(P.) Ltd. v. ITO

221 ITR 538Supreme Court of India1996#829 most cited

What is (P.) Ltd. v. ITO authority for?

The sanction of a specified authority under Section 151 is a mandatory procedural check before issuing a notice under Section 148. This procedural safeguard aims to prevent mechanical reopening of assessments and harassment of the assessee.

125

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Sri Krishna (P.) Ltd. v. ITO · Section 148 notice · Section 151 sanction · specified authority approval · mechanical reopening of assessment · harassment of assessee · income escaping assessment · procedural check · old regime Section 151 · within four years

Also reported as

87 Taxmann 3159 SCC 534

Sections most often in play

Section 148Section 151Section 147Section 148ASection 143(3)Section 144BSection 149Section 68

Issues it is cited on

section 151(i)section 148a(a)within four yearssection 151(ii)section 148 noticesection 3(1)section 151(2)section 151(1)sanctioning authorityorder under section 148a(d)specified authorityincome escaping assessment

Judgments citing (P.) Ltd. v. ITO

Cle Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle -3(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6270/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth a/w Jitendra SanghviFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT/DR &
Section 115JSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

…aspect of sufficiency of those reasons. He also referred following judicial pronouncements: “a. Kalyan Mavji v CIT (SC) 102 ITR 287 b. ITO v Lakhmani Mewal Das (SC) 103 ITR 437 c. Phool Chand Bajranj v ITO (SC) 203 ITR 456 d. Sri Krishna (P) Ltd. v CIT (SC) 221 ITR 538 e. Central Provinces Manganese Ore v ITO (SC) 191 ITR 662” The ld. DR further submitted that speaking order u/s 148A(d) was passed after informing the assessee and giving opportunity to submit its objection. 7. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record in respect of reopening of assessment. The original return of income was filed…

Cle Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 3(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6269/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth a/w Jitendra SanghviFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT/DR &
Section 115JSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

…aspect of sufficiency of those reasons. He also referred following judicial pronouncements: “a. Kalyan Mavji v CIT (SC) 102 ITR 287 b. ITO v Lakhmani Mewal Das (SC) 103 ITR 437 c. Phool Chand Bajranj v ITO (SC) 203 ITR 456 d. Sri Krishna (P) Ltd. v CIT (SC) 221 ITR 538 e. Central Provinces Manganese Ore v ITO (SC) 191 ITR 662” The ld. DR further submitted that speaking order u/s 148A(d) was passed after informing the assessee and giving opportunity to submit its objection. 7. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record in respect of reopening of assessment. The original return of income was filed…

Rajnish Bharti HUF, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer 20(3)(1), Mumbai, Lalbaug

In the result, both the appeals of the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed assessee are dismissed whereas appeals of the Revenue are allowed

ITA 3941/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Appellant: Mrs. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. C.V. Jain
Section 143(3)Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA Nos. 3912 & 3941/MUM/2023 Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Rajnish Bharti HUF, ITO, Circle 20(3)(1), 4/281, Opp. Britannia Biscuit Piramal Chambers Lalbaug, Vs. Company, Reay Road, Darukhana, Mumbai. Mumbai-10. PAN NO. AAEHR 6595 K Appellant Respondent ITA Nos. 4378 & 4377/MUM/2023 Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 ITO-41(3)(3), BKC Rajnish Bharti HUF, 436, 4th floor, Kautaliya Bhavan, 4/281, Opp. Britannia Biscuit Mumbai-400051. Vs. Company, Reay R…

Rajnish Bharti HUF, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer 20(3)(1), Mumbai, Lalbaug

In the result, both the appeals of the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed assessee are dismissed whereas appeals of the Revenue are allowed

ITA 3912/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Appellant: Mrs. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. C.V. Jain
Section 143(3)Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA Nos. 3912 & 3941/MUM/2023 Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Rajnish Bharti HUF, ITO, Circle 20(3)(1), 4/281, Opp. Britannia Biscuit Piramal Chambers Lalbaug, Vs. Company, Reay Road, Darukhana, Mumbai. Mumbai-10. PAN NO. AAEHR 6595 K Appellant Respondent ITA Nos. 4378 & 4377/MUM/2023 Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 ITO-41(3)(3), BKC Rajnish Bharti HUF, 436, 4th floor, Kautaliya Bhavan, 4/281, Opp. Britannia Biscuit Mumbai-400051. Vs. Company, Reay R…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Small Industries Development Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2892/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2016-17 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Small Industries Income Tax Circle- Development Bank Of 3(3)(1) India Room No. 609, Sme Development Centre, Aaykar Bhavan, C-11, G- Block, Vs. M. K. Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Churchgate, Bandra (East), Mumbai- 400020. Pan: Aabcs3480N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule- CIT D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…er is not expected to hold an enquiry, with the participation of the assessee, and come to a final determination that the amount in question represented the income of the assessee. 3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sri Krishna (P.) Ltd. v ITO (1996) 221 ITR 538, held that the enquiry at the stage of finding out whether the reassessment notice is valid is only to see whether there are reasonable grounds for the Income-tax Officer to believe and not whether the omission/ failure and the escapement of income is established. 4. It was held by the Hon'ble Delhi High court in AGR Investment Ltd. v. Addl. CIT…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai, DCIT Circle, Aaykar Bhavan vs. Svc Co-Operative Bank Limited

ITA 691/MUM/2024[2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2024

Bench: Smt. Kavitha Rajgopal & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Ld. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. KAVITHA RAJGOPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 691/Mum/2024 (A.Y.2010-11) DCIT R. No. 535, Aayakar Bhavan, New Marine Lines, Church gate, Mumbai - 400 020 Appellant Vs. SVC Cooperative Bank Ltd. SVC Tower, Nehru Road, Santacruz (East), Mumbai- 400 055 Respondent PAN No. AAAAT0177C Appellant by : Respondent by : Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Ld. DR Shri Rajeev Walay, Ld. AR Date of hearing : 07/08/2024 Date of pronouncement : 09/09/2024 PER GAGAN GOYAL, A.M: ORDER This appeal by revenue is directed against the orde…

Shah Construction Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 859/MUM/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri M. SubramanianFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 36(1)(iii)

…f reassessment proceedings on that item will not be proper. At the time of reopening, assessing officer is not required to establish escapement of income. The reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements - 5 1. Sri Krishna (P) ltd. Vs CIT (SC) 221 ITR 538 2. Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. Vs ITO (SC) 191 ITR 662 3. ACIT Vs Tube Investments of India Ltd. (ITAT, Chennai- TM) 133 ITD 79 4. Rajat Export Import India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (Del) 341 ITR 135 5. In the impugned case, the Assessing Officer has recorded its prime facie reason Stating that it was not known whether the assessee had writt…

M/S. Mangalam Publications, Kottayam vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kottayam

C.A. No.-008580-008582 - 2011Supreme Court23 Jan 2024

Bench: This Court & On Leave Being Granted, Civil Appeals Have Been Registered. 3.

Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 260A

…essment and not otherwise. In support of such submission learned counsel has relied upon the decisions of this Court in: (i) M/s Phool Chand Bajrang Lal Vs. Income Tax Officer, (1993) 4 SCC 77. (ii) Srikrishna Private Limited Vs. ITO, Calcutta, (1996) 9 SCC 534. 21.8. Summing up his submissions, learned counsel submits that as rightly held by the Tribunal, it was the change of view of the assessing officer upon assessing the comparative accounts of the partners which led to the reassessments which is not based on any fresh material or evidence. It is evident that the assessing officer had only revi…

M/S. Vinayak Agro Industries, Rourkela vs. ITO Ward-4, Rourkela

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 166/CTK/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Nov 2023AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri N.K.Rout, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 148

…06 ITR 326 (Guj.)] upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court in (2019) 261 Taxman 1 (SC)] .' 7. PClT Vs Sunhill Ceramics P. Ltd. [2018 (9) TMI 1563 (Guj.)] 8. PClT Vs Shapoorji Pallonji and Co. Ltd .. [(2020) 423 ITR 220 (Born.)] 9. Sri Krishna Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO [(1996)221 ITR 538 (SC)] 10 Rajararn Rajendra Bhandari Vs. CIT [2016J 388 ITR 259 (Raj.) upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court in [2018] 97 taxmann.corn 348 (SC). 11. Zirconia Cera Tech Glazes Vs DClT [(2019) 178 ITD 6. In reply, ld. Sr. DR submitted that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. Vs. ITO, reported i…

M/S. Vinayak Agro Industries, Rourkela vs. ITO Ward-4, Rourkela

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 107/CTK/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Nov 2023AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri N.K.Rout, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 148

…06 ITR 326 (Guj.)] upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court in (2019) 261 Taxman 1 (SC)] .' 7. PClT Vs Sunhill Ceramics P. Ltd. [2018 (9) TMI 1563 (Guj.)] 8. PClT Vs Shapoorji Pallonji and Co. Ltd .. [(2020) 423 ITR 220 (Born.)] 9. Sri Krishna Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO [(1996)221 ITR 538 (SC)] 10 Rajararn Rajendra Bhandari Vs. CIT [2016J 388 ITR 259 (Raj.) upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court in [2018] 97 taxmann.corn 348 (SC). 11. Zirconia Cera Tech Glazes Vs DClT [(2019) 178 ITD 6. In reply, ld. Sr. DR submitted that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. Vs. ITO, reported i…

Keystone Realtors Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle 2(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 951/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. Naresh KumarFor Respondent: Sh. Anil. S. Sant, Sr.DR
Section 115JSection 132(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153A

…iance is placed on following case laws of the Apex Court. a. Kalyanji Maji & Co. v/s CIT (SC) 102 ITR 287 b. ITO v/s Lakhmani Mewal Das (SC) 103 ITR 437 c. Phool Chand Bajrang Lal and Another v/s ITO & Anr. (SC) 203 ITR 456 d. Sri Krishna (P) Ltd. v/s CIT (SC)221 ITR 538 e. Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v/s ITO (SC) 191 ITR 662 Apart from above facts emerging in this case, there are various case laws which support reopening of assessment on similar facts Same of there are being quoted below for ready reference: - ITO vs Purshottam Das Bangur 90 Taxmann.com 541 (SC) - wherein it was propounded by Hon’bl…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment year

ITA 1666/CHNY/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1356/Chny/2013, 1626/Chny/2011 & 2310/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2005-06 & 2010-11 M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Assistant Commissioner Of Insurance Company Limited V. Income Tax, “Sundaram Towers” Large Tax Payer Unit, 45 & 46, Whites Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 002. [Pan: Aabcr-7106-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1628, 1629 & 1630/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Deputy Commissioner Of Insurance Company Limited V. Income Tax, “Sundaram Towers” Large Tax Payer Unit, 45 & 46, Whites Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 002. [Pan: Aabcr-7106-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1666/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06 Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Tax, V. Insurance Company Limited Large Tax Payer Unit, “Sundaram Towers” Chennai. 45 & 46, Whites Road, Chennai – 600 002. [Pan: Aabcr-7106-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri. Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 195Section 3Section 40Section 5

…-tax thereon which is subject to a regular assessment later on. By the deduction of income-tax, the rights of the parties are not in any manner, adversely affected. The Honorable Calcutta High Court in the case of PC.Roy and Co. lnida P Ltd vs ITO reported in 86 ITR 365 had held that the analogous Sec.18(38) of the I.T. Act 1922 contemplated not merely amounts, the whole of which was taxable without deduction, but amounts of a mixed :-9-: ITA. No:1356 /Chny/2013, 1626, 1628, 1629, 1630 & 1666/Chny/2011 & 2310/Chny/2014 composition, a part of which only might turn out to be taxable income, as well; and the disbu…

M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment year

ITA 1630/CHNY/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1356/Chny/2013, 1626/Chny/2011 & 2310/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2005-06 & 2010-11 M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Assistant Commissioner Of Insurance Company Limited V. Income Tax, “Sundaram Towers” Large Tax Payer Unit, 45 & 46, Whites Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 002. [Pan: Aabcr-7106-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1628, 1629 & 1630/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Deputy Commissioner Of Insurance Company Limited V. Income Tax, “Sundaram Towers” Large Tax Payer Unit, 45 & 46, Whites Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 002. [Pan: Aabcr-7106-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1666/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06 Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Tax, V. Insurance Company Limited Large Tax Payer Unit, “Sundaram Towers” Chennai. 45 & 46, Whites Road, Chennai – 600 002. [Pan: Aabcr-7106-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri. Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 195Section 3Section 40Section 5

…-tax thereon which is subject to a regular assessment later on. By the deduction of income-tax, the rights of the parties are not in any manner, adversely affected. The Honorable Calcutta High Court in the case of PC.Roy and Co. lnida P Ltd vs ITO reported in 86 ITR 365 had held that the analogous Sec.18(38) of the I.T. Act 1922 contemplated not merely amounts, the whole of which was taxable without deduction, but amounts of a mixed :-9-: ITA. No:1356 /Chny/2013, 1626, 1628, 1629, 1630 & 1666/Chny/2011 & 2310/Chny/2014 composition, a part of which only might turn out to be taxable income, as well; and the disbu…

M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment year

ITA 1629/CHNY/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1356/Chny/2013, 1626/Chny/2011 & 2310/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2005-06 & 2010-11 M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Assistant Commissioner Of Insurance Company Limited V. Income Tax, “Sundaram Towers” Large Tax Payer Unit, 45 & 46, Whites Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 002. [Pan: Aabcr-7106-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1628, 1629 & 1630/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Deputy Commissioner Of Insurance Company Limited V. Income Tax, “Sundaram Towers” Large Tax Payer Unit, 45 & 46, Whites Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 002. [Pan: Aabcr-7106-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1666/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06 Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Tax, V. Insurance Company Limited Large Tax Payer Unit, “Sundaram Towers” Chennai. 45 & 46, Whites Road, Chennai – 600 002. [Pan: Aabcr-7106-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri. Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 195Section 3Section 40Section 5

…-tax thereon which is subject to a regular assessment later on. By the deduction of income-tax, the rights of the parties are not in any manner, adversely affected. The Honorable Calcutta High Court in the case of PC.Roy and Co. lnida P Ltd vs ITO reported in 86 ITR 365 had held that the analogous Sec.18(38) of the I.T. Act 1922 contemplated not merely amounts, the whole of which was taxable without deduction, but amounts of a mixed :-9-: ITA. No:1356 /Chny/2013, 1626, 1628, 1629, 1630 & 1666/Chny/2011 & 2310/Chny/2014 composition, a part of which only might turn out to be taxable income, as well; and the disbu…

M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment year

ITA 1628/CHNY/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1356/Chny/2013, 1626/Chny/2011 & 2310/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2005-06 & 2010-11 M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Assistant Commissioner Of Insurance Company Limited V. Income Tax, “Sundaram Towers” Large Tax Payer Unit, 45 & 46, Whites Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 002. [Pan: Aabcr-7106-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1628, 1629 & 1630/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Deputy Commissioner Of Insurance Company Limited V. Income Tax, “Sundaram Towers” Large Tax Payer Unit, 45 & 46, Whites Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 002. [Pan: Aabcr-7106-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1666/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06 Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Tax, V. Insurance Company Limited Large Tax Payer Unit, “Sundaram Towers” Chennai. 45 & 46, Whites Road, Chennai – 600 002. [Pan: Aabcr-7106-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri. Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 195Section 3Section 40Section 5

…-tax thereon which is subject to a regular assessment later on. By the deduction of income-tax, the rights of the parties are not in any manner, adversely affected. The Honorable Calcutta High Court in the case of PC.Roy and Co. lnida P Ltd vs ITO reported in 86 ITR 365 had held that the analogous Sec.18(38) of the I.T. Act 1922 contemplated not merely amounts, the whole of which was taxable without deduction, but amounts of a mixed :-9-: ITA. No:1356 /Chny/2013, 1626, 1628, 1629, 1630 & 1666/Chny/2011 & 2310/Chny/2014 composition, a part of which only might turn out to be taxable income, as well; and the disbu…

M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment year

ITA 1626/CHNY/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1356/Chny/2013, 1626/Chny/2011 & 2310/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2005-06 & 2010-11 M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Assistant Commissioner Of Insurance Company Limited V. Income Tax, “Sundaram Towers” Large Tax Payer Unit, 45 & 46, Whites Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 002. [Pan: Aabcr-7106-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1628, 1629 & 1630/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Deputy Commissioner Of Insurance Company Limited V. Income Tax, “Sundaram Towers” Large Tax Payer Unit, 45 & 46, Whites Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 002. [Pan: Aabcr-7106-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1666/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06 Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Tax, V. Insurance Company Limited Large Tax Payer Unit, “Sundaram Towers” Chennai. 45 & 46, Whites Road, Chennai – 600 002. [Pan: Aabcr-7106-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri. Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 195Section 3Section 40Section 5

…-tax thereon which is subject to a regular assessment later on. By the deduction of income-tax, the rights of the parties are not in any manner, adversely affected. The Honorable Calcutta High Court in the case of PC.Roy and Co. lnida P Ltd vs ITO reported in 86 ITR 365 had held that the analogous Sec.18(38) of the I.T. Act 1922 contemplated not merely amounts, the whole of which was taxable without deduction, but amounts of a mixed :-9-: ITA. No:1356 /Chny/2013, 1626, 1628, 1629, 1630 & 1666/Chny/2011 & 2310/Chny/2014 composition, a part of which only might turn out to be taxable income, as well; and the disbu…

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, Chennai vs. Addl. CIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment year

ITA 2310/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1356/Chny/2013, 1626/Chny/2011 & 2310/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2005-06 & 2010-11 M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Assistant Commissioner Of Insurance Company Limited V. Income Tax, “Sundaram Towers” Large Tax Payer Unit, 45 & 46, Whites Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 002. [Pan: Aabcr-7106-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1628, 1629 & 1630/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Deputy Commissioner Of Insurance Company Limited V. Income Tax, “Sundaram Towers” Large Tax Payer Unit, 45 & 46, Whites Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 002. [Pan: Aabcr-7106-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1666/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06 Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Tax, V. Insurance Company Limited Large Tax Payer Unit, “Sundaram Towers” Chennai. 45 & 46, Whites Road, Chennai – 600 002. [Pan: Aabcr-7106-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri. Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 195Section 3Section 40Section 5

…-tax thereon which is subject to a regular assessment later on. By the deduction of income-tax, the rights of the parties are not in any manner, adversely affected. The Honorable Calcutta High Court in the case of PC.Roy and Co. lnida P Ltd vs ITO reported in 86 ITR 365 had held that the analogous Sec.18(38) of the I.T. Act 1922 contemplated not merely amounts, the whole of which was taxable without deduction, but amounts of a mixed :-9-: ITA. No:1356 /Chny/2013, 1626, 1628, 1629, 1630 & 1666/Chny/2011 & 2310/Chny/2014 composition, a part of which only might turn out to be taxable income, as well; and the disbu…

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment year

ITA 1356/CHNY/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1356/Chny/2013, 1626/Chny/2011 & 2310/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2005-06 & 2010-11 M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Assistant Commissioner Of Insurance Company Limited V. Income Tax, “Sundaram Towers” Large Tax Payer Unit, 45 & 46, Whites Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 002. [Pan: Aabcr-7106-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1628, 1629 & 1630/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Deputy Commissioner Of Insurance Company Limited V. Income Tax, “Sundaram Towers” Large Tax Payer Unit, 45 & 46, Whites Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 002. [Pan: Aabcr-7106-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1666/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06 Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Tax, V. Insurance Company Limited Large Tax Payer Unit, “Sundaram Towers” Chennai. 45 & 46, Whites Road, Chennai – 600 002. [Pan: Aabcr-7106-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri. Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 195Section 3Section 40Section 5

…-tax thereon which is subject to a regular assessment later on. By the deduction of income-tax, the rights of the parties are not in any manner, adversely affected. The Honorable Calcutta High Court in the case of PC.Roy and Co. lnida P Ltd vs ITO reported in 86 ITR 365 had held that the analogous Sec.18(38) of the I.T. Act 1922 contemplated not merely amounts, the whole of which was taxable without deduction, but amounts of a mixed :-9-: ITA. No:1356 /Chny/2013, 1626, 1628, 1629, 1630 & 1666/Chny/2011 & 2310/Chny/2014 composition, a part of which only might turn out to be taxable income, as well; and the disbu…

Khangaram K Dewasi, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal

ITA 2807/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mr. Khangaram K. Dewasi, Prop. The Dcit, Central Circle-2(3), Of Shreenathji Metal & Alloys, Mumbai-21 Shop No. 5, Sultan Market, Opp. Vs. Ash Krishna Bldg. Andheri Ghatkoper Road, Sakinaka, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400072. Pan No. Aeepd 8897 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Bharat Kumar, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Ajeya Kumar Ojha, Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/08/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Bharat Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Ajeya Kumar Ojha, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69

…as (SC) 103 ITR 437 c. Phool Chand Bajrang Lal and Another vs ITO & Anr. (SC)203 Phool Chand Bajrang Lal and Another vs ITO & Anr. (SC)203 Phool Chand Bajrang Lal and Another vs ITO & Anr. (SC)203 ITR 456 ITR 456 d. Sri Krishna Sri Krishna (P) Ltd. ys CIT (SC)221 ITR 538 e. Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. vs ITO (SC) 191 ITR Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. vs ITO (SC) 191 ITR Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. vs ITO (SC) 191 ITR ITA Nos. 2805 to 2807/M/2018 21 Mr. Khangaram K. Dewasi, Prop. Of Shreenathji Mr. Khangaram K. Dewasi, Prop. Of Shreenathji Metal & Alloys (ii) A close reading o…

Khangaram K. Dewasi, Mumbai vs. DCIT- CC-2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal

ITA 2806/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mr. Khangaram K. Dewasi, Prop. The Dcit, Central Circle-2(3), Of Shreenathji Metal & Alloys, Mumbai-21 Shop No. 5, Sultan Market, Opp. Vs. Ash Krishna Bldg. Andheri Ghatkoper Road, Sakinaka, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400072. Pan No. Aeepd 8897 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Bharat Kumar, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Ajeya Kumar Ojha, Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/08/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Bharat Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Ajeya Kumar Ojha, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69

…as (SC) 103 ITR 437 c. Phool Chand Bajrang Lal and Another vs ITO & Anr. (SC)203 Phool Chand Bajrang Lal and Another vs ITO & Anr. (SC)203 Phool Chand Bajrang Lal and Another vs ITO & Anr. (SC)203 ITR 456 ITR 456 d. Sri Krishna Sri Krishna (P) Ltd. ys CIT (SC)221 ITR 538 e. Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. vs ITO (SC) 191 ITR Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. vs ITO (SC) 191 ITR Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. vs ITO (SC) 191 ITR ITA Nos. 2805 to 2807/M/2018 21 Mr. Khangaram K. Dewasi, Prop. Of Shreenathji Mr. Khangaram K. Dewasi, Prop. Of Shreenathji Metal & Alloys (ii) A close reading o…