Mathurdas B Mohta v. CIT

Anju Manish Gangar, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO WD 22(3)(1), Navi Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed, as above

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Ravish Soodassessment Year : 2009-10

…sessment year and could not have directed the Assessing Officer to include such income for taxation in A.Y. 2008-09, which was not before him. For the said proposition reliance has been placed on various decisions, inter alia, Mathurdas B Mohta vs. CIT (1965) 56 ITR 269 (Bom); Ivan Singh vs. ACIT, order dated 17.05.2013 in ITA No.75/Pnj/2012 for AY 2008-09; AICT vs. Ivan Singh in Tax Appeal 28 of 2013 (Bom); ITO vs. Murlidhar Bhagwandas (1964) 52 ITR 335 (SC). 6. On the other hand, on this aspect, learned DR appearing for the Revenue has defended the decision of the CIT(A) by placing reliance thereon and contend…

Shree Shankar Plastic Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(3)(1), Mumbai

…zed Representative for the assessee relied on following judgments: - (a)CIT vs C.M. Rajgarhia 121 ITR 778 (Pat.), 785. (b)C.M. Rajgarhia 121 ITR 778 (Pat.). (c) Pt. Hazari Lal 39 ITR 265 (All.) (d)Laxmi Narain Agarwal 47 ITR 456 (All.) (e) Mathuradas B. Mohta 56 ITR 269 (Bom.) (f) N. Kt. Sivalingam Chettiar 66 ITR 586 (SC) (g)Durga Prasad 57 ITR 583 (All.) (h)Nathalal Dhanjibhai 59 ITR 615 (Guj.) (i) Dave (Mrs. RH) 140 ITR 1035 (Cal.) (j) ITO vs Murlidhar Bhagwan Das 52 ITR 335 (SC) (k)Onkar Nath 64 ITR 347 (All.) (l) CIT vs Hirdey Narain Yogendra Prakash, 82 ITR 136 (All.). (m) CIT vs Rajgarhia (C.M.) 121 ITR 77…