N. Kt. Sivalingam Chettiar v. CIT

93 ITR 178High Court1974#25898 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,356 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2023.

Judgments citing N. Kt. Sivalingam Chettiar v. CIT

Bholaram Malviya, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer W-16(1)|(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5965/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj ManglaFor Respondent: Smt. Vranda U. Matkari (sr. AR)

…e Ld. CIT(A) and for that he relied on the following decisions as under:- (a) Mrs. R. H. Dave Vs. CIT [140 ITR 1035 (Cal)] (b) ITO Vs. Murlidhar Bhagwan Das [52 ITR 335 (SC)] (c) N. Kt Sivalingam Chettiar Vs. CIT [66 ITR 586 (SC)] (d) Bakshish Singh Vs. ITO [93 ITR 178 (SC)] 22 A.Y. 2013-14 Bholaram Malviya (e) ITO Vs. Sri Biswajit Chatterjee in ITA. No.565/Kol/2013 dated 10.11.2017 (f) Shri Sanjay Thakur Vs. DCIT in ITA No. 3785/Del/2015 dated 12.07.2018. 18. Per contra, the Ld. DR vehemently supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and contended that Explanation to Section 251 of the Act as well as section 150(1…

M/S. Sahara City Homes, Bareilly vs. Income Tax Officer - 3(4), Range- 3, Lucknow

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 24/LKW/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Sahara City Homes – Bareilly V. Ito-3(4) 2, Sahara India Centre Range 3 Kapoorthala Complex Lucknow Aliganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Abzfs2472C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Sahara City Homes – Amritsar V. Ito-3(4) 2, Sahara India Centre Lucknow Tan/Pan:Abzfs4654E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Sahara City Homes – Kanpur(I) V. Acit 2, Sahara India Centre Range 3 Kapoorthala Complex Lucknow Aliganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Abzfs2468Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Sahara City Homes – Guwahati V. Acit 2, Sahara India Centre Range 3 Kapoorthala Complex Lucknow Aliganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Abzfs2462E (Appellant) (Respondent)

…Mrs. R. H. Dave v CIT [140 ITR 1035 (Cal)] (ABP 640- 645). b. ITO v Murlidhar Bhagwan Das [52 ITR 335 (SC)] (ABP 646-666). ITA No.24 to 39/LKW/2019 Page 40 of 46 c. N. Kt. Sivalingam Chettiar v CIT [66 ITR 586 (SC)] (ABP 667-671). d. Bakshish Singh v ITO [93 ITR 178 (Cal)] (ABP 721- 729). e. Order of the ITAT, Kolkata Bench, in the case of ITO v. Sri Biswajit Chatterjee in ITA no. 565/Kol/2013 dated 10.11.2017 (ABP 672-679). f. Order of the ITAT, Indore Bench, in the case of ACIT v. Shri Mukesh Sharma and others in ITA(SS) no, 88/Ind/2013 dated 04.06.2019 (ABP 680-712). g. Order of the ITAT, Delhi Bench, in t…

DDIT, Dehradun vs. Bg Exploration & Production India Ltd., Mumbai

In the result ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2227/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishidy. Director Of Income Tax, Bg Exploration & Production India International Taxation, Ltd, Dehradun Bg House, Vs. Lake Boulevard Road, Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai Pan: Aaace4569K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. NC Swain, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92

…n so, the observation aforesaid is illegal and unjustified. We are fortified in this view by the following, among other decisions : ITO v. Murlidhar Bhagwan Das [1964] 52 ITR 335 (SC); P. J. Udani v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 766 (AP) and Bakshish Singh v. ITO [1974] 93 ITR 178 (Cal). In this connection, it should be remembered that the Tribunal was disposing of the appeal filed by the Revenue before it for the year 1980-81, and not an appeal filed by the assessee. And there is no material or even a whisper to show that an alternate plea or approach was mooted by the assessee for the claim made by it when the Tribunal ad…