M.L. Srinivasa Setty & Sons. v. State of Karnataka

193 ITR 548High Court1992#19751 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2019.

Judgments citing M.L. Srinivasa Setty & Sons. v. State of Karnataka

M/S ANNAPOORNESHWARI INVESTMENT,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

ITA 99/BANG/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Apr 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P.Boazassessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Gurunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR)

Section 139(9)Section 144Section 147Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(a)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI JASON P.BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2006-07 M/s. Annapoorneshwari The Deputy Commissioner of Investment, Vs. Income Tax, No. 10/1, Central Circle 2(2), Lakshminarayana Complex, BANGALORE Palace Road, BANGALORE [PAN: AALFA0704E] APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri V.K. Gurunathan, Advocate Respondent by : Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR) (ITAT), Bengaluru Date of hearing : 24-04-2019 Date of Pronouncement : 26-04-2019 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevan, Vice President : This appea…

SMT.SUSHILA DEVI MALU ,KALABURAGI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3 , KALABURAGI

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

ITA 564/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Sreehari Kutsa, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(a)

…removal of such defect, the irregularity stands removed and the status of validity is attached. The Tribunal relied on the following decision in coming to the above conclusion: M.L. Srinivasa Setty & Sons vs. State of Karnataka (1991) 99 CTR (Kar) 77 : (1992) 193 ITR 548 (Kar) and CIT vs. Trehan Enterprises (2001) 168 CTR (J&K) 274 : (2001) 248 ITR 333 (J&K). The Tribunal thereafter observed that appeal filed without paying tax due on returned income is only defective, but not void. Thus, if tax is paid on the income returned, either before or at the time of or after the filing of return, it will be sufficient co…

SHREE GAJANANA INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-11(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed, as above

ITA 6595/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

Section 143(3)Section 249(4)

…essee to the penal provision, then it is mandatory, but if no penal consequences follow on non-fulfilment of the requirement, then usually it is a directory provision. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in ML Srinivasa Shetty & Sons v. State 01 Karnataka [1992] 193 ITR 548 had the occasion to consider the distinction between a mandatory and directory provision. It held : 'In other words, one of the crucial tests to determine whether a particular statutory requirement is mandatory or directory is that the court has to see whether any penal consequences will follow by the non-compliance with a particular statutory re…

SHYAMALA VASUDEVAN,MUMBAI vs. ITO 21(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 6824/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

Section 143(3)Section 249(2)Section 249(4)

…ee to the penal provision, then it is mandatory, but if no penal consequences follow on non- fulfilment of the requirement, then usually it is a directory provision. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in M.L. Srinivasa Shetty & Sons v. State of Karnataka [1992] 193 ITR 548 had the occasion to consider the distinction between a mandatory and directory provision. It held : 'In other words, one of the crucial tests to determine whether a particular statutory requirement is mandatory or directory is that the court has to see whether any penal consequences will by the non-compliance with a particular statutory requireme…