R.T. Balasubramaniam v. Income Tax Officer

50 ITD 513Income Tax Appellate Tribunal1994#21116 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2022.

Judgments citing R.T. Balasubramaniam v. Income Tax Officer

V.R.VENUGOPAL ,MANDYA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1), MYSORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1686/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. V. R. Venugopal, Acit, Vs. No.11 ‘Emerald Enclave’, Circle – 2(1), Belavadi Hobli, Srirangapatna, Mysuru. Mandya District – 571 606. Pan : Aaypv 2288 H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Vageesh Hegde, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

…o file statement showing quantitative details of agricultural produce for the Assessment Year 2012-13 in terms of bags and KGs. Learned Counsel for the assessee also relied on the decision of the ITAT, Madras Bench in the case of R. T. Balasubramaniam Vs. ITO 50 ITD 513 (Madras) and the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Chhat Mull Aggarwal Vs. CIT 116 ITR 694 (P & H High Court). In the case of R. T. Balasubramaniam (supra), on identical facts where the First Appellate Authority refused to adjudicate on the issues before him on the ground that the authorized representative agreed for the…

MANJEET SINGH BALI,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5384/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Manjeet Singh Bali, Vs Ito, C/O-Ravi Kumar & Co., Cas, Ward-1(4), House No.64, Sector-9, Ghaziabad. Ghaziabad-201001. Pan-Acepb5753B Appellant Respondent Appellant By S/Shri Gagan Kumar & Vivek Kumar, Advocate Respondent By Shri Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 11.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 11.05.2022

Section 234ASection 234BSection 271Section 50CSection 50C(2)

…the basis of better legal advice. The Appellant has filed an affidavit on record before the 1st Appellate Authority and deposed the above stated facts on oath. 7. That we have placed our reliance in the case of R.T. Balasubramaniam Vs. Income Tax Officer 1994 50 ITD 513 Mad. Whereat the facts has been stated as follows: “In view of certain deficiencies in some of the accounts, assessing officer made estimated additions to cover the defects. Aggrieved by the said additions, the assessee preferred appeals before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals). According to the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), at the time of the he…

GAMBHIR CHORIDA,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 4(4), CHENNAI

The appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 669/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 246(1)Section 51

…acts and circumstances are completely different from the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case. (iii) The Learned CIT(A) -5 erred in not following the binding decision of Hon'ble ITAT Madras Bench `D' in the case of R T Balasubramaniam Vs ITO [1994] 50 ITD 513 (MAD) wherein, on facts identical to the facts of the case of the appellant, the Hon'ble ITAT held that appeal u/s 246(1) is a valid one. (iv) The Learned CIT(A) - 5 ought not to have upheld the addition of Rs 10,00,000 as the same constituted a capital receipt not liable for tax as per 51 of the IT Act, 1961. (v) The order of the learned CIT(A) -…

DCIT- CC-5(1), MUMBAI vs. HUBTOWN LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, cross objection filed by the assesee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2764/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sooddcit, Cc-5(1) Vs. M/S. Hubtown Ltd. Room No.1928 19Th Floor Akruti Trade Centre, 6Th Floor Air India Building, Nariman Point Road No.7, Marol-Midc Mumbai-400 021 Andheri(E) Mumbai-400 093

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80Section 80I

…s made by the A.O. on agreed basis as the A.R. of the assesses had agreed for the said disallowance during the course of assessment proceedings. However, as held by the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of R. T. Balasuhramaniam vs. ITO reported in 50 ITD 513 (Mad) cited by the learned counsel for the assesse, it cannot be said that the assessee is not aggrieved by the order of assessment made by the A. O. on the basis of the agreement made by the AR. and consequently he cannot be denied the right of vindicating his grievance before higher forum......,...........,.......................................…