M/s. H.P. State Forest Corporation Ltd. v. CIT

267 ITR 285High Court2004#17455 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2023.

Judgments citing M/s. H.P. State Forest Corporation Ltd. v. CIT

B.H.Kothari, Rep by L/H Nina B.Kothari, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3543/CHNY/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 3542 & 3543/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2006-07 & 2007-08 The Estate Of (Late) Shri B.H. The Dcit, Kothari, V. Corporate Circle 4(2), Rep. By Legal Heir Smt. Nina Chennai – 34. Kothari, No.18, Kothari Bagh, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Agjpk 7393K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.06.2023

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…AO nor before the CIT(A). Hence, the additional ground raised by the assessee is not acceptable. I.T.A. Nos.3542 & 3543/Chny/2018 9 (v) As per the decision of Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of M/s. H.P. State Forest Corporation Ltd. Vs CIT (267 ITR 285) has held that “whether notice mentioned that it was being issued under clause (a) or clause (aa) of Sec.273(2) in as much as after issuance of the notice, the assessee having full knowledge, participated in proceedings and ultimate order of imposition of penalty was passed after affording an opportunity to assessee of being heard, the levy of pe…

B.H.Kothari, Rep by L/H Nina B.Kothari, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3542/CHNY/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 3542 & 3543/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2006-07 & 2007-08 The Estate Of (Late) Shri B.H. The Dcit, Kothari, V. Corporate Circle 4(2), Rep. By Legal Heir Smt. Nina Chennai – 34. Kothari, No.18, Kothari Bagh, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Agjpk 7393K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.06.2023

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…AO nor before the CIT(A). Hence, the additional ground raised by the assessee is not acceptable. I.T.A. Nos.3542 & 3543/Chny/2018 9 (v) As per the decision of Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of M/s. H.P. State Forest Corporation Ltd. Vs CIT (267 ITR 285) has held that “whether notice mentioned that it was being issued under clause (a) or clause (aa) of Sec.273(2) in as much as after issuance of the notice, the assessee having full knowledge, participated in proceedings and ultimate order of imposition of penalty was passed after affording an opportunity to assessee of being heard, the levy of pe…

DCIT Central Circle-29, New Delhi vs. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Revenue, are dismissed

ITA 162/DEL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasada N D Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Satyajit GoelFor Respondent: [CIT] – D. R
Section 144Section 144C(4)Section 271(1)(c)

…I.T.A. Nos. 162 & 161/Del/2021 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH “H” : DELHI ] BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER A N D SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A. Nos. 162 & 161/Del/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s. Dharampal Satyapal DCIT, Limited, बनाम 98, Okhla Industrial Vs. Central Circle : 29, Estate, New Delhi – 110 020. New Delhi. PAN No. AAACD0132H अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ" / Respondent िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee by : Shri Satyajit Goel, C. A.; Ms. Sapna Bhatia, राज"वक"ओरसे / Department by : [CIT] – D. R.; 10/04/20223 सुनवाईक"तारीख/…

DCIT Central Circle-29, New Delhi vs. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Revenue, are dismissed

ITA 161/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasada N D Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Satyajit GoelFor Respondent: [CIT] – D. R
Section 144Section 144C(4)Section 271(1)(c)

…I.T.A. Nos. 162 & 161/Del/2021 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH “H” : DELHI ] BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER A N D SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A. Nos. 162 & 161/Del/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s. Dharampal Satyapal DCIT, Limited, बनाम 98, Okhla Industrial Vs. Central Circle : 29, Estate, New Delhi – 110 020. New Delhi. PAN No. AAACD0132H अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ" / Respondent िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee by : Shri Satyajit Goel, C. A.; Ms. Sapna Bhatia, राज"वक"ओरसे / Department by : [CIT] – D. R.; 10/04/20223 सुनवाईक"तारीख/…

Sh. Maninder Singh Prop. M/S Dashmesh Bricks, Bathinda vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Bathinda

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 440/ASR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar28 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A No.440/Asr/2017 Assessment Year:2011-12

For Appellant: Written SubmissionsFor Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R)
Section 268ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69A

…e either under the 1922 Act or prior to the insertion of section 292B on the statute-book w.e.f. 1/10/1975 saving any omission in the notice. Further, reference in this context may also be made to decisions in H. P. State Forest Corporation Ltd. v. CIT [2004] 267 ITR 285 (HP) and CIT v. Maharaj Krishnan [2000] 246 ITR 327 (Del), rendered without noticing s. 292B. That substance is to prevail over form is even otherwise trite law. The decision by the Hon’ble High Court in SSA’s Emrald Meadows’ case, which stands not interfered with by the Apex Court by dismissing the Revenue’s SLP, is rendered following the decisi…

M/s. H.P. State Forest Corporation Ltd. v. CIT (267 ITR 285) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax