Page 9 of 19 1. (1977) 1 SCC 431, Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras v. R.M.Chidambaram Pillai & Ors. 2

354 ITR 9High Court2013#24633 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2021.

Judgments citing Page 9 of 19 1. (1977) 1 SCC 431, Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras v. R.M.Chidambaram Pillai & Ors. 2

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Valsad Circle, Valsad vs. M/S.Pramukh Infrastructure, Valsad

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 205/SRT/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Dec 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) The Assistant Pramukh Infrastructure, Commissioner Of Income C/O. Shri Bipinchandra B. Patel, Vs Tax, Pramukh Prasad, N.H.No.8, Link Valsad Circle, Valsad. Road, Dungri, Valsad. Pan: Aaifp 6738 J Appellant Respondent

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 254(1)Section 269SSection 271DSection 274

…on 269SS of the Act. The submission of ld.AR finds support from the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in CIT vs. Lokpat Film Exchange (Cinema) 304 ITR 179 (Raj) (supra), Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT vs. V.Shiva Kumar [2013] 32 taxmann.com 62 Madras/354 ITR 9 (Mad) (supra) and decision of Surat Bench of Tribunal in The Nizar Taluka Khedut Sahakari Kharid Vechan Sangh Ltd., vs. JCIT in ITA No.3157/AHD/2015(supra). In view of aforesaid factual and legal discussion, we do not find any merit in the grounds of appeal raised by the 7 Pramukh Infrastructure, Surat Revenue, accordingly, we affirm the order of L…

Surendra Enginering Corporation, Mumbai vs. JCIT 17(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal stands allowed

ITA 2386/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Saktijit Dey

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R. ParikhFor Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 2(23)Section 269SSection 271D

…itted, the penalty imposed should be deleted. In support of his contention, the learned Authorised Representative relied upon the following decisions:– i) CIT v/s Muthoot Financers & Muthoot & Ors., [2015] 371 ITR 408 (Del.); ii) CIT v/s V. Sivakumar, [2013] 354 ITR 9 (Mad.); iii) CIT v/s Lokhpat Film Exchange (Cinema), [2008] 304 ITR 172 (Raj.); iv) CIT v/s Ajitnath Hi–Tech Builders Pvt. Ltd., [2019] 412 ITR 316 (Bom.); and v) Soundarya Textiles v/s ACIT, [2014] 362 ITR 488 (Ker.). 4. Relying upon the observations of the Assessing Officer and learned Commissioner (Appeals) the learned Departmental Representati…

Commissioner of Income Tax New Delhi vs. M/S Muthoot Financiers, New Delhi

ITA - 336 / 2002HC Delhi03 Feb 2015

Section 148Section 260Section 269Section 271

…2015:DHC:1047-DB ITA No.336/2002 & connected matters Page 9 of 19 1. (1977) 1 SCC 431, Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras Vs. R.M.Chidambaram Pillai & Ors. 2. (2013) 354 ITR 9 (Mad), Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. V.Sivakumar. 3. (2008) 304 ITR 172 (Raj), Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Lokhpat Film Exchange (Cinema). 4. (2005) 277 ITR 420 (P&H), Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Saini Medical Store. 5. (2009) 315 ITR 163 (P&H), Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sunil Kumar Goel. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for…