Mrs. Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy v. ITO (Mum.)

100 ITD 173Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2006#2925 most cited

What is Mrs. Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy v. ITO (Mum.) authority for?

A revision order under Section 263 cannot be passed by the Commissioner merely because the Assessing Officer could have made more inquiries; it requires a finding of total non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer.

41

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Mrs. Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy v. ITO · Section 263 · revision order · application of mind Assessing Officer · non-application of mind · scope of revision · erroneous and prejudicial to revenue · inadequate enquiry · insufficient enquiry · CIT powers Section 263 · 100 ITD 173

Also reported as

7 SOT 368

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 10(37)Section 145A(b)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 56(2)(viii)

Issues it is cited on

section 141section 282a(1)section 194lasection 145a(b)section 145bsection 44afsection 45(5)section 57(iv)section 56(2)(viii)section 262section 10(37)doctrine of merger

Judgments citing Mrs. Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy v. ITO (Mum.)

SH. RANDHIR SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 494/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…l) CIT vs. Sunder Lal ii) 111 ITR 326 (All) J. P. Srivastava & Sons Ltd. vs. CIT iii) 170 ITR 28 (All) CIT vs. Kashi Nath & Co PROPOSITION VIII: REVISION ORDER CANNOT BE PASSED U/S 263, UNLESS THERE IS TOTAL NON APPLICATION OF MIND BASED ON COGENT MATERIAL i) 100 ITD 173 (Mum) Mrs. Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy vs. ITO ii) 100 ITD 441 (Kol) Al-Haz Amir Hasan Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT iii) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. iv) 171 ITR 141 (MP) CIT vs. Ratlam Coal Ash Co. PROPOSITION IX: ALL PARTICULARS ARE FURNISHED BEFORE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AND HE HAS APPLIED HIS MIND THEN REVISION IS NOT VA…

SURJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 488/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…l) CIT vs. Sunder Lal ii) 111 ITR 326 (All) J. P. Srivastava & Sons Ltd. vs. CIT iii) 170 ITR 28 (All) CIT vs. Kashi Nath & Co PROPOSITION VIII: REVISION ORDER CANNOT BE PASSED U/S 263, UNLESS THERE IS TOTAL NON APPLICATION OF MIND BASED ON COGENT MATERIAL i) 100 ITD 173 (Mum) Mrs. Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy vs. ITO ii) 100 ITD 441 (Kol) Al-Haz Amir Hasan Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT iii) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. iv) 171 ITR 141 (MP) CIT vs. Ratlam Coal Ash Co. PROPOSITION IX: ALL PARTICULARS ARE FURNISHED BEFORE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AND HE HAS APPLIED HIS MIND THEN REVISION IS NOT VA…

SH. PARAMJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 290/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…l) CIT vs. Sunder Lal ii) 111 ITR 326 (All) J. P. Srivastava & Sons Ltd. vs. CIT iii) 170 ITR 28 (All) CIT vs. Kashi Nath & Co PROPOSITION VIII: REVISION ORDER CANNOT BE PASSED U/S 263, UNLESS THERE IS TOTAL NON APPLICATION OF MIND BASED ON COGENT MATERIAL i) 100 ITD 173 (Mum) Mrs. Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy vs. ITO ii) 100 ITD 441 (Kol) Al-Haz Amir Hasan Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT iii) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. iv) 171 ITR 141 (MP) CIT vs. Ratlam Coal Ash Co. PROPOSITION IX: ALL PARTICULARS ARE FURNISHED BEFORE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AND HE HAS APPLIED HIS MIND THEN REVISION IS NOT VA…

DHUNI CHAND HUF,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 289/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…l) CIT vs. Sunder Lal ii) 111 ITR 326 (All) J. P. Srivastava & Sons Ltd. vs. CIT iii) 170 ITR 28 (All) CIT vs. Kashi Nath & Co PROPOSITION VIII: REVISION ORDER CANNOT BE PASSED U/S 263, UNLESS THERE IS TOTAL NON APPLICATION OF MIND BASED ON COGENT MATERIAL i) 100 ITD 173 (Mum) Mrs. Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy vs. ITO ii) 100 ITD 441 (Kol) Al-Haz Amir Hasan Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT iii) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. iv) 171 ITR 141 (MP) CIT vs. Ratlam Coal Ash Co. PROPOSITION IX: ALL PARTICULARS ARE FURNISHED BEFORE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AND HE HAS APPLIED HIS MIND THEN REVISION IS NOT VA…

SH. KASHMIR SINGH SANDHA,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 288/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…l) CIT vs. Sunder Lal ii) 111 ITR 326 (All) J. P. Srivastava & Sons Ltd. vs. CIT iii) 170 ITR 28 (All) CIT vs. Kashi Nath & Co PROPOSITION VIII: REVISION ORDER CANNOT BE PASSED U/S 263, UNLESS THERE IS TOTAL NON APPLICATION OF MIND BASED ON COGENT MATERIAL i) 100 ITD 173 (Mum) Mrs. Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy vs. ITO ii) 100 ITD 441 (Kol) Al-Haz Amir Hasan Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT iii) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. iv) 171 ITR 141 (MP) CIT vs. Ratlam Coal Ash Co. PROPOSITION IX: ALL PARTICULARS ARE FURNISHED BEFORE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AND HE HAS APPLIED HIS MIND THEN REVISION IS NOT VA…

M/S GANESH DASS HUF,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 287/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…l) CIT vs. Sunder Lal ii) 111 ITR 326 (All) J. P. Srivastava & Sons Ltd. vs. CIT iii) 170 ITR 28 (All) CIT vs. Kashi Nath & Co PROPOSITION VIII: REVISION ORDER CANNOT BE PASSED U/S 263, UNLESS THERE IS TOTAL NON APPLICATION OF MIND BASED ON COGENT MATERIAL i) 100 ITD 173 (Mum) Mrs. Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy vs. ITO ii) 100 ITD 441 (Kol) Al-Haz Amir Hasan Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT iii) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. iv) 171 ITR 141 (MP) CIT vs. Ratlam Coal Ash Co. PROPOSITION IX: ALL PARTICULARS ARE FURNISHED BEFORE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AND HE HAS APPLIED HIS MIND THEN REVISION IS NOT VA…

SH. ARVAIL SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 286/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…l) CIT vs. Sunder Lal ii) 111 ITR 326 (All) J. P. Srivastava & Sons Ltd. vs. CIT iii) 170 ITR 28 (All) CIT vs. Kashi Nath & Co PROPOSITION VIII: REVISION ORDER CANNOT BE PASSED U/S 263, UNLESS THERE IS TOTAL NON APPLICATION OF MIND BASED ON COGENT MATERIAL i) 100 ITD 173 (Mum) Mrs. Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy vs. ITO ii) 100 ITD 441 (Kol) Al-Haz Amir Hasan Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT iii) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. iv) 171 ITR 141 (MP) CIT vs. Ratlam Coal Ash Co. PROPOSITION IX: ALL PARTICULARS ARE FURNISHED BEFORE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AND HE HAS APPLIED HIS MIND THEN REVISION IS NOT VA…

SUBHASH JAISWAL ASSOCIATES,BAREILLY vs. PCIT BAREILLY, BAREILLY

ITA 100/LKW/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Dec 2025AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 263

…ind something.\nCIT v. Mangilal Didwania 28C ITR 126 (Raj)\nWhether AO has made proper enquiry. with due application of mind or\nnot, is not the domain of the CIT to judge. The fact that the AO has made\nenquiries is sufficient itself.\nBalram Manmani v. ACIT 7 SOT 368 (Lucknow) ITAT\nWhether since the assessment has been made by the AO after taking into\naccount the submissions as well as evidence filed before him and no\nmaterial whatsoever had been sought or recorded by CIT which showed\nthat there was any discrepancy or falsity in evidences furnished by\nassessee order passed by AO cannot be revised.\nSalora…

ALLIANCE NIRMAAN LIMITED,BAREILLY vs. PCIT, BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 119/LKW/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow12 Jun 2025AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 263

…Polymers [2010] 194 Taxman 57 (Delhi High\nCourt)\n8.\nHaryana Coach Body Builders [2006] 10 SOT 736 (Delhi)\n9.\nCIT vs. Mohd. Ishaq Mohd. Gulam 276 ITR 13 (MP)\n10.\nCIT vs. Ganpat Ram Bishnoi 152 Taxman 242 (Raj), 296 ITR\n292\n11.\nBalram Manmani vs. ACIT 7 SOT 368 (Lucknow ITAT)\n12.\nSalora International vs. ACIT 02 SOT 705 (Delhi Tribunal)\n13.\nCIT vs. Arvind Jewellers 259 ITR 502 (Guj)\n14.\nACIT vs. Technip Italy Spa [2006] 150 Taxman 13 (Delhi\nTribunal)\n15.\nAntala Sanjaykumar Rasvjibhai vs. CIT [2012] 135 ITD 506\n(Rajkot Tribunal)\n16.\nVijay Kumar Megotia vs. CIT [2010] 3 ITR (T) 760 (Patna\nTribu…

GANADHIPATI CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LTD,PATNA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing

ITA 360/PAT/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Patna16 Oct 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263

…ing to the assessee and thus learned PCIT had acted without jurisdiction in setting aside the order of the ld AO and holding the same as erroneous being prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. We draw support from the following judicial pronouncements: i. 100 ITD 173 (Mum) Mrs. Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy vs. ITO ii. 100 ITD 441 (Kol) Al-Haz Amir Hasan Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT iii. 203 ITR 108 (Bom) CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd iv. 171 ITR 141 (MP) CIT vs. Ratlam Coal Ash Co 31.1. We also find that learned CIT has erred in holding the assessment order as erroneous, a condition precedent and that the fact for…

GANADHIPATI CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,PATNA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing

ITA 359/PAT/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Patna16 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263

…ing to the assessee and thus learned PCIT had acted without jurisdiction in setting aside the order of the ld AO and holding the same as erroneous being prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. We draw support from the following judicial pronouncements: i. 100 ITD 173 (Mum) Mrs. Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy vs. ITO ii. 100 ITD 441 (Kol) Al-Haz Amir Hasan Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT iii. 203 ITR 108 (Bom) CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd iv. 171 ITR 141 (MP) CIT vs. Ratlam Coal Ash Co 31.1. We also find that learned CIT has erred in holding the assessment order as erroneous, a condition precedent and that the fact for…

GANADHIPATI CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,PATNA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing

ITA 358/PAT/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Patna16 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263

…ing to the assessee and thus learned PCIT had acted without jurisdiction in setting aside the order of the ld AO and holding the same as erroneous being prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. We draw support from the following judicial pronouncements: i. 100 ITD 173 (Mum) Mrs. Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy vs. ITO ii. 100 ITD 441 (Kol) Al-Haz Amir Hasan Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT iii. 203 ITR 108 (Bom) CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd iv. 171 ITR 141 (MP) CIT vs. Ratlam Coal Ash Co 31.1. We also find that learned CIT has erred in holding the assessment order as erroneous, a condition precedent and that the fact for…

GANADHIPATI CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD,PATNA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing

ITA 357/PAT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna16 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263

…ing to the assessee and thus learned PCIT had acted without jurisdiction in setting aside the order of the ld AO and holding the same as erroneous being prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. We draw support from the following judicial pronouncements: i. 100 ITD 173 (Mum) Mrs. Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy vs. ITO ii. 100 ITD 441 (Kol) Al-Haz Amir Hasan Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT iii. 203 ITR 108 (Bom) CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd iv. 171 ITR 141 (MP) CIT vs. Ratlam Coal Ash Co 31.1. We also find that learned CIT has erred in holding the assessment order as erroneous, a condition precedent and that the fact for…

GANADHIPATI CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,PATNA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL , PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing

ITA 356/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna16 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263

…ing to the assessee and thus learned PCIT had acted without jurisdiction in setting aside the order of the ld AO and holding the same as erroneous being prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. We draw support from the following judicial pronouncements: i. 100 ITD 173 (Mum) Mrs. Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy vs. ITO ii. 100 ITD 441 (Kol) Al-Haz Amir Hasan Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT iii. 203 ITR 108 (Bom) CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd iv. 171 ITR 141 (MP) CIT vs. Ratlam Coal Ash Co 31.1. We also find that learned CIT has erred in holding the assessment order as erroneous, a condition precedent and that the fact for…

TRIMURTI GRIHANIRMAN PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, KOL-2, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 525/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143(3)Section 263

…e learned Commissioner may annul the order of the AO. He may enhance the assessed income by modifying the order. He may set aside the order and direct the AO to pass a fresh order. 3.4. Furthermore, in the case of Mrs. Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy vs. ITO reported in 100 ITD 173 (Mum. Trib.) the fundamental principles regarding the application of provisions of Section 263 of the Act have been lucidly dealt with. This may be discussed. Page 10 of 14 I.T.A. No.: 525/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Trimurti Grihanirman Pvt. Ltd. The ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of Mrs. Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy (supra) addressed this issue…

NALANDA ENGICON PVT. LTD, PATNA,PATNA vs. PR. CIT CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 329/PAT/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Sept 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.322 To 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2021-22

Section 127Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…22 (d) Indian Shaving Products Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT [2007] 161 Taxman 166 (e) Pargat Singh Vs. ITO ITA No. 1111 to 1114.Chandi/2004 Assessment Years 1996-97 to 1999 – 2000 – [2006] 191 Taxation 192 (Chd. ITAT) (f) Mrs. Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy Vs. ITO (Mum.) [2006] 100 ITD 173. (g) M/s. Balaram Manmani Vs. Asstt. CIT (Lucknow) [2006] 7 SOT 368. (h) Zyma Loboratories Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT (Mum.) [2006] 7 SOT 164. (i) Deoniti Prasad Singh v. CIT (1947) 15 ITR 165 (Pat) : TC 15R. 1583 and C.T. Narayanan Chettiar v. CIT (1966) 60 ITR 690 (Mad) : TC 15R. 1397. (j) CIT v. Nirma Chemical Works (P) Ltd. (09) 183 Taxmann 183 (Gujr…

NALANDA ENGICON PVT. LTD, PATNA,PATNA vs. PR. CIT CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 328/PAT/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.322 To 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2021-22

Section 127Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…22 (d) Indian Shaving Products Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT [2007] 161 Taxman 166 (e) Pargat Singh Vs. ITO ITA No. 1111 to 1114.Chandi/2004 Assessment Years 1996-97 to 1999 – 2000 – [2006] 191 Taxation 192 (Chd. ITAT) (f) Mrs. Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy Vs. ITO (Mum.) [2006] 100 ITD 173. (g) M/s. Balaram Manmani Vs. Asstt. CIT (Lucknow) [2006] 7 SOT 368. (h) Zyma Loboratories Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT (Mum.) [2006] 7 SOT 164. (i) Deoniti Prasad Singh v. CIT (1947) 15 ITR 165 (Pat) : TC 15R. 1583 and C.T. Narayanan Chettiar v. CIT (1966) 60 ITR 690 (Mad) : TC 15R. 1397. (j) CIT v. Nirma Chemical Works (P) Ltd. (09) 183 Taxmann 183 (Gujr…

NALANDA ENGICON PVT. LTD, PATNA,PATNA vs. PR. CIT CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 327/PAT/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.322 To 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2021-22

Section 127Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…22 (d) Indian Shaving Products Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT [2007] 161 Taxman 166 (e) Pargat Singh Vs. ITO ITA No. 1111 to 1114.Chandi/2004 Assessment Years 1996-97 to 1999 – 2000 – [2006] 191 Taxation 192 (Chd. ITAT) (f) Mrs. Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy Vs. ITO (Mum.) [2006] 100 ITD 173. (g) M/s. Balaram Manmani Vs. Asstt. CIT (Lucknow) [2006] 7 SOT 368. (h) Zyma Loboratories Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT (Mum.) [2006] 7 SOT 164. (i) Deoniti Prasad Singh v. CIT (1947) 15 ITR 165 (Pat) : TC 15R. 1583 and C.T. Narayanan Chettiar v. CIT (1966) 60 ITR 690 (Mad) : TC 15R. 1397. (j) CIT v. Nirma Chemical Works (P) Ltd. (09) 183 Taxmann 183 (Gujr…

NALANDA ENGICON PVT. LTD, PATNA,PATNA vs. PR. CIT CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 326/PAT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.322 To 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2021-22

Section 127Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…22 (d) Indian Shaving Products Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT [2007] 161 Taxman 166 (e) Pargat Singh Vs. ITO ITA No. 1111 to 1114.Chandi/2004 Assessment Years 1996-97 to 1999 – 2000 – [2006] 191 Taxation 192 (Chd. ITAT) (f) Mrs. Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy Vs. ITO (Mum.) [2006] 100 ITD 173. (g) M/s. Balaram Manmani Vs. Asstt. CIT (Lucknow) [2006] 7 SOT 368. (h) Zyma Loboratories Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT (Mum.) [2006] 7 SOT 164. (i) Deoniti Prasad Singh v. CIT (1947) 15 ITR 165 (Pat) : TC 15R. 1583 and C.T. Narayanan Chettiar v. CIT (1966) 60 ITR 690 (Mad) : TC 15R. 1397. (j) CIT v. Nirma Chemical Works (P) Ltd. (09) 183 Taxmann 183 (Gujr…

NALANDA ENGICON PVT. LTD, PATNA,PATNA vs. PR. CIT CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 325/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.322 To 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2021-22

Section 127Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…22 (d) Indian Shaving Products Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT [2007] 161 Taxman 166 (e) Pargat Singh Vs. ITO ITA No. 1111 to 1114.Chandi/2004 Assessment Years 1996-97 to 1999 – 2000 – [2006] 191 Taxation 192 (Chd. ITAT) (f) Mrs. Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy Vs. ITO (Mum.) [2006] 100 ITD 173. (g) M/s. Balaram Manmani Vs. Asstt. CIT (Lucknow) [2006] 7 SOT 368. (h) Zyma Loboratories Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT (Mum.) [2006] 7 SOT 164. (i) Deoniti Prasad Singh v. CIT (1947) 15 ITR 165 (Pat) : TC 15R. 1583 and C.T. Narayanan Chettiar v. CIT (1966) 60 ITR 690 (Mad) : TC 15R. 1397. (j) CIT v. Nirma Chemical Works (P) Ltd. (09) 183 Taxmann 183 (Gujr…

Showing 1–20 of 41 · Page 1 of 3