R.Gopal Ramnarayan v. Third I.T.O

126 ITR 369High Court1980#16594 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2024 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 115JBSection 153Section 10(38)Section 14ASection 144BSection 14A(2)Section 156

Issues it is cited on

section 150section 65book profitssection 115jbincome-tax officersection 153section 15section 143prescribedtransfersection 14section 143(3)

Judgments citing R.Gopal Ramnarayan v. Third I.T.O

Raymix Concrete India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-5(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2771/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2771/Chny/2024 Assessment Years: 2015-16 Raymix Concrete India Private Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of Income No.1/107 & 108, Agr Tower, Tax, P.H.Road, Nerkundram, Corporate Circle-5(1), Chennai- 600 107 Chennai. [Pan: Aaecr6993A] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Ms.Lekha,C.A प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.08.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Ms.Lekha,C.AFor Respondent: Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 37

…. In S. Mubarik Shah Naqshbandi v. CIT [1977] 110 ITR 217 (J & K), the"assessment order" did not determine the tax payable and there was no other paper or form containing the computation except the notice of demand. In R. Gopal Ram narayan v. Third ITO [1980] 126 ITR 369 (Kar), theTribunal had annulled an assessment because the tax calculations had been made on a separate sheet of paper but the Department could not raise this issue before the High Court because it had not challenged the Tribunal's order in appropriate proceedings. The Karnataka High Court, however, did have occasion later to consider thequestion…

Writemen Media Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(1)(3), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1516/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ashwin D Gowda, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 153Section 56(2)(viib)

…. In S. Mubarik Shah Naqshbandi v. CIT [1977] 110 ITR 217 (J & K), the "assessment order" did not determine the tax payable and there was no other paper or form containing the computation except the notice of demand. In R. Gopal Ramnarayan v. Third ITO [1980] 126 ITR 369 (Kar), the Tribunal had annulled an assessment because the tax calculations had been made on a separate sheet of paper but the Department could not raise this issue before the High Court because it had not challenged the Tribunal's order in appropriate proceedings. The Karnataka High Court, however, did have occasion later to consider the questio…

Jyothy Industries, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(2)(1), Bangalore

ITA 1777/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Shri. B. S. Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 143(3)Section 198Section 199Section 250

…nt of facts. 4. The learned CIT(A) also failed to appreciate that tax deducted at source has to be mandatorily adjusted towards the taxes finally determined in the assessment as held by the Karnataka High Court in the case of Gopala Ramanarayan vs Third ITO [126 ITR 369]. 5. The learned CIT(A) also erred in not following the settled law that procedural provision or technicality cannot be allowed to defeat substantial justice as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs Katiji and others 167 ITR 471 (SC). 6. The learned CIT(A) also erred in not appreciating the legal positio…

ACIT-1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Bennett Coleman & Company Limited, Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed and revenue is dismissed

ITA 1520/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bleι.Τ.Α. No.1387/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd. The Times Of India Building, Dr. Dadabhai Naoroji Road Fort, Mumbai-400 001 [Pan: Aaacb4373Q] Vs National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्य्थी / (Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1520/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Acit-1(1)(1), Mumbai Vs Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd. The Times Of India Building, Dr. Dadabhai Naoroji Road Fort, Mumbai-400 001 [Pan: Aaacb4373Q] Assessee By : Shri P.J. Pardiwala A/W. Shri Madhur Agrawal, Shri Jas Sanghavi, Shri Yash Prakash & Shri Vikas Poojary Revenue By : Shri S. Srinivasu Cit Dr A/W. Shri Ashok Ambastha, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2024 2 आदेश/Order आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Ι.Τ.Α. No.1387/Mum/2023 & 1520/Mum/2023 Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. Per Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w. Shri MadhurFor Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu CIT DR a/w. Shri Ashok
Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 14ASection 14A(2)Section 153

…duly signed. In Mubarik Shah Naqshbandi v. CIT [1977]110 ITR 217, the "assessment order" did not determine the tax payable and there was no other paper or form containing the computation except the notice of demand. In R.Gopal Ramnarayan v. Third I.T.O.[1980]126 ITR 369(Kar), the Tribunal had annulled an assessment because the tax calculations had been made on a separate sheet of paper but the Department could not raise this issue before the High Court because it had not challenged the Tribunal's order in appropriate proceedings. The Karnataka High Court, however, did have occasion later to consider the question…

Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre., Delhi

ITA 1387/MUM/2023[2018--2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2024

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bleι.Τ.Α. No.1387/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd. The Times Of India Building, Dr. Dadabhai Naoroji Road Fort, Mumbai-400 001 [Pan: Aaacb4373Q] Vs National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्य्थी / (Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1520/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Acit-1(1)(1), Mumbai Vs Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd. The Times Of India Building, Dr. Dadabhai Naoroji Road Fort, Mumbai-400 001 [Pan: Aaacb4373Q] Assessee By : Shri P.J. Pardiwala A/W. Shri Madhur Agrawal, Shri Jas Sanghavi, Shri Yash Prakash & Shri Vikas Poojary Revenue By : Shri S. Srinivasu Cit Dr A/W. Shri Ashok Ambastha, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2024 2 आदेश/Order आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Ι.Τ.Α. No.1387/Mum/2023 & 1520/Mum/2023 Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. Per Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w. Shri MadhurFor Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu CIT DR a/w. Shri Ashok
Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 14ASection 14A(2)Section 153

…duly signed. In Mubarik Shah Naqshbandi v. CIT [1977]110 ITR 217, the "assessment order" did not determine the tax payable and there was no other paper or form containing the computation except the notice of demand. In R.Gopal Ramnarayan v. Third I.T.O.[1980]126 ITR 369(Kar), the Tribunal had annulled an assessment because the tax calculations had been made on a separate sheet of paper but the Department could not raise this issue before the High Court because it had not challenged the Tribunal's order in appropriate proceedings. The Karnataka High Court, however, did have occasion later to consider the question…

R.Gopal Ramnarayan v. Third I.T.O (126 ITR 369) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax