Marshall Sons and Co. v. Income Tax Officer

195 ITR 417Reported decision1992#15245 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2019.

Judgments citing Marshall Sons and Co. v. Income Tax Officer

ASST CIT 8(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SIEMENS INFORMATION PROCESSING SERVICES P.LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 1779/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Blem/S. Siemens Technology & Services Pvt. Ltd., V. Deputy Commissioner Of {Successor To Siemens Information Income Tax - 7(2) Processing Services Pvt. Ltd.,} Room No. 624, 6Th Floor 130, Pandurang Budhkar Marg Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Commissioner Of V. M/S. Siemens Information Processing Services Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax - 7(2) {Successor Of Siemens Technology & Services Pvt. Ltd.,} 130, Pandurang Budhkar Marg Room No. 624, Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 6Th Floor Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Siemens Technology & Services Pvt. Ltd., V. Asst. Commissioner Of {Successor To Siemens Information Processing Income Tax, Services Pvt. Ltd.,} Circle - 8(2)(1) 130, Pandurang Budhkar Marg Room No. 624, 6Th Floor Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Debashis Chanda
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

…as argued lastly that the assessee had itself participated in the proceedings throughout and could not be heard to complain against the assessment order. The revenue relies on the Madras High Court ruling in Marshall Sons and Co. vs. Income Tax Officer (1992) 195 ITR 417. 5. The assessee contends that no question of law arises for consideration. It submits that the text and phraseology of Sections 170 (1) and (2) do not support the revenue's arguments. The assessee further relies on Saraswati Industrial Syndicate v. CIT, 1990 Supl. (1) SCR 332 in support of its contentions and the findings of the tax authorities…

SIEMENS TECHNOLOGY AND SERVICES PRIVATE LTD. (SUCCESSOR TO SIEMNENS INFORMATION PROCESSING SERVICES PVT. LTD.),MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIR -8(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1665/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Blem/S. Siemens Technology & Services Pvt. Ltd., V. Deputy Commissioner Of {Successor To Siemens Information Income Tax - 7(2) Processing Services Pvt. Ltd.,} Room No. 624, 6Th Floor 130, Pandurang Budhkar Marg Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Commissioner Of V. M/S. Siemens Information Processing Services Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax - 7(2) {Successor Of Siemens Technology & Services Pvt. Ltd.,} 130, Pandurang Budhkar Marg Room No. 624, Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 6Th Floor Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Siemens Technology & Services Pvt. Ltd., V. Asst. Commissioner Of {Successor To Siemens Information Processing Income Tax, Services Pvt. Ltd.,} Circle - 8(2)(1) 130, Pandurang Budhkar Marg Room No. 624, 6Th Floor Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Debashis Chanda
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

…as argued lastly that the assessee had itself participated in the proceedings throughout and could not be heard to complain against the assessment order. The revenue relies on the Madras High Court ruling in Marshall Sons and Co. vs. Income Tax Officer (1992) 195 ITR 417. 5. The assessee contends that no question of law arises for consideration. It submits that the text and phraseology of Sections 170 (1) and (2) do not support the revenue's arguments. The assessee further relies on Saraswati Industrial Syndicate v. CIT, 1990 Supl. (1) SCR 332 in support of its contentions and the findings of the tax authorities…

DCIT 7(2), MUMBAI vs. SIEMENS INFORMATION PROCESSING SERVICES P.LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 1887/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Blem/S. Siemens Technology & Services Pvt. Ltd., V. Deputy Commissioner Of {Successor To Siemens Information Income Tax - 7(2) Processing Services Pvt. Ltd.,} Room No. 624, 6Th Floor 130, Pandurang Budhkar Marg Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Commissioner Of V. M/S. Siemens Information Processing Services Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax - 7(2) {Successor Of Siemens Technology & Services Pvt. Ltd.,} 130, Pandurang Budhkar Marg Room No. 624, Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 6Th Floor Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Siemens Technology & Services Pvt. Ltd., V. Asst. Commissioner Of {Successor To Siemens Information Processing Income Tax, Services Pvt. Ltd.,} Circle - 8(2)(1) 130, Pandurang Budhkar Marg Room No. 624, 6Th Floor Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Debashis Chanda
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

…as argued lastly that the assessee had itself participated in the proceedings throughout and could not be heard to complain against the assessment order. The revenue relies on the Madras High Court ruling in Marshall Sons and Co. vs. Income Tax Officer (1992) 195 ITR 417. 5. The assessee contends that no question of law arises for consideration. It submits that the text and phraseology of Sections 170 (1) and (2) do not support the revenue's arguments. The assessee further relies on Saraswati Industrial Syndicate v. CIT, 1990 Supl. (1) SCR 332 in support of its contentions and the findings of the tax authorities…

SIEMENS TECHNOLOGY AND SERVICES P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 7(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1527/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Blem/S. Siemens Technology & Services Pvt. Ltd., V. Deputy Commissioner Of {Successor To Siemens Information Income Tax - 7(2) Processing Services Pvt. Ltd.,} Room No. 624, 6Th Floor 130, Pandurang Budhkar Marg Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Commissioner Of V. M/S. Siemens Information Processing Services Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax - 7(2) {Successor Of Siemens Technology & Services Pvt. Ltd.,} 130, Pandurang Budhkar Marg Room No. 624, Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 6Th Floor Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Siemens Technology & Services Pvt. Ltd., V. Asst. Commissioner Of {Successor To Siemens Information Processing Income Tax, Services Pvt. Ltd.,} Circle - 8(2)(1) 130, Pandurang Budhkar Marg Room No. 624, 6Th Floor Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Debashis Chanda
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

…as argued lastly that the assessee had itself participated in the proceedings throughout and could not be heard to complain against the assessment order. The revenue relies on the Madras High Court ruling in Marshall Sons and Co. vs. Income Tax Officer (1992) 195 ITR 417. 5. The assessee contends that no question of law arises for consideration. It submits that the text and phraseology of Sections 170 (1) and (2) do not support the revenue's arguments. The assessee further relies on Saraswati Industrial Syndicate v. CIT, 1990 Supl. (1) SCR 332 in support of its contentions and the findings of the tax authorities…

M/S. NOIDA CUSTOMER OPERATION (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

ITA 5191/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(6)Section 92CSection 92C(2)

…B of the Act. It was argued lastly that the assessee had itself participated in the proceedings throughout and could not be heard to complain against the assessment order. The revenue relies on the Madras High Court ruling in Marshall Sons & Co. v. ITO [1992] 195 ITR 417. 5. The assessee contends that no question of law arises for consideration. It submits that the text and phraseology of Sections 170 (1) and (2) do not support the revenue's arguments. The assessee further relies on Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. v. CIT [1990] 186 ITR 278/53 Taxman 92(SC) in support of its contentions and the findings of the…

XENIAL INVESTMENT PVT. LTD, THROUGH I.P. INDIA PVT. LTD (NOW KNOWN AS ADHUNIK TECHNOLOGY PVT. LTD.),NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 2305/DEL/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 May 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishixenial Investment Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, Though Ip India Pvt. Ltd, Central Circle-18, (Now Known As Adhunik Technology New Delhi Pvt.Ltd, C/O. Kapil Goel Adv, F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, New Delhi Pan:Aabci0760K (Appellant) (Respondent) Bma Capfin Ltd, Though Ip India Pvt. Ltd, Acit, Vs. (Now Known As Adhunik Technology Pvt. Central Circle-18, Ltd), New Delhi C/O. Kapil Goel, Adv F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, New Delhi Pan:Aabci0760K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. NK Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 254Section 68

…B of the Act. It was argued lastly that the assessee had itself participated in the proceedings throughout and could not be heard to complain against the assessment order. The revenue relies on the Madras High Court ruling in Marshall Sons & Co. v. ITO [1992] 195 ITR 417. 5. The assessee contends that no question of law arises for consideration. It submits that the text and phraseology of Sections 170 (1) and (2) do not support the revenue's arguments. The assessee further relies on Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. v. CIT [1990] 186 ITR 278/53 Taxman 92(SC) in support of its contentions and the findings of the…

Marshall Sons and Co. v. Income Tax Officer (195 ITR 417) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax