MALPE VISHWANATH ACHARYA AND OTHERS v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER. 365 32

9 SCC 1Supreme Court of India2018#121 most cited
532

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2006 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 144Section 37(1)Section 133(6)Section 201Section 201(1A)Section 44AB

Issues it is cited on

section 264asection 44aasection 264section 192section 17section 251(1)section 251(1)(a)assessee in defaultsection 201(1)section 251section 201section 44ab

Judgments citing MALPE VISHWANATH ACHARYA AND OTHERS v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER. 365 32

Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 12(1), Pune vs. M/S. Yash Associates, Pune

ITA 159/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.159/Pun/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Income Tax Officer, M/S.Yash Associates, 401, 4Th Floor, Shreepal Ward-12(1), Pune. Vs . Chambers, 481/C, Shanivar Peth, Pune – 411030. Pan: Aaafy 6149 E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Cross Objection No.01/Pun/2022 (Arising Out Of Ita No.159/Pun/2018) िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Income Tax Officer, M/S.Yash Associates, 401, 4Th Floor, Shreepal Ward-12(1), Pune. Vs. Chambers, 481/C, Shanivar Peth, Pune – 411030. Pan: Aaafy 6149 E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Rajiv Thakkar – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 11/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 05/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Revenue’S Appeal Ita No.159/Pun/218 With Assessee’S Cross Objection Co No.01/Pun/2022 For The A.Y. 2014-15, Arise Against The Cit(A)-8, Pune’S Order Dated 17.10.2017 Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-8/Acit Cir-12/293/2017-18/284, In Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Heard Both The Parties. Case Files Perused.

Section 143(3)Section 80I

…n, we adopt stricter interpretation in light of the foregoing non-obstante provision and reject the assessee’s contentions as per of hon’ble apex court’s recent decision in CIT Vs. Calcutta Knitwears, Ludhiana [2014] 6 SCC 444 (SC), CCE Vs. Dilip Kumar [2018] 9 SCC 1 (SC) (FB) and PCIT Vs. Wipro Ltd. [2022] 140 taxmann.com 223 (SC). 7. Learned counsel at this stage once again reiterated his vehement contentions in light of section 115JC read with sec 115JD(1) of the Act(supra). He could hardly rebut the fact that ITA No.159/PUN/2018 & C.O.No.01/PUN/2022 Yash Associates, Pune section 115JC(1) carries an overridi…

Poonawalla Shares & Securities Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Wealth-Tax, Circle-4, Pune

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 380/PUN/2020[2016/17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jul 2022

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.380/Pun/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Poonawalla Shares & Securities The Assistant Pvt. Ltd., Vs Commissioner Of Income 16-B,/1, Sarosh Bhavan, Tax, Dr.Ambedkar Road, Circle-4, Pune. Pune – 411001 Pan: Aaacp 6087 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Percy Pardiwala – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 08/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2016-17 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Pune’S Order Dated 11.12.2019 Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-3/Cir 4/193/2018-19/428, In Proceedings U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

Section 143(3)Section 14A

….आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “बी” "ायपीठ पुणे म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीलसं. / ITA No.380/PUN/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Poonawalla Shares & Securities The Assistant Pvt. Ltd., Vs Commissioner of Income 16-B,/1, Sarosh Bhavan, Tax, Dr.Ambedkar Road, Circle-4, Pune. Pune – 411001 PAN: AAACP 6087 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee by Shri Percy Pardiwala – AR Revenue by Shri M.G.Jasnani – DR Date of hearing 08/07/2022 Date of pronouncement 29/07/2022 आदेश/ ORDER Per S.S.…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Kolkata vs. M/S V2 Retail Ltd

ITAT/18/2020HC Calcutta28 Jul 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK

…and to support such contention, reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme court in Kanachur Islamic Education Trust (R) Versus Union of India (UOI) and Others 48. 47 (2020) 9 SCC 1 48 (2017) 15 SCC 702 (APO NOS. 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96 AND 98 OF 2020) REPORTABLE Page 126 of 300 47. Mr. Shyam Divan, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant in APO No. 95 of 2020, Birla Corporation Limited submitted that the company is a public limited company, it is listed in BSE and NSE and…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Kolkata vs. M/S. Jagannath Banwarilal Texofabs Pvt Ltd

ITAT/9/2020HC Calcutta27 Jul 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK

…and to support such contention, reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme court in Kanachur Islamic Education Trust (R) Versus Union of India (UOI) and Others 48. 47 (2020) 9 SCC 1 48 (2017) 15 SCC 702 (APO NOS. 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96 AND 98 OF 2020) REPORTABLE Page 126 of 300 47. Mr. Shyam Divan, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant in APO No. 95 of 2020, Birla Corporation Limited submitted that the company is a public limited company, it is listed in BSE and NSE and…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Kolkata vs. M/S. J.J.Exporters Ltd

ITAT/5/2020HC Calcutta26 Jul 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK

…and to support such contention, reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme court in Kanachur Islamic Education Trust (R) Versus Union of India (UOI) and Others 48. 47 (2020) 9 SCC 1 48 (2017) 15 SCC 702 (APO NOS. 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96 AND 98 OF 2020) REPORTABLE Page 126 of 300 47. Mr. Shyam Divan, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant in APO No. 95 of 2020, Birla Corporation Limited submitted that the company is a public limited company, it is listed in BSE and NSE and…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-5, Kolkata vs. L D S City Projects Pvt Ltd

ITAT/3/2020HC Calcutta21 Jul 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK

…and to support such contention, reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme court in Kanachur Islamic Education Trust (R) Versus Union of India (UOI) and Others 48. 47 (2020) 9 SCC 1 48 (2017) 15 SCC 702 (APO NOS. 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96 AND 98 OF 2020) REPORTABLE Page 126 of 300 47. Mr. Shyam Divan, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant in APO No. 95 of 2020, Birla Corporation Limited submitted that the company is a public limited company, it is listed in BSE and NSE and…

Mr. ADIT Rathi, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 13(1), Pune

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 411/PUN/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jul 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 54B

…incorporated that the lands re-purchased in section 54B deduction claim have to be agricultural on the date of re-investment as is sought to be projected at the Revenue’s behest. We thus adopt stricter interpretation Commissioner Vs. Dilip Kumar & Co. (2018) 9 SCC 1 (FB)(SC) to hold that both the learned lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in disallowing the assessee’s section 54B deduction claim. The same stands deleted. 5. No other grounds have been raised or pressed before us. 6. Delay of 70 days in filing is condoned since falling in Covid 19 Pandemic Outbreak period. 4 Adit Rathi A.Y. 2012-1…

Sigma Aldrich Chemicals Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, grounds 22 to 22

ITA 596/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.418/Bang/2015 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 It(Tp)A No.596/Bang/2016 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 M/S.Sigma Aldrich Chemicals The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, No.12, Income-Tax, Circle 6(1)(1) V. Bangalore. Bommasandra-Jagani Link Road, Bommasandra Industrial Area Bangalore – 560 100. Pan : Aahcs1882L. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Tata Krishna, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 11.07.2022 Date Of Hearing : 07.07.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Final Assessment Order Dated 19.01.2015 & 28.01.2016 For Assessment Years 2010-2011 & 2011- 2012, Respectively. Common Issues Are Raised In These Appeals, Hence, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Sri.Tata Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-DR
Section 153Section 153BSection 92C

…92CA(3A) and incidentally under Section] 53. On the applicability of the General Clauses Act, it is relevant to point out the ratio laid down in the Constitutional Bench Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commr. of Customs v. Dilip Kumar & Co., [(2018) 9 SCC 1 : 2018 see OnLine se 747], which reads as under:- "17. In doing so, the principles of interpretation have been evolved in common law. 11 has also been the practice for the appropriate legislative body to enact the Interpretation Acts or the General Clauses Act. In a11 the Acts and Regulations, made either by Parliament or Legislature, the words and p…

Sigma Aldrich Chemicals Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, grounds 22 to 22

ITA 418/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.418/Bang/2015 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 It(Tp)A No.596/Bang/2016 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 M/S.Sigma Aldrich Chemicals The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, No.12, Income-Tax, Circle 6(1)(1) V. Bangalore. Bommasandra-Jagani Link Road, Bommasandra Industrial Area Bangalore – 560 100. Pan : Aahcs1882L. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Tata Krishna, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 11.07.2022 Date Of Hearing : 07.07.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Final Assessment Order Dated 19.01.2015 & 28.01.2016 For Assessment Years 2010-2011 & 2011- 2012, Respectively. Common Issues Are Raised In These Appeals, Hence, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Sri.Tata Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-DR
Section 153Section 153BSection 92C

…92CA(3A) and incidentally under Section] 53. On the applicability of the General Clauses Act, it is relevant to point out the ratio laid down in the Constitutional Bench Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commr. of Customs v. Dilip Kumar & Co., [(2018) 9 SCC 1 : 2018 see OnLine se 747], which reads as under:- "17. In doing so, the principles of interpretation have been evolved in common law. 11 has also been the practice for the appropriate legislative body to enact the Interpretation Acts or the General Clauses Act. In a11 the Acts and Regulations, made either by Parliament or Legislature, the words and p…

Commissioner of Central Excise Raipur vs. M/S Sepco Electric Power Construction Corporation

C.A. No.-004928 - 2018Supreme Court11 Jul 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

Section 65Section 73Section 75Section 76Section 77Section 78

…s not encompass strict literalism 4 into its fold. This could result in ignoring an important aspect that is “apparent legislative intent”. It is submitted that in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai v. Dilip Kumar & Co., (2018) 9 SCC 1 (para 28), this Court has held and observed that ‘strict interpretation’ does not encompass such literalism, which lead to absurdity and go against the legislative intent. It is submitted that if literalism is at the far end of the spectrum, wherein it accepts no implications or inferences, then strict interpretation can be impli…

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax III, Bangalore vs. M/S Wipro Limited

C.A. No.-001449-001449 - 2022Supreme Court11 Jul 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

Section 10BSection 139(1)Section 72

…terpretation. Reliance is placed on the judgments of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax-III v. Calcutta Knitwears, Ludhiana (2014) 6 SCC 444 and Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai v. Dilip Kumar and Company and others (2018) 9 SCC 1. 3.10 Making the above submissions and relying upon the aforesaid decisions, it is prayed to allow the present appeal. 4. The present appeal is vehemently opposed by Shri S. Ganesh, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent – assessee. 4.1 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee has submitted that the…

Bhupendra Nath Pandey, Varanasi vs. ACIT, R - 03, Varanasi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is in ITA No

ITA 31/VNS/2021[2018-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi07 Jul 2022AY 2018-2016

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2018-19 Bhupendra Nath Pandey Assistant Director Of Income 6-159/27, Kashi Enclave V. Tax (Cpc), Centralized Colony, Pahadiya Sarnath, Processing Center , Varanasi-221007, U.P. Bengaluru-560500 (The Acit, Range-3, Varanasi, U.P.) Pan:Ajfpp1273J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak K Gujarati, CAFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…f the statute. There is no equity in tax laws and exemption/deduction provisions are to be strictly construed. The decision of Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Imports) v. Dilip Kumar & Co. reported in (2018) 9 SCC 1 and decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramnath& Co. v. CIT reported in (2020) 116 taxmann.com 885(SC)(refer para 17 to 20) are relavant . Admittedly , in the instant case the aforesaid sum of Rs. 6,31,788/- being employee contribution towards PF was not deposited by assessee to the credit of employees with PF Funds within due date presc…

Utkarsh Small Finance Bank Ltd., Varanasi vs. National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is in ITA No

ITA 29/VNS/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi07 Jul 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Utkarsh Small Finance National E-Assessment Centre, Bank Limited V. Delhi S-24/1-2, First Floor, Mahavir Nagar, Orderly Bazar, Near Mahavir Mandir, Varanasi- 221001, U.P. Pan:Aabcu9355J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Nikhil Tiwari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

…f the statute. There is no equity in tax laws and exemption/deduction provisions are to be strictly construed. The decision of Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Imports) v. Dilip Kumar & Co. reported in (2018) 9 SCC 1 and decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramnath& Co. v. CIT reported in (2020) 116 taxmann.com 885(SC)(refer para 17 to 20) are relavant . Admittedly , in the instant case the aforesaid sum of Rs. 6,31,788/- being employee contribution towards PF was not deposited by assessee to the credit of employees with PF Funds within due date presc…

Lawkush Sharma, Sonebhadra vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3 (5), Sonebhadra

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is in ITA No

ITA 23/VNS/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi07 Jul 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2018-19 Lawkush Sharma Assistant Director Of Income 14-495, V.V. Colony, V. Tax (Cpc), Centralized Shakti Nagar, Sonebhadra- Processing Center , 231222, U.P. Bengaluru-560500 Pan:Artps9822Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. K.R.Tiwari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…ws and exemption/deduction provisions are to be strictly construed. The decision of Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Imports) v. Dilip Kumar & Co. reported in 30 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Lawkush Sharma (2018) 9 SCC 1 and decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramnath& Co. v. CIT reported in (2020) 116 taxmann.com 885(SC)(refer para 17 to 20) are relavant . Admittedly , in the instant case the aforesaid sum of Rs. 6,31,788/- being employee contribution towards PF was not deposited by assessee to the credit of employees with PF Funds within due date presc…

M/S Rugs Mart, Varanasi vs. DCIT, Circle - 03, Varanasi

In the result, appeal filed by the assesseeis in ITA No

ITA 21/VNS/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi07 Jul 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2018-19 Rugs Mart Deputy Commissioner Of Barhi Ewada V. Income Tax (Cpc), Centralized District Varanasi-221207 Processing Center , U.P. Bengaluru-560500 (The Dcit , Circle-3, Varanasi, U.P.) Pan:Aalfr4883R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. R.K.N.Jaiswal,AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…ax laws and exemption/deduction provisions are to be strictly construed. The decision of Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Imports) v. Dilip Kumar & Co. reported in 30 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Rugs Mart (2018) 9 SCC 1 and decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramnath& Co. v. CIT reported in (2020) 116 taxmann.com 885(SC)(refer para 17 to 20) are relavant . Admittedly , in the instant case the aforesaid sum of Rs. 6,31,788/- being employee contribution towards PF was not deposited by assessee to the credit of employees with PF Funds within due date presc…

M/S Unisys India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, grounds 10 and 11 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2096/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Aliasger Rampurwala, CAFor Respondent: Dr.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR
Section 153Section 153BSection 92C

…92CA(3A) and incidentally under Section] 53. On the applicability of the General Clauses Act, it is relevant to point out the ratio laid down in the Constitutional Bench Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commr. of Customs v. Dilip Kumar & Co., [(2018) 9 SCC 1 : 2018 see OnLine se 747], which reads as under:- "17. In doing so, the principles of interpretation have been evolved in common law. 11 has also been the practice for the appropriate legislative body to enact the Interpretation Acts or the General Clauses Act. In a11 the Acts and Regulations, made either by Parliament or Legislature, the words and…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S. Unisys India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, grounds 10 and 11 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2025/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Aliasger Rampurwala, CAFor Respondent: Dr.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR
Section 153Section 153BSection 92C

…92CA(3A) and incidentally under Section] 53. On the applicability of the General Clauses Act, it is relevant to point out the ratio laid down in the Constitutional Bench Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commr. of Customs v. Dilip Kumar & Co., [(2018) 9 SCC 1 : 2018 see OnLine se 747], which reads as under:- "17. In doing so, the principles of interpretation have been evolved in common law. 11 has also been the practice for the appropriate legislative body to enact the Interpretation Acts or the General Clauses Act. In a11 the Acts and Regulations, made either by Parliament or Legislature, the words and…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Asansol Kolkata vs. Rajesh Jhunjhunwala

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/26/2021HC Calcutta14 Jun 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

…nswer. The correct question that the learned Tribunal should have asked itself is whether the assessee was prejudiced on account of non-supply of the investigation 26 (2016) 6 SCC 368 27 (2018) 9 SCC 1 ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 35 of 150 report. To explain the test of prejudice or the test of fair hearing. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SBI Versus S K Sharma 28. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SBI Versus M.J. James for the same proposition that pr…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-5, Kolkata vs. Shri Mahendra Kumar Periwal

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/136/2021HC Calcutta14 Jun 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

…nswer. The correct question that the learned Tribunal should have asked itself is whether the assessee was prejudiced on account of non-supply of the investigation 26 (2016) 6 SCC 368 27 (2018) 9 SCC 1 ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 35 of 150 report. To explain the test of prejudice or the test of fair hearing. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SBI Versus S K Sharma 28. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SBI Versus M.J. James for the same proposition that pr…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Siliguri vs. Sri Satya Narayan Saria

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/168/2021HC Calcutta14 Jun 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

…nswer. The correct question that the learned Tribunal should have asked itself is whether the assessee was prejudiced on account of non-supply of the investigation 26 (2016) 6 SCC 368 27 (2018) 9 SCC 1 ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 35 of 150 report. To explain the test of prejudice or the test of fair hearing. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SBI Versus S K Sharma 28. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SBI Versus M.J. James for the same proposition that pr…