Omega Sports & Radio Works v. CIT

134 ITR 28High Court1982#4628 most cited

What is Omega Sports & Radio Works v. CIT authority for?

An issue that has been concluded by the jurisdictional High Court is not debatable and cannot be rectified under Section 154 if there is a difference of opinion among judges.

26

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Omega Sports & Radio Works v. CIT · 134 ITR 28 · Allahabad High Court · concluded issue · not debatable · Section 154 · rectification · difference of opinion

Sections most often in play

Section 154Section 10(20A)Section 11Section 13(3)Section 2(15)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)

Issues it is cited on

section 10(20a)section 4(2)section 10(20)section 58section 12aa(3)section 60section 11(5)section 55section 13(3)section 13(1)(c)cancellation of registrationsection 11(1)(a)

Judgments citing Omega Sports & Radio Works v. CIT

MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MORADABAD vs. DY. CIT(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, ITA No. 1071/Del/2020, ITA No

ITA 1073/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.273,199/Lkw/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Moradabad Development (Exemption), Lucknow Authority, Kanth Road, Moradabad Pan:Aajfm7731M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.A. & Sh. Mradul Agarwal C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Mazahar Akram, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 154Section 2(15)Section 250

…see in similar circumstances. It was further submitted that all the issues in the impugned order had been decided in favour of the assessee authority by a Division Bench of the jurisdictional High Court and in the case of Omega Sports and Radio vs. CIT (1982) 134 ITR 28 (All), the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court has held that an issue which has been concluded by the jurisdictional High Court is not debatable. It had further been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. South India Bank Limited (2001) 160 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 ITA Nos.1071, 1072, 1073/Del/2020 A.Ys. 2014-15 to 2016-17 taxman 364 (…

MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MORADABAD vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, ITA No. 1071/Del/2020, ITA No

ITA 1072/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.273,199/Lkw/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Moradabad Development (Exemption), Lucknow Authority, Kanth Road, Moradabad Pan:Aajfm7731M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.A. & Sh. Mradul Agarwal C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Mazahar Akram, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 154Section 2(15)Section 250

…see in similar circumstances. It was further submitted that all the issues in the impugned order had been decided in favour of the assessee authority by a Division Bench of the jurisdictional High Court and in the case of Omega Sports and Radio vs. CIT (1982) 134 ITR 28 (All), the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court has held that an issue which has been concluded by the jurisdictional High Court is not debatable. It had further been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. South India Bank Limited (2001) 160 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 ITA Nos.1071, 1072, 1073/Del/2020 A.Ys. 2014-15 to 2016-17 taxman 364 (…

MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MORADABAD vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, ITA No. 1071/Del/2020, ITA No

ITA 1071/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.273,199/Lkw/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Moradabad Development (Exemption), Lucknow Authority, Kanth Road, Moradabad Pan:Aajfm7731M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.A. & Sh. Mradul Agarwal C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Mazahar Akram, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 154Section 2(15)Section 250

…see in similar circumstances. It was further submitted that all the issues in the impugned order had been decided in favour of the assessee authority by a Division Bench of the jurisdictional High Court and in the case of Omega Sports and Radio vs. CIT (1982) 134 ITR 28 (All), the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court has held that an issue which has been concluded by the jurisdictional High Court is not debatable. It had further been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. South India Bank Limited (2001) 160 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 ITA Nos.1071, 1072, 1073/Del/2020 A.Ys. 2014-15 to 2016-17 taxman 364 (…

DY. CIT(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MORADABAD

In the result, ITA No. 1071/Del/2020, ITA No

ITA 273/LKW/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.273,199/Lkw/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Moradabad Development (Exemption), Lucknow Authority, Kanth Road, Moradabad Pan:Aajfm7731M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.A. & Sh. Mradul Agarwal C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Mazahar Akram, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 154Section 2(15)Section 250

…see in similar circumstances. It was further submitted that all the issues in the impugned order had been decided in favour of the assessee authority by a Division Bench of the jurisdictional High Court and in the case of Omega Sports and Radio vs. CIT (1982) 134 ITR 28 (All), the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court has held that an issue which has been concluded by the jurisdictional High Court is not debatable. It had further been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. South India Bank Limited (2001) 160 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 ITA Nos.1071, 1072, 1073/Del/2020 A.Ys. 2014-15 to 2016-17 taxman 364 (…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), NEW DELHI, DELHI vs. ACORE CONSULTING PVT LTD, DLEHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1308/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

…essment or penalty (whether on his own motion or on the request of the assessing officer). As against the judicial pronouncements supra we see no assistance to the case of revenue from the judgment of hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Gammon India Ltd. 214 ITR 50 (Bom) relied upon by learned DR. That is a case related to the proceedings under Section 154 and therefore it was held that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had no powers to consider what was not on record. 12. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, we find that in the case of Industrial Roadways (supra), the CIT(A) himself examined the…

M/S MAFATLAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 881/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40

…ITR 839 (P&H), observing as under: "We have carefully examined the records and have heard learned counsel representing the parties. We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the Allahabad High Court in Omega Sports and Radio Works' case [1982] 134 ITR 28, as also the decision of this court in Mohan Lal Kansal's case [1978] 114 ITR 583. Following the decision in the two cases referred to above, we hold that it was not a case of divergence of opinion inasmuch as the opinion expressed by this court was binding upon the Tribunal."' 11.16 Therefore, in our considered opinion, no contrary view can be ta…

M/S. HARMAN CONNECTED SERVICES CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2243/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Biju, M.K., CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80GSection 92C

…ITR 839 (P&H), observing as under: "We have carefully examined the records and have heard learned counsel representing the parties. We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the Allahabad High Court in Omega Sports and Radio Works' case [1982] 134 ITR 28, as also the decision of this court in Mohan Lal Kansal's case [1978] 114 ITR 583. Following the decision in the two cases referred to above, we hold that it was not a case of divergence of opinion inasmuch as the opinion expressed by this court was binding upon the Tribunal."' 11.16 Therefore, in our considered opinion, no contrary view can be ta…

M/S. ATRIA CONVERGENCE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE- 1, BANGALORE

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

ITA 2475/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Aliasger Rampurwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri T. Roumuan Paite, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 194JSection 40

…TR 839 (P&H), observing as under: "We have carefully examined the records and have heard learned counsel representing the parties. We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the Allahabad High Court in Omega Sports and Radio Works' case [1982] 134 ITR 28, as also the decision of this court in Mohan Lal Kansal's case [1978] 114 ITR 583. Following the decision in the two cases referred to above, we hold that it was not a case of divergence Page 25 of 26 of opinion inasmuch as the opinion expressed by this court was binding upon the Tribunal."' 11.16 Therefore, in our considered opinion, no contrary…

DIVYADATTA DIGAMBER NAGARI SAH. PATSANSTHA LTD,,SATARA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3,, SATARA

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 1306/PUN/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. S. Godaraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1306/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Divyadatta Digamber Vs. Ito, Ward-3, Satara. Nagari Sah. Patsanstha Ltd., Moti Heights, Azad Chowk, Koregaon, Satara- 415501. Pan : Aaeas1871L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri M. K. Kulkarni Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 25.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.06.2022 आदेश / Order Per S. S. Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2013-14 Arises Against The Cit(A)-4, Pune’S Order Dated 24.06.2019 Passed In Case No. Pn/Cit(A)-4/Ward- 3, Satara/479/2017-18/188 Involving Proceedings U/S 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short The Act. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. It Transpires During The Course Of Hearing That The Assessee’S Sole Substantive Grievance Challenges Correctness Of Both The Lower Authorities’ Action Rejecting Its Section 154 Rectification Filed On 26.07.2017 Thereby Disallowing Section 80P Deduction Claim Therein

For Appellant: Shri M. K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 80A(5)Section 80P

…e to cases where scrutiny assessment was undertaken whereas in the appellant's case only Intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act was completed. It is also worth mentioning that the appellant has relied on the judgement in the case of Gammon India Ltd. Vs. C1T (1995) 214 ITR 50 (Bom) which is actually in favour of Revenue. 6.3.4 In light of the facts and circumstances, as above, the AO has correctly rejected the appellant's application u/s 154 of the Act since there was no mistake apparent from record. Accordingly, Ground of Appeal Nos. 1, 2 and 3, raised by the appellant, stand DISMISSED.” 3 3. Learned authorized repre…

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), NEW DELHI vs. ANANT RAJ LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed partly as indicated above

ITA 5238/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Goel, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CA; Ms
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.As. No.4736/DEL/2017 Assessment Years: 2009-2010 M/s. Anant Raj Ltd., vs. Deputy Commissioner of E-2, ARA Centre, Income Tax, Jhandelwalan Extn., Circle-2(2), New Delhi. New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AABCA3972B (Appellant) (Respondent) ITAs No.5237 & 5238/DEL/2017 Assessment Years 2009-10 & 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner of vs. M/s. Anant Raj Ltd., Income Tax, E-2, ARA Centre, Circle-2(2), Jhandelwalan Extn., New Delhi. New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AABCA3972B (Appellant) (Responde…

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), NEW DELHI vs. ANANT RAJ LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed partly as indicated above

ITA 5237/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Goel, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CA; Ms
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.As. No.4736/DEL/2017 Assessment Years: 2009-2010 M/s. Anant Raj Ltd., vs. Deputy Commissioner of E-2, ARA Centre, Income Tax, Jhandelwalan Extn., Circle-2(2), New Delhi. New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AABCA3972B (Appellant) (Respondent) ITAs No.5237 & 5238/DEL/2017 Assessment Years 2009-10 & 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner of vs. M/s. Anant Raj Ltd., Income Tax, E-2, ARA Centre, Circle-2(2), Jhandelwalan Extn., New Delhi. New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AABCA3972B (Appellant) (Responde…

ANANT RAJ LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed partly as indicated above

ITA 4736/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Goel, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CA; Ms
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.As. No.4736/DEL/2017 Assessment Years: 2009-2010 M/s. Anant Raj Ltd., vs. Deputy Commissioner of E-2, ARA Centre, Income Tax, Jhandelwalan Extn., Circle-2(2), New Delhi. New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AABCA3972B (Appellant) (Respondent) ITAs No.5237 & 5238/DEL/2017 Assessment Years 2009-10 & 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner of vs. M/s. Anant Raj Ltd., Income Tax, E-2, ARA Centre, Circle-2(2), Jhandelwalan Extn., New Delhi. New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AABCA3972B (Appellant) (Responde…

APOLLO INTERNATIONAL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 3(1), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 6088/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms Sushma Chowla & Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2013-14 Apollo International Ltd., Vs. Dcit, 303, Dlf Court Yard, Circle-3(1), Saket, New Delhi. New Delhi Pan: Aaaca6447N Assessee By : Shri Manu K. Giri, Advocate Deptt. By : Shri Sanjog Kapoor, Sr. Dr (Appellants) (Respondents) Date Of Hearing : 28.11.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 1St August, 2017 Of The Cit(A)-1, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Only Effective Ground Raised By The Assessee Reads As Under:- “1. The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Disallowing An Amount Of Rs.37,32,000/- Under Section 14A Of The Act Read With Rule 8D Of The Income- Tax.” 3. The Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Trading Of Export Of Tyres, Tubes, Flaps, Leather Garments & Leather Accessories, Etc. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 29.11.2013 Declaring A Loss Of Rs.9,47,07,931/-. The Ao In The Order Passed U/S 143(3) Made Disallowance Of Rs.37,32,000/- On The Ground That The Assessee Has Suo Motu Disallowed A Sum Of Rs.8,17,000/- Only As Against The Disallowance As Per Section 14A Of The Act R.W. Rule 8D Of The Income-Tax Rules, 1962 Which Comes To Rs.45,49,000/-.

For Appellant: Shri Manu K. Giri, Advocate
Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 57

…230 ITR 839 (P&H), observing as under: "We have carefully examined the records and have heard Ld. counsel representing the parties. We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the Allahabad High Court in Omega Sports and Radio Works' case [1982] 134 ITR 28, as also the decision of this court in Mohan Lal Kansal's case [1978] 114 ITR 583. Following the decision in the two cases referred to above, we hold that it was not a case of divergence of opinion inasmuch as the opinion expressed by this court was binding upon the Tribunal." 5 11.16 Therefore, in our considered opinion, no contrary view can be…

APOLLO INTERNATIONAL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 6118/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri T.S. Kapoor & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Manu Kr. Giri, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mithun Sethi, Sr.D.R
Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 57

…230 ITR 839 (P&H), observing as under: "We have carefully examined the records and have heard Ld. counsel representing the parties. We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the Allahabad High Court in Omega Sports and Radio Works' case [1982] 134 ITR 28, as also the decision of this court in Mohan Lal Kansal's case [1978] 114 ITR 583. Following the decision in the two cases referred to above, we hold that it was not a case of divergence of opinion inasmuch as the opinion expressed by this court was binding upon the Tribunal." 11.16 Therefore, in our considered opinion, no contrary view can be tak…

APOLLO INTERNATIONAL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 9/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Apollo International Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax, Office No. 303, 3Rd Floor, Dlf Circle-3(1), C.R. Building, Courtyard, Saket, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aaaca6447N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Manu K. Giri, Adv. Respondent By Shri Sanjay I. Bara, Cit(Dr)

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 92CSection 92C(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: “I-1”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. Apollo International Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Ltd., Income Tax, Office No. 303, 3rd Floor, DLF Circle-3(1), C.R. Building, Courtyard, Saket, New Delhi New Delhi PAN :AAACA6447N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Manu K. Giri, Adv. Respondent by Shri Sanjay I. Bara, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 09.04.2019 Date of pronouncement 12.04.2019 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the final assessment orde…

M/S BRIGADE ENTERPRISES LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 530/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri. B. R. Sudheendra, CAFor Respondent: Shri. R. N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ITR 839 (P&H), observing as under: “We have carefully examined the records and have heard learned counsel representing the parties. We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the Allahabad High Court in Omega Sports and Radio Works’ case [1982] 134 ITR 28, as also the decision of this court in Mohan Lal Kansal’s case [1978] 114 ITR 583. Following the decision in the two cases referred to above, we hold that it was not a case of divergence of opinion inasmuch as the opinion expressed by this court was binding upon the Tribunal.” 11.16. Therefore, in our considered opinion, no contrary view can be ta…

BRIGADE ENTERPRISES LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(2), , BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 529/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri. B. R. Sudheendra, CAFor Respondent: Shri. R. N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ITR 839 (P&H), observing as under: “We have carefully examined the records and have heard learned counsel representing the parties. We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the Allahabad High Court in Omega Sports and Radio Works’ case [1982] 134 ITR 28, as also the decision of this court in Mohan Lal Kansal’s case [1978] 114 ITR 583. Following the decision in the two cases referred to above, we hold that it was not a case of divergence of opinion inasmuch as the opinion expressed by this court was binding upon the Tribunal.” 11.16. Therefore, in our considered opinion, no contrary view can be ta…

BRIGADE ENTERPRISES LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 528/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri. B. R. Sudheendra, CAFor Respondent: Shri. R. N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ITR 839 (P&H), observing as under: “We have carefully examined the records and have heard learned counsel representing the parties. We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the Allahabad High Court in Omega Sports and Radio Works’ case [1982] 134 ITR 28, as also the decision of this court in Mohan Lal Kansal’s case [1978] 114 ITR 583. Following the decision in the two cases referred to above, we hold that it was not a case of divergence of opinion inasmuch as the opinion expressed by this court was binding upon the Tribunal.” 11.16. Therefore, in our considered opinion, no contrary view can be ta…

KARE ELECTRONICS & DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-11(5), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2009-10 is partly allowed

ITA 799/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Kare Electronics & Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Development Private Limited, Income Tax, Flat No.101, 1St Floor, Eden Park, Circle – 11(5), No.20, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 001. Pan: Aabck 7679 R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Pradeep, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Vikas K. Suryawamshi, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234B

…observing as under: “We have carefully examined the records and have heard learned counsel representing the parties. We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the Allahabad High Court in Omega Sports and Radio Page 15 of 17 Works’ case [1982] 134 ITR 28, as also the decision of this court in Mohan Lal Kansal’s case [1978] 114 ITR 583. Following the decision in the two cases referred to above, we hold that it was not a case of divergence of opinion inasmuch as the opinion expressed by this court was binding upon the Tribunal.” 11.16. Therefore, in our considered opinion, no contrary view can be ta…

M/S PRANAVA ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(1)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2014-15 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2526/BANG/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Pranava Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Flat No. 101, 1St Floor, Eden Park, Ward – 5(1)(3), No.20, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 001. Pan : Aadcp 2196 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Girija, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Vikas K. Suryawamshi, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 19.12.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.01.2019

For Appellant: Smt. Girija, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Vikas K. Suryawamshi, Addl. CIT
Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2014-15 M/s. Pranava Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Income-tax Officer, Flat No. 101, 1st Floor, Eden Park, Ward – 5(1)(3), No.20, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 001. PAN : AADCP 2196 C APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Smt. Girija, CA Revenue by : Shri. Vikas K. Suryawamshi, Addl. CIT Date of hearing : 19.12.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 02.01.2019 O R D E R Per Shri Jason P Boaz, A.M. : This appeal by the assessee is directed against…

Showing 1–20 of 26 · Page 1 of 2