Kutihar Jute Mills (P.) Ltd. v. CAT

120 ITR 861High Court1979#12112 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 115JBSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 254Section 271(1)(c)Section 32

Judgments citing Kutihar Jute Mills (P.) Ltd. v. CAT

RIO TINTO INDIA PVT. LTD. ,HARYANA vs. ACIT CIRCLE 19(1), DELHI

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

ITA 2021/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2011-12
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 254Section 92C

…nt Year 2008-09. In this appeal also, the similar direction was given and remitted the issue back to the file of Assessing Rio Tinto India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO Officer. In this regard, he relied on the decision of Kaithar Jute Mills (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT, [1979] 120 ITR 861 (Calcutta). 7. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record, we observed that the issue under consideration is payment of lease rent and the Assessing Officer has considered the type of lease as finance lease. In this regard, there are several conflicting decisions from the various Court. The issue under consideration is elab…

M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., UNIT SATNA CEMENT WORKS,SATNA vs. ITO (IT & TP), BHOPAL

In the result, Assessee’s appeals

ITA 34/IND/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

Section 143(3)Section 5(2)(b)

…f the proceedings in contradiction to the findings given by the Tribunal. 3. Attention in this regard, is craved to the following decisions: • The Decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in KatiharJuteMills (P.) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, [1979] 120 ITR 861 (CAL.) wherein the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court has held as follows: “In the case before us, if the entire assessment order had been set aside, the contention of Mr. J.C. Paul would have been unassailable but unfortunately the fact is not so. There was no dispute with regard to the assessability of the sale proceeds of the loom hours at any…

M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., UNIT SATNA CEMENT WORKS,SATNA vs. ITO (IT & TP), BHOPAL

In the result, Assessee’s appeals

ITA 33/IND/2020[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Indore28 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

Section 143(3)Section 5(2)(b)

…f the proceedings in contradiction to the findings given by the Tribunal. 3. Attention in this regard, is craved to the following decisions: • The Decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in KatiharJuteMills (P.) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, [1979] 120 ITR 861 (CAL.) wherein the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court has held as follows: “In the case before us, if the entire assessment order had been set aside, the contention of Mr. J.C. Paul would have been unassailable but unfortunately the fact is not so. There was no dispute with regard to the assessability of the sale proceeds of the loom hours at any…

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA vs. SHRI SAROJ KUMAR PODDAR, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as not maintainable

ITA 2406/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble]

Section 250

…considered nor can the scope of proceedings be enlarged. For this proposition, rel proceedings be enlarged. For this proposition, reliance was placed on the following iance was placed on the following decisions:- a) Katihar Jute Mills (P) Ltd. vs. CIT [1979] 120 ITR 861 (Cal.) Katihar Jute Mills (P) Ltd. vs. CIT [1979] 120 ITR 861 (Cal.) I.T.A. No. 2406/Kol/201 I.T.A. No. 2406/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Saroj Kumar Poddar Shri Saroj Kumar Poddar b) CIT vs. Indo-Aden Salt Works Co. reported at (1959) 36 ITR 0429 (Bom.) Aden Salt Works Co. reported at (1959) 36 ITR 0429 (Bom.) Aden Salt Works Co. re…

SONI SONU MIRCHANDANI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-5, NEW DELHI

In the result, Ground Nos

ITA 1286/DEL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Sept 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Ms. Deepashree Rao, C.A. And Shri Vibhu Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Shyam Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “G” : DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.1286/Del./2020 Assessment Year 2009-2010 Smt. Soni Sonu Mirchandani, F-166, The ACIT, [vs. Malcha Marg, Central Circle-5, New Delhi – 110 021. New Delhi. PAN AAQPM7786H (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate, Shri Rohit Jain, Advocatee, For Assessee : Ms. Deepashree Rao, C.A. And Shri Vibhu Gupta, C.A. For Revenue : Shri Shyam Anuragi, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 01.09.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 28.09.2020 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M.…

M/S CHITRAKALA INVESTMENT TRADE & BUSINESS FINANCE LTD.,,MANIPAL vs. DCIT, UDUPI

In the result, the appeals filed by all the assessees are dismissed

ITA 1324/BANG/2012[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 May 2017AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava1. 2. 3. 1. M/S.Mangala Investments Ltd. Syndicate House, Manipal-576 104. Pan: Aaacm 8838 R 2. M/S.Sea Rock Investments Ltd., Syndicate House, Manipal-576104. Pan:Aaccs 4700 N 3. M/S.Chitrakala Investments Trade & Business Finance Ltd. Syndicate House, Manipal-576104. Pan: Aaacc 7246 H ... Appellant Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Udupi. ... Respondent Assessees By : Ms. Prathibha, Advocate. Respondent : Dr.Shakir Hussain, Cit(A) Date Of Hearing : 30/01/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/05/2017 O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : These Are Appeals Filed By Three Assessees Against Identical Orders Of The Cit(A), Mysore, For The Assessment Year 1996-97. Ita Nos.1322 To 1324/Bang/2012 Page 2 Of 14 2. Since In All These Appeals Common Issues Are Involved, We Propose To Dispose Of The Same Vide This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Respondent: Dr.Shakir Hussain, CIT(A)
Section 2(47)

…jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer after the appellate order was confined' to passing the order with a view to give effect to the appellate order. The matter received the consideration of the said court again in Kutihar Jute Mills (P.) Ltd. v. CAT [1979] 120 ITR 861 (Cal) and it was held that where the entire assessment was not set aside by the appellate authority and only a part was set aside, against which an appeal was preferred and where there is specific direction to reconsider that part only, the Income-tax Officer would not be entitled to reopen the entire assessment. According to the court, the appel…

M/S SEA ROCK INVESTMENTS LTD.,,MANIPAL vs. DCIT, UDUPI

In the result, the appeals filed by all the assessees are dismissed

ITA 1323/BANG/2012[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 May 2017AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava1. 2. 3. 1. M/S.Mangala Investments Ltd. Syndicate House, Manipal-576 104. Pan: Aaacm 8838 R 2. M/S.Sea Rock Investments Ltd., Syndicate House, Manipal-576104. Pan:Aaccs 4700 N 3. M/S.Chitrakala Investments Trade & Business Finance Ltd. Syndicate House, Manipal-576104. Pan: Aaacc 7246 H ... Appellant Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Udupi. ... Respondent Assessees By : Ms. Prathibha, Advocate. Respondent : Dr.Shakir Hussain, Cit(A) Date Of Hearing : 30/01/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/05/2017 O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : These Are Appeals Filed By Three Assessees Against Identical Orders Of The Cit(A), Mysore, For The Assessment Year 1996-97. Ita Nos.1322 To 1324/Bang/2012 Page 2 Of 14 2. Since In All These Appeals Common Issues Are Involved, We Propose To Dispose Of The Same Vide This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Respondent: Dr.Shakir Hussain, CIT(A)
Section 2(47)

…jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer after the appellate order was confined' to passing the order with a view to give effect to the appellate order. The matter received the consideration of the said court again in Kutihar Jute Mills (P.) Ltd. v. CAT [1979] 120 ITR 861 (Cal) and it was held that where the entire assessment was not set aside by the appellate authority and only a part was set aside, against which an appeal was preferred and where there is specific direction to reconsider that part only, the Income-tax Officer would not be entitled to reopen the entire assessment. According to the court, the appel…

M/S MANGALA INVESTMENTS LTD.,,MANIPAL vs. DCIT, UDUPI

In the result, the appeals filed by all the assessees are dismissed

ITA 1322/BANG/2012[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 May 2017AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava1. 2. 3. 1. M/S.Mangala Investments Ltd. Syndicate House, Manipal-576 104. Pan: Aaacm 8838 R 2. M/S.Sea Rock Investments Ltd., Syndicate House, Manipal-576104. Pan:Aaccs 4700 N 3. M/S.Chitrakala Investments Trade & Business Finance Ltd. Syndicate House, Manipal-576104. Pan: Aaacc 7246 H ... Appellant Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Udupi. ... Respondent Assessees By : Ms. Prathibha, Advocate. Respondent : Dr.Shakir Hussain, Cit(A) Date Of Hearing : 30/01/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/05/2017 O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : These Are Appeals Filed By Three Assessees Against Identical Orders Of The Cit(A), Mysore, For The Assessment Year 1996-97. Ita Nos.1322 To 1324/Bang/2012 Page 2 Of 14 2. Since In All These Appeals Common Issues Are Involved, We Propose To Dispose Of The Same Vide This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Respondent: Dr.Shakir Hussain, CIT(A)
Section 2(47)

…jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer after the appellate order was confined' to passing the order with a view to give effect to the appellate order. The matter received the consideration of the said court again in Kutihar Jute Mills (P.) Ltd. v. CAT [1979] 120 ITR 861 (Cal) and it was held that where the entire assessment was not set aside by the appellate authority and only a part was set aside, against which an appeal was preferred and where there is specific direction to reconsider that part only, the Income-tax Officer would not be entitled to reopen the entire assessment. According to the court, the appel…

Kutihar Jute Mills (P.) Ltd. v. CAT (120 ITR 861) — Cited in 8 Judgments | BharatTax