P.M. Mohammed Meerakhan v. CIT-Kerala

2 SCC 25Reported decision1969#15203 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2024.

Judgments citing P.M. Mohammed Meerakhan v. CIT-Kerala

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax- 18 vs. M/S Wig Investment

The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms

ITA/169/2020HC Delhi15 Jan 2024

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 263

…s placed on the following decisions: CIT vs. D&M Components Ltd. 364 ITR 179; CIT vs. H. Holck Larsen (1986) 3 SCC 364; PVS Raju vs. ACIT (2012) 340 ITR 75; Raja Bahadur Visheshwara Singh vs. CIT (1961) 41 ITR 685 and P M Mohammad Meerakhan vs. CIT (1969) 2 SCC 25. 8.2 As regards the other issue, it was submitted that once the Tribunal concluded (and in this regard, agreed with the observation of the AO) that Mr Pradeep Wig and Mrs Neera Wig were majority shareholders having control over KPFSE and KICIPL, it ought to have logically held that the aforementioned individuals had benefited from the capital…

M/S. Gayan Traders Limited vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-II

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

ITA/48/2009HC Calcutta30 Sept 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA

Section 143(3)Section 260A

…. Raju and P. Rajyalakshmi Versus Additional Commissioner of Income Tax7. 7. We have elaborately heard learned counsel for the parties. 4 (1959) 35 ITR 594 (SC) 5 (1986) 3 SCC 364 6 (1969) 2 SCC 25 7 (2012) 340 ITR 75 AP ITA NO. 48 OF 2009 REPORTABLE Page 7 of 19 8. The CBDT by Circular No. 4 of 2007 dated 15.06.2007 laid down the tests for distinguishing shares held as stock-in-tr…

M/S Unicorn Agro Tech Limited, Secunderabad vs. The Asst. Commisisoner of Income Tax, Hyderabad

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

ITTA/48/2009HC Telangana16 Mar 2021

Bench: T.VINOD KUMAR,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

Section 143(3)Section 260A

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M/s.Kalyani Wines

In the result, I find this appeal bereft of merit and accordingly,

ITTA/6/2010HC Telangana14 Mar 2016

Bench: Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Robin Phukan

Section 11Section 37

…d by the principles of approbation and reprobation. A party cannot be permitted to take advantage of a particular transaction and thereafter deny the same, as held by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. N Murrugesen, reported in (2022) 2 SCC 25, wherein, considering its earlier decisions in Nagubai Ammal Vs. B Shama Rao, reported in AIR 1956 SC 593 and Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation and Another Vs. Diamond & Gem Development Corporation Limited and Another, reported in (2013) 5 SCC 470 and held that a party cannot be permitted to blow hot and cold. W…

Radials International vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/485/2012HC Delhi25 Apr 2014

Bench: The Court Is: “Whether, The Shares Invested Through A Portfolio Management 2014:Dhc:2173-Db

Section 271(1)(c)Section 88E

…ITA No.485/2012 Page 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 17.04.2014 Pronounced on: 25.04.2014 + ITA No.485/2012 RADIALS INTERNATIONAL ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Kaanan Kapur, Advocate. Versus ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Respondent Through: Mr. N.P. Sahni, Sr. Standing Counsel. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT % 1. This is an appeal filed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (“ITAT”)…

Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajahmundry vs. M/s. Kakinada Coop. Town Bank LTd., Kakinada

ITTA/485/2012HC Telangana15 Nov 2012

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO