Manindra Nath Chatterjee vs. Collector of Central Excise & Another Dr. B.G. Memoriala Trust v. CIT(Ex) Kol. Page 8

40 STC 278Reported decision1977#17859 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2021.

Judgments citing Manindra Nath Chatterjee vs. Collector of Central Excise & Another Dr. B.G. Memoriala Trust v. CIT(Ex) Kol. Page 8

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S. Ptl Enterprises Limited

ITA/15/2017HC Kerala23 Jul 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

…s which are quasi-judicial proceedings all that the court has to see is whether the assessee has been given a fair hearing. Whether the hearing would extend to the right of demanding cross-examination of witnesses or not would naturally depend upon 2 (1977) 40 STC 278 (FB) ST.REV NO.13 OF 2016 & CON. CASES -25- the nature of the materials relied upon by the sales tax authorities, the manner in which the assessee can rebut those materials and the facts and circumstances of each case. It is difficult to lay down any hard and fast rule of universal application." 21. Adverting to the judgment of the Gujarat High…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S. Meenakshy Enterprises

ITA/13/2017HC Kerala23 Jun 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

…s which are quasi-judicial proceedings all that the court has to see is whether the assessee has been given a fair hearing. Whether the hearing would extend to the right of demanding cross-examination of witnesses or not would naturally depend upon 2 (1977) 40 STC 278 (FB) ST.REV NO.13 OF 2016 & CON. CASES -25- the nature of the materials relied upon by the sales tax authorities, the manner in which the assessee can rebut those materials and the facts and circumstances of each case. It is difficult to lay down any hard and fast rule of universal application." 21. Adverting to the judgment of the Gujarat High…

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Shri.S.Nagaraja Reddiar

ITA/16/2017HC Kerala05 Dec 2019

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

…s which are quasi-judicial proceedings all that the court has to see is whether the assessee has been given a fair hearing. Whether the hearing would extend to the right of demanding cross-examination of witnesses or not would naturally depend upon 2 (1977) 40 STC 278 (FB) ST.REV NO.13 OF 2016 & CON. CASES -25- the nature of the materials relied upon by the sales tax authorities, the manner in which the assessee can rebut those materials and the facts and circumstances of each case. It is difficult to lay down any hard and fast rule of universal application." 21. Adverting to the judgment of the Gujarat High…

Dr. B.G. Memorial Trust, Kolkata vs. CIT, (Exemption), Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 516/KOL/2017[]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Sept 2017

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmeddr. B.G. Memorial Trust V/S. Cit (Exemption), 10B, Middleton Row, 6Th 6/1 Sarat Chatterjee Avenue, Kolkat-29 Floor, Kolkata-71 [Pan No.Aaatd 5235 A]

Section 12ASection 133A

…onnection Ld. CIT(Ex) relied on the following judgments:- a) GTC Industries vs. ACIT (1998) 60 TTJ Mumbai b) Manindra Nath Chatterjee vs. Collector of Central Excise & Another Dr. B.G. Memoriala Trust Vs. CIT(Ex) Kol. Page 8 c) M.K. Thomas Vs. State of Kerala 40 STC 278 (Kel) d) K.T. Shaduli vs. State of Kerala 39 STC 478 (SC) From the above facts, it is transpired that QSP has made a declaration of income under IDS scheme 2016 which proves that QSP has made the donation to the assessee through cheque and received cash from the assessee-trust. The cash which was available with QSP was declared under IDS scheme, 2…

Radharaman Behari Trust, Kolkata vs. CIT(Exemption) Kolkata, Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 29/KOL/2017[]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Sept 2017

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedradharaman Behari V/S. Commissioner Of Income Trust, 13, Roopchand Tax, (Exemptions), 10B, Middleton Row, 6Th Roy Street,Kolkata-007 [Pan No.Aabts 5782 L] Floor, Kolkata-71 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 12ASection 131Section 133A

…d circumstances of a particular case. This is so, because the right to cross-examine is not necessarily a part of reasonable opportunity.” Similar judgements were also pronounced by the Hon'ble Keala High Court in the case of M.K. Thomas Vs. State of Kerala [40 STC 278] in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.T. Shaduli vs. State of Kerala [39 STC 478 SC ] All these judgemeknts/decisions lead to one conclusion that right to cross- examine the witness, who made adverse reports, is not an invariable attribute of the requirement of the dictum,audi alterant partem’. It is pertinent to ment…