Poulose & Matthen Private Limited v. DCIT

136 ITD 222Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2012#16742 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2018.

Judgments citing Poulose & Matthen Private Limited v. DCIT

M/S PADMINI PRODUCTS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2255/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2018AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri M. Gandhi, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 2Section 43(1)Section 47Section 50B

…herefore, we do not see any reason to interfere with the orders of the authorities below. 21. The learned counsel for the assessee had placed reliance upon the decision of ITAT at Ahmedabad in the case of Prakash Chemical Agencies Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2012) 136 ITD 222 (Ahd) but we find that it is the case of a takeover of the business of a partnership firm by the assessee company therein whereas in the case before us, it is the case of conversion of partnership firm into a company. Therefore, the said decision is not applicable to the case on hand. 22. The other objection of the learned counsel for the assesse…

WAMAN HARI PETHE SONS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 10 (3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

ITA 2730/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2730/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Waman Hari Pethe Sons बिाम/ Dcit 10(3),Mumbai Private Ltd,. 110, Vikas Paradise, V. Lbs Marg, Mulund (W), Mumbai 400080 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacw9453A (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Deepak Tikekar Shri Rahul Kelkar Revenue By : Shri Vidhyadhar (Sr.Dr)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak TikekarFor Respondent: Shri Vidhyadhar (Sr.DR)
Section 139(5)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “G” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2730/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Waman Hari Pethe Sons बिाम/ DCIT 10(3),Mumbai Private Ltd,. 110, Vikas Paradise, v. LBS Marg, Mulund (W), Mumbai 400080 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PAN : AAACW9453A (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Deepak Tikekar Shri Rahul Kelkar Revenue by : Shri Vidhyadhar (Sr.DR) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date of Hearing : 08.05.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /…

M/S.PADMINI PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the assessment years are dismissed

ITA 1531/BANG/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Apr 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaramanassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Biju, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT-3)For Respondent: Shri M. Gandhi, CA
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(VA)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 47

…herefore, we do not see any reason to interfere with the orders of the authorities below. 21. The learned counsel for the assessee had placed reliance upon the decision of ITAT at Ahmedabad in the case of Prakash Chemical Agencies Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2012) 136 ITD 222 (Ahd) but we find that it is the case of a takeover of the business of a partnership firm by the assessee company therein whereas in the case before us, ITA Nos.1530 & 1531/Bang/2016 Page 10 of 11 it is the case of conversion of partnership firm into a company. Therefore, the said decision is not applicable to the case on hand. 22. The other ob…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE vs. M/S.PADMINI PRODUCTS PVT LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the assessment years are dismissed

ITA 1530/BANG/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Apr 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaramanassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Biju, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT-3)For Respondent: Shri M. Gandhi, CA
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(VA)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 47

…herefore, we do not see any reason to interfere with the orders of the authorities below. 21. The learned counsel for the assessee had placed reliance upon the decision of ITAT at Ahmedabad in the case of Prakash Chemical Agencies Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2012) 136 ITD 222 (Ahd) but we find that it is the case of a takeover of the business of a partnership firm by the assessee company therein whereas in the case before us, ITA Nos.1530 & 1531/Bang/2016 Page 10 of 11 it is the case of conversion of partnership firm into a company. Therefore, the said decision is not applicable to the case on hand. 22. The other ob…

M/S PADMINI PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the assessment years are dismissed

ITA 527/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Mar 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoshri Laliet Kumarm/S Padmini Products Pvt. Ltd., #157, K Kamaraj Road, Bengaluru-560 042. . Appellant Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-12(2) Bengaluru. . Respondent Appellant By : Shri Tatakrishna, Advocate Respondent By : Shri O.P Yadav, Cit Date Of Hearing : 1-3-2017 Date Of Pronouncement : -3-2017 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Tatakrishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri O.P Yadav, CIT
Section 143(2)

…erefore, we do not see any reason to interfere with the orders of the authorities below. 21. The learned counsel for the assessee had placed reliance upon the decision of ITAT at Ahmedabad in the case of Prakash Chemical Agencies Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2012) 136 ITD 222 (Ahd) but we find that it is the case of a takeover of the business of a partnership firm by the assessee company therein whereas in the case before us, ITA No.527/ /B/16 11 it is the case of conversion of partnership firm into a company. Therefore, the said decision is not applicable to the case on hand. 22. The other objection of the learne…

Poulose & Matthen Private Limited v. DCIT (136 ITD 222) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax