Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works v. CIT

273 ITR 56Supreme Court of India2005#15516 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2017.

Read the full judgment

Judgments citing Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works v. CIT

H- One India Pvt. Ltd., Uttar Pradesh vs. ACIT (TDS), Noida

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4465/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. K. N. Chary, Jm Ita No. 4464/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 4465/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 H-One India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 12, Udyog Vihar, Surajpur, Tds, Noida Greater Noida, U.P.-201305 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach3032L Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.12.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.12.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Dated 30.06.2016 Of Ld. Cit(A)-I, Noida For The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14. 2. Since, The Issue Involved Is Common In Both These Appeals Which Were Heard Together So These Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. H-One India Pvt. Ltd. 3. During The Course Of Hearing Nobody Was Present On Behalf Of The Assessee. Therefore, The Appeals Are Decided Ex- Parte After Considering The Submissions Of The Ld. Dr.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 194Section 201(1)

…contains reasons. If such order is cryptic and devoid of reasons, the courts H-One India Pvt. Ltd. cannot effectively exercise the power of judicial review." 11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works Vs CIT and another (2005) 273 ITR 56 has held as under: ''Though in an order of affirmation in an appeal u/s 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 repetition of the reasons elaborately may not be necessary, the arguments advanced / points urged have to be dealt with. Reasons for affirmation have to be indicated, though in appropriate cases they may be brief." It has further been held – "Recor…

H- One India Pvt. Ltd., Uttar Pradesh vs. ACIT (TDS), Noida

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4464/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. K. N. Chary, Jm Ita No. 4464/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 4465/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 H-One India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 12, Udyog Vihar, Surajpur, Tds, Noida Greater Noida, U.P.-201305 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach3032L Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.12.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.12.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Dated 30.06.2016 Of Ld. Cit(A)-I, Noida For The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14. 2. Since, The Issue Involved Is Common In Both These Appeals Which Were Heard Together So These Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. H-One India Pvt. Ltd. 3. During The Course Of Hearing Nobody Was Present On Behalf Of The Assessee. Therefore, The Appeals Are Decided Ex- Parte After Considering The Submissions Of The Ld. Dr.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 194Section 201(1)

…contains reasons. If such order is cryptic and devoid of reasons, the courts H-One India Pvt. Ltd. cannot effectively exercise the power of judicial review." 11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works Vs CIT and another (2005) 273 ITR 56 has held as under: ''Though in an order of affirmation in an appeal u/s 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 repetition of the reasons elaborately may not be necessary, the arguments advanced / points urged have to be dealt with. Reasons for affirmation have to be indicated, though in appropriate cases they may be brief." It has further been held – "Recor…

The Nagarbail Salt-Owners vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax

RP/100038/2016HC Karnataka06 Sept 2016

Bench: H.BILLAPPA,P.S.DINESH KUMAR

Section 114Section 260Section 260A(5)

…ion/s of law by the Court. 4. He placed reliance on the following judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in support of his contention and prayed for allowing these review petitions. 1. M.Janardhan Rao vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax reported in (2005) 273 ITR 56 (SC): (2005) 2 SCC 324; 2. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. reported in (2015) 377 ITR 112 (SC) 5. Per contra, Shri Y.V.Raviraj, learned standing Counsel for the Revenue submitted that this Court has indeed referred to a substantial question of law raised by the Revenue and answered the same in its favour after adverting to var…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Pepsico (India) Holding Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 945/DEL/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2015AY 2002-03

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita No. 834/Del/2010 : Asstt. Year : 2002-03 Pepsico India Housing Pvt. Ltd. Vs Addl. Commissioner Of Income L.G.F 54, World Trade Centre, Tax, Range-14, C.R Building, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp1272G

For Appellant: Sh. Vishal Kalra, Adv. & Sh. Amit Bablani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Jain, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 35DSection 37(1)

…se, since no recorded reasons were provided to the appellant before referring the matter to the TPO for the determination of arm’s length price, such a reference is not tenable in law. The Apex Court in a recent judgment in Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works Vs CIT 273 ITR 56 provided that failure to give reasons on issues arising in the course of proceedings before the Revenue authorities would tantamount to denial of justice.” 18. However, the ld. CIT(A) by following the decision of the ITAT Bangalore Special Bench in the case of M/s Aztec Software & Technology Services Ltd. Vs ACIT, Circle- 11(1), Bangalore in ITA N…

Pepsico India Holdings (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

ITA 834/DEL/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2015AY 2002-03

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita No. 834/Del/2010 : Asstt. Year : 2002-03 Pepsico India Housing Pvt. Ltd. Vs Addl. Commissioner Of Income L.G.F 54, World Trade Centre, Tax, Range-14, C.R Building, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp1272G

For Appellant: Sh. Vishal Kalra, Adv. & Sh. Amit Bablani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Jain, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 35DSection 37(1)

…se, since no recorded reasons were provided to the appellant before referring the matter to the TPO for the determination of arm’s length price, such a reference is not tenable in law. The Apex Court in a recent judgment in Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works Vs CIT 273 ITR 56 provided that failure to give reasons on issues arising in the course of proceedings before the Revenue authorities would tantamount to denial of justice.” 18. However, the ld. CIT(A) by following the decision of the ITAT Bangalore Special Bench in the case of M/s Aztec Software & Technology Services Ltd. Vs ACIT, Circle- 11(1), Bangalore in ITA N…

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. M/s. Meghadoot Drillers

ITTA/473/2011HC Telangana31 Jan 2012
Section 133ASection 139Section 145(3)Section 147

…se in (3 of 7) [ITA-473/2011] confirming the order of CIT(A) by giving no independent reasons in support of its affirmation and therefore the order is perverse in view of the Apex Court judgment in the case of Manglore Ganesh Bidi, reported in 273 ITR 56?” 3. However, in subsequent year for the same assessee, this Court in the case of The Commissioner of Income Tax, Alwar vs. M/s Supreme Cylinders Ltd. A-146, Industrial Area, Bhiwadi in Tax Appeal No. 67/2012 decided on 14th September, 2016, has held as under:- “4. Counsel for the appellant has taken us through the provisions of Section 147 & 148…

Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works v. CIT (273 ITR 56) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax