M.M.Muthuwappa v. CIT

46 ITR 1107High Court1962#25054 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,001 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2022.

Judgments citing M.M.Muthuwappa v. CIT

M/S Poddar Finin Consultancy P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-7(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 1860/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1860/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Poddar Finin Consultancy बिधम/ Ito Ward Pvt. Ltd. Maharashtra-410206. Vs. 4A/B, Ground Floor, Tk Industries Estate, Sitaram Palturam Murai Marg, Mumbai- 400015. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagcp3938D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri R. A. Dhyani (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 06.08.2020 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Thane [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1) The Assessment Order Passed By The Id. Assessing Officer (Ao) Is Invalid & Bad In Law. 2) (A) The Id. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)] Erred In Law & Facts In Confirming The Action Of The Ld. Assessing Officer

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani (Sr. AR)
Section 143(2)Section 35DSection 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

…on has been held by various Courts. Some of these decisions which are not elaborated here for the sake of brevity but nevertheless ae relied upon are as under: 1. Naba Kumar Singh Dudhuria 12 ITR 337 (CAL) 2. Sundermal & Co 68 ITR 27/ (AP) 3. HM Muthuwappa 46 ITR 1107 (MAD) 4. Girdhar Javer & Co. 24 ITR 540: p.p. 547 (BOM) 5. Arjan Das 112 ITR 480 (P&H) 6. SR Kalani 120 ITR 163 (MP) ITA. No.1860/Mum/2020 A.Y. 2012-13 8.14 In accordance with detailed discussion in preceding paragraph and placing reliance upon the judgments cited above | am adopting two simple principles for deciding an appeal against un or…

M/S D. D. Infotech, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer -Ward 50(1), Kolkata

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee (i

ITA 31/KOL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.30 & 31/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2007-08 & 2008-09) M/S D.D.Infotech, Vs. Ito, Ward-50(1), Kolkata 79/1, K.N.C.Road, Barasat, North 24 Parganas-700124 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaffd 9070 L .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Suvam Das, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Pinaki Mukharjee, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 21/10/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 28/10/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Above Cited Two Appeals, Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Years 2007-2008 & 2008-09, Are Directed Against The Orders Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Xxxii, Kolkata, In Appeal Nos.33&34/Xxxii/10-11/50(1)/Kol, Dated 17.09.2013, Which In Turn Arise Out Of Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section143(3)/147 Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (In Short The ‘Act’), Dated 08.06.210. 2. The Above Mentioned To Appeals Relate To Same Assessee, Different Assessment Years, Common Issues Involved, Therefore, These Have Been Clubbed & Heard Together & A Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Issue Is That The Ao Has Added A Sum Of Rs.10,30,926/- For Assessment Year 2007-08 & Rs.9,28,440/- For D.D.Infotech

For Appellant: Shri Suvam Das, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pinaki Mukharjee, JCIT
Section 143(3)

…elieved in the remand report of the AO and passed the erroneous order. In addition to this, ld. AR for the assessee relied on the following judgments :- i) Woodhouse Developers Ltd., ITA No.1982/Del/2011, dated 26-10-2012; ii) M.M.Muthuwappa Vs. CIT, [1962] 46 ITR 1107 (Madras) iii) Jitender Gupta, ITA No.3874/Del/2010, order dated 16-12- 2011. D.D.Infotech The sum and substance of the case referred by the ld. AR for the assessee are same, as he has submitted in his explanation before us. Considering the above cited facts and circumstances of the case and the case laws cited by ld. AR of the assessee, we direct…

M/S D. D. Infotech, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer -Ward 50(1), Kolkata

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee (i

ITA 30/KOL/2014[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Oct 2016AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.30 & 31/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2007-08 & 2008-09) M/S D.D.Infotech, Vs. Ito, Ward-50(1), Kolkata 79/1, K.N.C.Road, Barasat, North 24 Parganas-700124 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaffd 9070 L .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Suvam Das, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Pinaki Mukharjee, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 21/10/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 28/10/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Above Cited Two Appeals, Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Years 2007-2008 & 2008-09, Are Directed Against The Orders Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Xxxii, Kolkata, In Appeal Nos.33&34/Xxxii/10-11/50(1)/Kol, Dated 17.09.2013, Which In Turn Arise Out Of Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section143(3)/147 Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (In Short The ‘Act’), Dated 08.06.210. 2. The Above Mentioned To Appeals Relate To Same Assessee, Different Assessment Years, Common Issues Involved, Therefore, These Have Been Clubbed & Heard Together & A Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Issue Is That The Ao Has Added A Sum Of Rs.10,30,926/- For Assessment Year 2007-08 & Rs.9,28,440/- For D.D.Infotech

For Appellant: Shri Suvam Das, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pinaki Mukharjee, JCIT
Section 143(3)

…elieved in the remand report of the AO and passed the erroneous order. In addition to this, ld. AR for the assessee relied on the following judgments :- i) Woodhouse Developers Ltd., ITA No.1982/Del/2011, dated 26-10-2012; ii) M.M.Muthuwappa Vs. CIT, [1962] 46 ITR 1107 (Madras) iii) Jitender Gupta, ITA No.3874/Del/2010, order dated 16-12- 2011. D.D.Infotech The sum and substance of the case referred by the ld. AR for the assessee are same, as he has submitted in his explanation before us. Considering the above cited facts and circumstances of the case and the case laws cited by ld. AR of the assessee, we direct…

M.M.Muthuwappa v. CIT (46 ITR 1107) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax