P.S. Veerappa v. CIT

127 ITR 247High Court#22293 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2022.

Judgments citing P.S. Veerappa v. CIT

DCIT - 14(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Rupa Infotech & Infrastructure P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3597/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Shankarlal JainFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…haf Broadcast Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT ITAT No. 1819/Mum/2012 dtd 17.4.13(mum) also held that ………. 4.1.2. the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ITo vs. Lakhmani Meval Das 103 ITR 437 (SC) had an occasion to consider……….. 4.1.3 In the case of P.S. Veerappa Vs. CIT 127 ITR 247 (Mad) also held that ………….. 4.1.4 S.P Agarwalla V. Income Tax Officer 140 ITR 1010 (Cal.) the court held………. 4.2 No evidence to be rejected without verification 4.2.1 CIT v. Genesis Commet (P.) Ltd., 163 Taxman 0482 (Delhi), the court held: ………. 4.2.2 CIT vs. Gangeshwari Metal Pvt. Ltd 361 ITR 0010 (Delhi) held: ……… 4.2.3 Oriental international c…

DCIT 14(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Rupa Properties & Securities P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3596/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Shankarlal JainFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…haf Broadcast Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT ITAT No. 1819/Mum/2012 dtd 17.4.13(mum) also held that ………. 4.1.2. the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ITo vs. Lakhmani Meval Das 103 ITR 437 (SC) had an occasion to consider……….. 4.1.3 In the case of P.S. Veerappa Vs. CIT 127 ITR 247 (Mad) also held that ………….. 4.1.4 S.P Agarwalla V. Income Tax Officer 140 ITR 1010 (Cal.) the court held………. 4.2 No evidence to be rejected without verification 4.2.1 CIT v. Genesis Commet (P.) Ltd., 163 Taxman 0482 (Delhi), the court held: ………. 4.2.2 CIT vs. Gangeshwari Metal Pvt. Ltd 361 ITR 0010 (Delhi) held: ……… 4.2.3 Oriental international c…

ITO 4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Parekh Pipes P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be partly allowed and the cross-objection of the assessee is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 5847/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.5847/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ito-4(3)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Parekh Pipes Pvt. Ltd. 158/160, Laxmi Bhuvan, 1St Room No.648, 6Th Floor, Vs. Floor, Opp. Coton Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Exchange, Kalbadevi, Road, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400002. Co. No.207/Mum/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita. No. 5847/Mum/2016) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बिधम/ M/S. Parekh Pipes Pvt. Ltd. Ito-4(3)(1) 158/160, Laxmi Bhuvan, 1St Room No.648, 6Th Floor, Vs. Floor, Opp. Coton Exchange, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Kalbadevi, Mumbai-400002 Road, Mumbai-400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcp9904A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Abi Rama Kartikiyen (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Pradip Kapasi (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26/02/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/04/2019

For Appellant: Shri Pradip Kapasi (AR)For Respondent: Shri Abi Rama Kartikiyen (DR)
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69C

…ation Wing then no enquiry was conducted by AO, therefore, the order is not liable to be sustainable in the eyes of law. In support of these contention, the Ld. Representative of the assessee has placed reliance upon the law settled in P. S. Veerappa Vs. CIT, 127 ITR 247 (Mad) and CIT Vs. Adani Export, 240 ITR 224 (Guj). It is also argued that on account of change of opinion the provision u/s 147/148 of the Act is not liable to be invoked and in support of this contention, the Ld. Representative of the assessee has relied upon the law settled in the case of Bharat Jayantilal Patel, 378 ITR 596 (Bom) and Kelvinato…

P.S. Veerappa v. CIT (127 ITR 247) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax