Obulapuram Mining Company (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT

43 SOT 32Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2011#12796 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,001 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 147 Section 148 Section 68 Section 11 Section 115BBE Section 12A Section 132(4)

Issues it is cited on

accommodation entry section 271(1)(c)speaking order section 11 section 68 section 143(2)section 13 section 148 transfer company section 147 section 14

Judgments citing Obulapuram Mining Company (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT

ACIT, Circle-2, Patna vs. Shree Nanak Ferro Alloys Pvt Ltd, Jamshedpur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 249/PAT/2019[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Patna09 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Shree Nanak Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Circle-2 Room No.205, 2Nd Floor, Avrtar Acit, Circle-2, Patna, Bihar Vs. Building, Bisturpur, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaics1706N Assessee By : S/Shri A.K. Rastogi Rakesh Kumar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Md Ah Chowdhary, Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.12.2025

For Appellant: S/Shri A.K. RastogiFor Respondent: Shri MD AH Chowdhary, DR

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “PATNA” BENCH, PATNA BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VP AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM Shree Nanak Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd. ACIT, Circle-2 Room No.205, 2nd floor, Avrtar ACIT, Circle-2, Patna, Bihar Vs. Building, Bisturpur, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AAICS1706N Assessee by : S/Shri A.K. Rastogi Rakesh Kumar, AR Revenue by : Shri MD AH Chowdhary, DR Date of hearing: 27.11.2025 Date of pronouncement: 09.12.2025 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: This is an appeal preferred by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-I, Patna (h…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle, Pune, Swargate vs. Shree Chanakya Education Society, Aundh, Pune

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2170/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: S/Shri Neelesh Khandelwal &For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…elhi High Court) iii) Shri Deepak Valji Karia Vs. ITO [ITA No.259/MUM/2021] (Mumbai Tribunal) Date of pronouncement: 10th March, 2022 iv) Obulapuram Mining Company (P.) Ltd Vs. DCIT [2016] 72 taxman.com 73 (Bangalore Tribunal) ITO Vs. Pawan Kumar Gupta [2011] 43 SOT 32 (Delhi Tribunal) (URO) v) 18. He accordingly submitted that both legally and factually the addition could not have been made by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the grounds raised by the Revenue should be dismissed. 19. The Ld. DR in his rejoinder referring to the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Naveen Kumar Gupta (2…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle, Pune, Swargate vs. Shree Chanakya Education Society, Aundh, Pune

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2155/PUN/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Aug 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: S/Shri Neelesh Khandelwal &For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

Tata Consumer Products Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir.-4(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

ITA 373/KOL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2014-15 & Assessment Years: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sriram Sashdari, ARFor Respondent: Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, DR

Section 250Section 43(6)Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 928

…settled position that the Assessing Officer should not be allowed to cover up the deficiency in its case where a procedure mandatorily prescribed in law is not followed. In support, reliance is placed on the following decisions: ПО v. Pawan Kumar Gupta [2011] 43 SOT 32 (Delhi) (URO); Asstt. CIT v. Anima Investment Ltd. [2003] 73 ITD 125 (Delhi)(TM) Dy. CIT v. Rohtas Projects Ltd. (2006) 100 ITD 113 (Luck) (TM) Raj Kumar Jain v. Asstt. CIT [1994] 50 FTD (All.) (TM) Thus, in view of the above judicial precedents, it is abundantly clear that the AO ought to have given reasons for disputing the submission made by the…

Tata Consumer Products Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir.-4(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

ITA 372/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2014-15 & Assessment Years: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sriram Sashdari, ARFor Respondent: Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, DR

Section 250Section 43(6)Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 928

ACIT, C.C.-1, Ranchi vs. M/S Chintpurni Steel Pvt. Ltd., Ranchi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 32/RAN/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(3)Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “DB” BENCH: RANCHI VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA [Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member] I.T.A. No. 32/RAN/2020 Assessment Year : 2013-14 ACIT, CC-1, Ranchi Vs. M/s Chintpurni Steel Pvt. Ltd. (PAN: AACCC 3707 F) Appellant / (अपीलाथ") Respondent / (""यथ") Date of Hearing / सुनवाई 16.08.2023 क" "त"थ Date of Pronouncement / 06.11.2023 आदेश उ"घोषणा क" "त"थ For the Appellant / Shri R. R. Mittal, CA "नधा#$रती क" ओर से For the Respondent / Smt. Rinku Singh, CITDR राज(व क" ओर से ORDER/ आदेश Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: This is an appeal preferred…

ITO, Ward- 41(1), New Delhi vs. Aastha Goel, New Delhi

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 6005/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2014-15 Ito, Ward- 41(1), Aastha Goel, New Delhi. 28/42, West Punjabi Bagh, Vs. New Delhi.

For Appellant: Mrs. Rano Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri N. K. Bansal, Sr.DR

Section 131Section 56(2)(vii)Section 80CSection 80T

…T(A) be upheld and the grounds raised by the Revenue should be dismissed. She also relied on the following decisions in support of the case of the assessee :- (i) Tata Skyline And Health Farms Ltd. vs. ACIT, 70 ITD 387. (ii) ITO vs. Pawan Kumar Gupta, [2011] 43 SOT 32. (iii) DCIT vs. Rohtas Projects Ltd., 282 ITR 42. (iv) ACIT, Anima Investment Ltd., 247 ITR 22. (v) Raj Kumar Jain vs. ACIT, 208 ITR 22. 14. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the material available on record. We find the assessee in the instant case had jointly purchased the property located at E-886, Narela…

ADIT (E), Delhi vs. M/S All India Kataria Education Society, New Delhi

In the result Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 3722/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu, J.M. & Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am

For Appellant: Sh. KK Jaiswal, D.RFor Respondent: Sh.Tarun Rohatgi, C.A

Section 12ASection 13(3)Section 143(3)

…011) 12 Taxmann.com 272 (Chennai) Madras ‘D’ Bench of ITAT (ii) ACIT vs. Balaji Educational & Charitable Public Trust (2011), 15 taxmann.com 53 (Mad.) (iii) CIT-IV, N.Del vs. Dharam Pal Prem Chand Ltd., 295 ITR 105 (Del) (iv) ITO vs. Pawan Kumar Gupta (2011), 43 SOT 32 in ITA 4690/Del/2009 Delhi ‘F’ Bench of ITAT (v) M/s Andaman Timber vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata in Civil Appeal no.4228/2006 (S.C.) 8. On considering these decisions we find that the issues are covered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by the decision of the Madras Bench of the ITAT in the case of Dy.CIT vs. Vellore…