Madhav Prasad Nathuran Pandit v. Mohilal Ramchand Mahesee 30 Bom LR

186 AIR 1928Reported decision#15158 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2022.

Judgments citing Madhav Prasad Nathuran Pandit v. Mohilal Ramchand Mahesee 30 Bom LR

Mumbai Metroplitan Region Development Authority, Mumbai vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

ITA 4395/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh SoparkarFor Respondent: Shri Parag Vyas
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…Assessment Order dated 21.12.2006 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act elaborate discussion was made. Assessing Officer has also referred the relevant case law i.e. Bombay High Court in the case of Madhav Prasad Nathuran Pandit v. Mohilal Ramchand Mahesee 30 Bom LR 186 AIR 1928 Bom 97, 108 I.C. 482 and Madras High Court in the case of R.Venugopala Reddiar v. Krishna Swamy Reddiar [AIR 1971 Mad 262] in the above said assessment order. 6. Similarly, for this assessment year under consideration Assessing Officer denied the exemption claimed u/s. 11 of the Act with the following observation: - “1) Within the meaning of pr…

Mumbai Metroplitan Region Development Authority, Mumbai vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

ITA 4394/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh SoparkarFor Respondent: Shri Parag Vyas
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…Assessment Order dated 21.12.2006 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act elaborate discussion was made. Assessing Officer has also referred the relevant case law i.e. Bombay High Court in the case of Madhav Prasad Nathuran Pandit v. Mohilal Ramchand Mahesee 30 Bom LR 186 AIR 1928 Bom 97, 108 I.C. 482 and Madras High Court in the case of R.Venugopala Reddiar v. Krishna Swamy Reddiar [AIR 1971 Mad 262] in the above said assessment order. 6. Similarly, for this assessment year under consideration Assessing Officer denied the exemption claimed u/s. 11 of the Act with the following observation: - “1) Within the meaning of pr…

Mumbai Metroplitan Region Development Authority, Mumbai vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

ITA 4393/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh SoparkarFor Respondent: Shri Parag Vyas
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…Assessment Order dated 21.12.2006 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act elaborate discussion was made. Assessing Officer has also referred the relevant case law i.e. Bombay High Court in the case of Madhav Prasad Nathuran Pandit v. Mohilal Ramchand Mahesee 30 Bom LR 186 AIR 1928 Bom 97, 108 I.C. 482 and Madras High Court in the case of R.Venugopala Reddiar v. Krishna Swamy Reddiar [AIR 1971 Mad 262] in the above said assessment order. 6. Similarly, for this assessment year under consideration Assessing Officer denied the exemption claimed u/s. 11 of the Act with the following observation: - “1) Within the meaning of pr…

Mumbai Metroplitan Region Development Authority, Mumbai vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

ITA 4392/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh SoparkarFor Respondent: Shri Parag Vyas
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…Assessment Order dated 21.12.2006 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act elaborate discussion was made. Assessing Officer has also referred the relevant case law i.e. Bombay High Court in the case of Madhav Prasad Nathuran Pandit v. Mohilal Ramchand Mahesee 30 Bom LR 186 AIR 1928 Bom 97, 108 I.C. 482 and Madras High Court in the case of R.Venugopala Reddiar v. Krishna Swamy Reddiar [AIR 1971 Mad 262] in the above said assessment order. 6. Similarly, for this assessment year under consideration Assessing Officer denied the exemption claimed u/s. 11 of the Act with the following observation: - “1) Within the meaning of pr…

Mumbai Metroplitan Region Development Authority, Mumbai vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

ITA 4391/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh SoparkarFor Respondent: Shri Parag Vyas
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…Assessment Order dated 21.12.2006 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act elaborate discussion was made. Assessing Officer has also referred the relevant case law i.e. Bombay High Court in the case of Madhav Prasad Nathuran Pandit v. Mohilal Ramchand Mahesee 30 Bom LR 186 AIR 1928 Bom 97, 108 I.C. 482 and Madras High Court in the case of R.Venugopala Reddiar v. Krishna Swamy Reddiar [AIR 1971 Mad 262] in the above said assessment order. 6. Similarly, for this assessment year under consideration Assessing Officer denied the exemption claimed u/s. 11 of the Act with the following observation: - “1) Within the meaning of pr…

Mumbai Metroplitan Region Development Authority, Mumbai vs. DIT (E), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3690/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm Mumbai Metropolitan Vs. Director Of Income Tax Region Development (Exemptions), Mumbai Authority, Plot No. C-14 & 15, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaatm7106R Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 263

…-05. In the assessment Order dated 21.12.2006 u/s. 143(3) of the IT. Act. elaborate discussion was made. The AO has also referred the relevant case laws i.e. Bombay High Court in the case of Madhav Prasad Nathuran Pandit Vs. Mohilal Ramchand Mahesee 30 Bom LR 186 AIR 1928 Bom 97 : 108 I.c.. 482 and Madras High Court in the case of the case of R. Venugopala Reddian Vs. Krishna Swamy Reddiar AIR1971 Mad 262. During this year relevant to the assessment v ear there is also no change in the fact and circumstances of the case of the assessee. Therefore, the assessee's claim of Exemption u/s. 11 of the IT. Act,1961 is d…

Madhav Prasad Nathuran Pandit v. Mohilal Ramchand Mahesee 30 Bom LR (186 AIR 1928) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax