

Judgments citing KOTAK MAHINDRA CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER. 367 50.(1987) 3 SCC 544: MADHAV AYAWADANRAO HOSKOT v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA. 51

Essar House Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (Cir) 6(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1930/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Essar House Ltd., Asst Cit (Cir) 6(2)(2), Essar House, R.No.504, 5Th Floor, 11 K.K. Marg, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mahalaxmi, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 034 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaacj2883P (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R. & Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.12.2020 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.01.2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Hereinafter Referred To As The Cit(A)] Relevant To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Various Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. The Cit (A) Has Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Interest Amount Payable Towards Defeasance Of Sales Tax Liability Amounting To Rs.226,07,45,800. 2. The Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding That Interest Liability Cannot Be Treated As Expenditure Incurred For The Purpose Of Earning Or Making Income By Way Of Discounting Charges On The Zero Coupon Bonds (Zcbs) & Consequently , The Same Is Not Eligible For Deduction U/S 57(Iii) Of The Act Against The Income By Way Of Discounting Charges On Zcbs. 3. The Cit(A) Erred In Holding That Transaction Is Not A Bonafide In Nature & Interest Liability Was Arisen From Adoption Of A Colorable Device By The Appellant For Avoidance Of Tax.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R
Section 57

…n the case of Vodafone International Holdings BV Vs. Union of India 204 Taxman 408 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court concluded that there is no conflict between its decisions in the cases of McDowel! & Co. Ltd. (supra) and Union of India Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan 10 SCC 1. 62. Having regard to the above cited decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, it is held that the interest liability to EOL of Rs.226,07,45,BOO/- arising from adoption of a colourable device by the appellant for avoidance of tax shall be disregarded and not given effect to for computing the total income of t…

Geetha Pandit Rao and Anr vs. The State of Karnataka and Ors

In the result, for the foregoing reasons and applying

WP/226494/2020HC Karnataka30 Nov 2020

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice E.S. Indiresh Writ Petition No.7717 Of 2020 (Lb-Res) & Writ Petition No.226494 Of 2020

…if such legislation contravenes or abridge or invade or ultra vires of the constitutional provisions. 29. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NAVTEJ SINGH JOHAR AND OTHERS v. Union OF INDIA MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE AND OTHERS reported in (2018)10 SCC 1 has observed that a statutory provision can be struck down on the ground of manifest arbitrariness, when the provision is capricious, irrational and/or without adequate determining principle, as also if it is excessive or disproportionate. 30. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, M.P. INDORE AND OTHERS v. RAD…

Smt Geetha Pandit Rao vs. The Government of Karnataka

In the result, for the foregoing reasons and applying

WP/7717/2020HC Karnataka30 Nov 2020

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice E.S. Indiresh Writ Petition No.7717 Of 2020 (Lb-Res) & Writ Petition No.226494 Of 2020

…if such legislation contravenes or abridge or invade or ultra vires of the constitutional provisions. 29. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NAVTEJ SINGH JOHAR AND OTHERS v. Union OF INDIA MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE AND OTHERS reported in (2018)10 SCC 1 has observed that a statutory provision can be struck down on the ground of manifest arbitrariness, when the provision is capricious, irrational and/or without adequate determining principle, as also if it is excessive or disproportionate. 30. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, M.P. INDORE AND OTHERS v. RAD…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4 vs. M/S Karnataka State Financial

ITA/463/2018HC Karnataka12 Nov 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

…MANEKA GANDHI Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER. 49.(2007) 6 SCC 528: DILIP S. DAHANUKAR Vs. KOTAK MAHINDRA CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER. 367 50.(1987) 3 SCC 544: MADHAV AYAWADANRAO HOSKOT Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA. 51.(2014) 10 SCC 1: MADRAS BAR ASSOCIATION Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER. 52.AIR 1970 SC 192: SHRI. PRITHVI COTTON MILLS LTD, ETC Vs. BROACH BOROUGH MUNICIPALITY AND OTHERS. 53.AIR 1957 SC 628 : R.M.D. CHAMARBAUGWALLA AND ANOTHER Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER. 54.(2017) 9 SCC 1: SHAYARA BANO Vs. UNION OF INDIA A…

Master Balachandar Krishnan vs. The State of Karnataka

WP/8788/2020HC Karnataka29 Sept 2020

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,RAVI V HOSMANI

…hat it conforms to the outer limit prescribed i.e., 50% of the total open seats, vide Nidamarti Mahesh Kumar vs. State of Maharashtra, (AIR 1986 SC 1362), (Nidamarti Mahesh Kumar); Yatinkumar Jasubhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat, -: 22 :- [(2019) 10 SCC 1], (Yatinkumar Jasubhai Patel); Saurabh Choudri vs. Union of India, [(2003) 11 SCC 146], (Saurabh Choudri). Therefore, reservation of seats in the admission process on institutional preference to an extent of 50% of the total seats is constitutionally permissible. In the instant case, the State has provided 25% horizontal reservation which is…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-C2 vs. Rajeev Bahl

ITA/40/2019HC Delhi12 Sept 2019

Bench: The Family Court By Way Of A Divorce Petition Bearing Hma No. 609/2012, The Relevant Details Of Which Are Referred To Hereinafter. 3. The Petitioner/Wife Is The Respondent In The Aforesaid Divorce Petition Which Was Filed On 26.09.2012 By The Respondent/Husband Seeking

Section 13(1)(ia)

…on not only against the State but also against private individuals. It is argued that a person is entitled to criticise someone and not share the criticism with the world ; and that a person has a right to all thoughts and behavioural patterns 1 (2017) 10 SCC 1 _______________________________________________________________________ C.M.(M) 40/2019 page 4 of 46 within one’s zone of privacy. In this context, it is urged that the conversation between the wife and her friend, conducted…

Income Tax Officer-11(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Western Imaginary Transcon Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 4929/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri. Bhavesh P. ShahFor Respondent: Shri. Satyanathan Raju (Sr. AR)
Section 143(3)Section 68

…no. 06/Mum/2014 (12) Nikunj Eximp (2014) 48 Taxmann.com 20 (Bom),. (13) Killick Nixon Ltd., vs DCIT (2012) 20 Taxmann.com 703 (Bom) (14) B.V vs. Union of India (2012) 204 Taxmann.com 408/ 17 Taxamann.com 202 (15) Union of India vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan (2004) 10 SCC 1 (16) Mathuram Agarwal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1999) 8 SCC 667 (17) Sri Ganesh Rice Mills Vs. CIT (2007) 294 ITR 316 (All.) (18) Khandelwal Trading Co. vs. ACIT (1996) 55 TTJ 261 (JP) (19) Deoria Oxygen Company vs. CIT (2007) 160 Taxman 427 (ALL.) (20) Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (21) Seth Gurmukh Singh vs. CIT (1994) 1…

The Dy. DIT (Exemption), Circle-1, Ahmedabad vs. Friends of Wwb India, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and cross objection of the assesseee both are dismissed

ITA 1608/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Mar 2019AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Dev, Sr. D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

…evant observations:- “In our opinion, so long the decision in the case ofAzadi Bachao Andolan [2003] 263 ITR 706 (SC) is not held to be per- incuriam by a larger Bench decision of the Supreme Court as done in the case of Official Liquidator v. Dayanand [2008] 10 SCC 1 relied upon by Mr. Saraf, the High Courts should be bound by the explanation of that Bench given to the decision in the case of McDowell and Co. Ltd. v. CTO [1985] 154 ITR 148 (SC). Even on the merits, we also do not appreciate the reason of the Assessing Officer that the assessee-company could have easily waited for a reasonable period of time for…

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax-7 vs. M/S Wipro Ge Medical Systems Pvt Ltd

RP/463/2018HC Karnataka21 Dec 2018

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,K.NATARAJAN

…MANEKA GANDHI Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER. 49.(2007) 6 SCC 528: DILIP S. DAHANUKAR Vs. KOTAK MAHINDRA CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER. 367 50.(1987) 3 SCC 544: MADHAV AYAWADANRAO HOSKOT Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA. 51.(2014) 10 SCC 1: MADRAS BAR ASSOCIATION Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER. 52.AIR 1970 SC 192: SHRI. PRITHVI COTTON MILLS LTD, ETC Vs. BROACH BOROUGH MUNICIPALITY AND OTHERS. 53.AIR 1957 SC 628 : R.M.D. CHAMARBAUGWALLA AND ANOTHER Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER. 54.(2017) 9 SCC 1: SHAYARA BANO Vs. UNION OF INDIA A…

The Commisioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Dell International Services

ITA/235/2018HC Karnataka09 Nov 2018

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,BELLUNKE A.S

…MANEKA GANDHI Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER. 49.(2007) 6 SCC 528: DILIP S. DAHANUKAR Vs. KOTAK MAHINDRA CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER. 367 50.(1987) 3 SCC 544: MADHAV AYAWADANRAO HOSKOT Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA. 51.(2014) 10 SCC 1: MADRAS BAR ASSOCIATION Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER. 52.AIR 1970 SC 192: SHRI. PRITHVI COTTON MILLS LTD, ETC Vs. BROACH BOROUGH MUNICIPALITY AND OTHERS. 53.AIR 1957 SC 628 : R.M.D. CHAMARBAUGWALLA AND ANOTHER Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER. 54.(2017) 9 SCC 1: SHAYARA BANO Vs. UNION OF INDIA A…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-6 vs. Menarini Raunaq Pharma Ltd

ITA/1051/2017HC Delhi11 Sept 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

…etitioner that the Delhi University is obligated to respect the privacy rights of students under Article 21 of the Constitution of India xx. Reliance has also been placed on the following paragraph of K.S. Puttaswamy (Privacy-9J.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1 – . Disclosing such information to unrelated third parties would violate these privacy rights, especially in the absence of the student’s consent. “479. Both the learned Attorney General and Shri Sundaram next argued that the right to privacy is so vague and amorphous a concept that it cannot be held to be a fundamental right. This again ne…

ITO 19(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Babulal U Munot, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 4506/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4506/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) The Ito-19(1)(2), Mumbai, बिधम/ Shri Babulal U Munot 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir, Prop. M/S. Steel Samrat Vs. (India) Flat No. 1901-A, 19Th Tardeo Road, Mumbai- 400007 Floor, Shreepati Tower, A Wing, Tatya Gharpure Path, Girgaon Mumbai-04 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aftpm5429H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri T. A. Khan (Dr) Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26.03.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11.05.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 15.05.2015 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -30, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2010- 11. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “(1) Whether, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Restricting The Addition To The Extent Of 7.5% Of Non-Genuine Purchase Claimed By The Assessee A.Y.2010-11

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri T. A. Khan (DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJENDRA, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4506/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) The ITO-19(1)(2), Mumbai, बिधम/ Shri Babulal U Munot 2nd Floor, Matru Mandir, Prop. M/s. Steel Samrat Vs. (India) Flat No. 1901-A, 19th Tardeo Road, Mumbai- 400007 Floor, Shreepati Tower, A Wing, Tatya Gharpure Path, Girgaon Mumbai-04 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AFTPM5429H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue by: Shri T. A. Khan (DR) Assessee by: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing: 26.03.201…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-6 vs. Nokia Solutions & Networks India Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As, Nokia Siemens

ITA/1095/2017HC Delhi04 Dec 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

…etitioner that the Delhi University is obligated to respect the privacy rights of students under Article 21 of the Constitution of India xx. Reliance has also been placed on the following paragraph of K.S. Puttaswamy (Privacy-9J.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1 – . Disclosing such information to unrelated third parties would violate these privacy rights, especially in the absence of the student’s consent. “479. Both the learned Attorney General and Shri Sundaram next argued that the right to privacy is so vague and amorphous a concept that it cannot be held to be a fundamental right. This again ne…

The Pr. Commissioner of vs. M/S. Aol Online India Pvt. Ltd

ITA/433/2017HC Karnataka29 Nov 2017

Bench: L.NARAYANA SWAMY (AG.CJ),P.S.DINESH KUMAR

…MANEKA GANDHI Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER. 49.(2007) 6 SCC 528: DILIP S. DAHANUKAR Vs. KOTAK MAHINDRA CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER. 367 50.(1987) 3 SCC 544: MADHAV AYAWADANRAO HOSKOT Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA. 51.(2014) 10 SCC 1: MADRAS BAR ASSOCIATION Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER. 52.AIR 1970 SC 192: SHRI. PRITHVI COTTON MILLS LTD, ETC Vs. BROACH BOROUGH MUNICIPALITY AND OTHERS. 53.AIR 1957 SC 628 : R.M.D. CHAMARBAUGWALLA AND ANOTHER Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER. 54.(2017) 9 SCC 1: SHAYARA BANO Vs. UNION OF INDIA A…

M/S. Tata Sons Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ACIT Cir2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3745/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2017AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh VyasFor Respondent: Shri P C Chhotaray
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263

…. R.S. Nayak - (1988) 2 SCC 602. (ii) UOI vs. S.K. Kapoor (2011) 4 SCC 589. (iii) UOI vs. Raghubir Singh (1989) 2 SCC 754. (iv) UOI vs. R.P. Singh (2014) 7 SCC 340. ( v) St. of Assam vs. Ripa Sarma (2013) 3 SCC 63. (vi) Official Liquidator vs. Dayanand (2008) 10 SCC 1. (vii) Siddharam Satlingapa Mhetre vs. St. of Maharashtra (2011) 1 SCC 694. 10. The Department has supported the above arguments on the basis of Allahabad High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. British India (337 ITR 64) and contended that a plea of want of jurisdiction could not be raised beyond time stipulated in Section 124. In rebuttal of…

The ACIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Tata Sons Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3658/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2017AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh VyasFor Respondent: Shri P C Chhotaray
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263

…. R.S. Nayak - (1988) 2 SCC 602. (ii) UOI vs. S.K. Kapoor (2011) 4 SCC 589. (iii) UOI vs. Raghubir Singh (1989) 2 SCC 754. (iv) UOI vs. R.P. Singh (2014) 7 SCC 340. ( v) St. of Assam vs. Ripa Sarma (2013) 3 SCC 63. (vi) Official Liquidator vs. Dayanand (2008) 10 SCC 1. (vii) Siddharam Satlingapa Mhetre vs. St. of Maharashtra (2011) 1 SCC 694. 10. The Department has supported the above arguments on the basis of Allahabad High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. British India (337 ITR 64) and contended that a plea of want of jurisdiction could not be raised beyond time stipulated in Section 124. In rebuttal of…

M/S. Tata Sons Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT Cir. 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 193/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2017AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh VyasFor Respondent: Shri P C Chhotaray
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263

…. R.S. Nayak - (1988) 2 SCC 602. (ii) UOI vs. S.K. Kapoor (2011) 4 SCC 589. (iii) UOI vs. Raghubir Singh (1989) 2 SCC 754. (iv) UOI vs. R.P. Singh (2014) 7 SCC 340. ( v) St. of Assam vs. Ripa Sarma (2013) 3 SCC 63. (vi) Official Liquidator vs. Dayanand (2008) 10 SCC 1. (vii) Siddharam Satlingapa Mhetre vs. St. of Maharashtra (2011) 1 SCC 694. 10. The Department has supported the above arguments on the basis of Allahabad High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. British India (337 ITR 64) and contended that a plea of want of jurisdiction could not be raised beyond time stipulated in Section 124. In rebuttal of…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-4 vs. Ge Money Financial Services Pvt. Ltd

ITA/224/2017HC Delhi10 Apr 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 10A(2)(c)

…Page 27 of 118 (viii) Muneer Enterprises Vs. Ramgad Minerals & Mining Ltd., (2015) 5 SCC 366. (ix) State of T.N. Vs. Hind Stone, (1981) 2 SCC 205. (x) Natural Resources Allocation, In re, Special Reference No. 1 of 2012, (2012) 10 SCC 1. (xi) Centre for Public Interest Litigation Vs. Union of India, (2012) 3 SCC 1. (xii) R. Muthukumar Vs. TANGEDCO, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 151. (xiii) Doiwala Sehkari Shram Samvida Samiti Ltd. Vs. State of Uttaranchal, (2007) 11 SCC 641. (xiv) B. Rudragouda Vs. Union of India, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 7736. (xv) A.P. Christain Medical Educational S…

Kiran Navin Doshi, Mumbai vs. ITO -23(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 2601/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Saktijit Deysmt. Kiran Navin Doshi Income Tax Officer-23(2)(4) D-705, Kalp Nagri C-10, Pratyksha Kar Bhavan Vs. B.R. Road, Mulund (W) Bkc, Bandra East Mumbai 400080 Mumbai Pan – Abwpd5848A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Milind Rajguru
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "I" Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Jason P. Boaz, Accountant Member and Shri Saktijit Dey, Judicial Member Smt. Kiran Navin Doshi Income Tax Officer-23(2)(4) D-705, Kalp Nagri C-10, Pratyksha Kar Bhavan Vs. B.R. Road, Mulund (W) BKC, Bandra East Mumbai 400080 Mumbai PAN – ABWPD5848A Appellant Respondent Appellant by: None Respondent by: Shri Milind Rajguru Date of Hearing: 11.01.2017 Date of Pronouncement: 18.01.2017 O R D E R Per Jason P. Boaz, A.M. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A)- 40, Mumbai dated 10.02.2016 for A.Y. 2009-10. 2. The…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central-1) vs. Late Shri Sudhir Sareen

ITA/284/2015HC Delhi06 Jul 2015

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Section 375

…w available under Article 226 of the Constitution or even to the Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution. Therefore, reliance on judgments such as Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 11 or Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 12 which concerns Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 [in short “IT Act”] and Section 377 of the IPC respectively would have no relevance to the instant case. These were judgments where a challenge was laid to a criminalising provision whereas if MRE is struck down, it would result in the exact opposite consequences i.e., end up c…