Mill Vs CIT (All) 278 ITR 599, S.S. RatanchandBholanathVs CIT (MP) 210 ITR 682, and CIT v. Ram NiwasAgarwal (All)

125 ITR 432Reported decision#16585 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2022.

Judgments citing Mill Vs CIT (All) 278 ITR 599, S.S. RatanchandBholanathVs CIT (MP) 210 ITR 682, and CIT v. Ram NiwasAgarwal (All)

Associated Machinery Corp. Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 4735/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(24)(x)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)

…If the assessment order became final, it was binding on both parties and neither party could seek to reopen it in a penalty proceedings Bharat Rice Mill Vs. CIT (All) 278 ITR 599 S.S. RatanchandBholanathVs. CIT (MP) 210 ITR 682 CIT Vs. Ram NiwasAgarwal (All) 125 ITR 432 Mere offering explanation, is not sufficient – Explanation to be substantiated by cogent and reliable evidence. CIT Vs. LalchandTirath Ram (P&H) 225 ITR 675 5.4.2 Apart from the above cases, I would also like to place reliance on two recent case laws:- The Delhi High Court said: in the case of morganFinvest Pvt. Ltd. “… The judgment of the Supr…

D.Shantha, Villupuram vs. ITO, Villupuram

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 1829/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Nataraja, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

…ny quantum appeal, the assessment order has become final. As held in the cases of :-25-: ITA Nos. 1593, 1828 & 1829& 1803/Mds/2016 Bharat Rice Mill Vs CIT (All) 278 ITR 599, S.S. RatanchandBholanathVs CIT (MP) 210 ITR 682, and CIT Vs Ram NiwasAgarwal (All) 125 ITR 432, if the assessment order became final, it was binding on both parties and neither party could seek to reopen it in a penalty proceedings. Hence, this contention of the AR was also held as not tenable. 14. We have considered the above observation of the CIT(A) . The facts remain that for assessment year 2008-09, the assessee did not file her r…

D.Shantha, Villupuram vs. ITO, Villupuram

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 1828/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Nataraja, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

…ny quantum appeal, the assessment order has become final. As held in the cases of :-25-: ITA Nos. 1593, 1828 & 1829& 1803/Mds/2016 Bharat Rice Mill Vs CIT (All) 278 ITR 599, S.S. RatanchandBholanathVs CIT (MP) 210 ITR 682, and CIT Vs Ram NiwasAgarwal (All) 125 ITR 432, if the assessment order became final, it was binding on both parties and neither party could seek to reopen it in a penalty proceedings. Hence, this contention of the AR was also held as not tenable. 14. We have considered the above observation of the CIT(A) . The facts remain that for assessment year 2008-09, the assessee did not file her r…

DCIT, Villupuram vs. D.Santha, Kallakurichi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 1803/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Nataraja, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

…ny quantum appeal, the assessment order has become final. As held in the cases of :-25-: ITA Nos. 1593, 1828 & 1829& 1803/Mds/2016 Bharat Rice Mill Vs CIT (All) 278 ITR 599, S.S. RatanchandBholanathVs CIT (MP) 210 ITR 682, and CIT Vs Ram NiwasAgarwal (All) 125 ITR 432, if the assessment order became final, it was binding on both parties and neither party could seek to reopen it in a penalty proceedings. Hence, this contention of the AR was also held as not tenable. 14. We have considered the above observation of the CIT(A) . The facts remain that for assessment year 2008-09, the assessee did not file her r…

D.Shantha, Villupuram vs. ITO, Villupuram

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 1593/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Nataraja, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

…ny quantum appeal, the assessment order has become final. As held in the cases of :-25-: ITA Nos. 1593, 1828 & 1829& 1803/Mds/2016 Bharat Rice Mill Vs CIT (All) 278 ITR 599, S.S. RatanchandBholanathVs CIT (MP) 210 ITR 682, and CIT Vs Ram NiwasAgarwal (All) 125 ITR 432, if the assessment order became final, it was binding on both parties and neither party could seek to reopen it in a penalty proceedings. Hence, this contention of the AR was also held as not tenable. 14. We have considered the above observation of the CIT(A) . The facts remain that for assessment year 2008-09, the assessee did not file her r…

Mill Vs CIT (All) 278 ITR 599, S.S. RatanchandBholanathVs CIT (MP) 210 ITR 682, and CIT v. Ram NiwasAgarwal (All) (125 ITR 432) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax