Radha Swamy Satsung v. CIT

93 ITR 321Supreme Court of India1992#18427 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2023.

Judgments citing Radha Swamy Satsung v. CIT

DCIT- 8(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Piramal Estates Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2015/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Ronak Doshi/Priyank Gandhi/MsFor Respondent: Shri N. V. Nadkarni, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 24Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1936/Mum/2023 (A.Y.2011-12) ITA No. 2016/Mum/2023 (A.Y.2013-14) & DCIT Circle 8(2) (1), R. No. 624, 6th floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 PAN: AACCA7777K ....... Appellant Vs. Piramal Estates Pvt. Ltd. 8th floor, Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai-400 013 ..... Respondent Appellant by : Shri Ronak Doshi/Priyank Gandhi/Ms. Jinal Jain, Ld. ARs Respondent by : Shri N. V. Nadkarni, Ld. CIT-DR Date of hearing : 08/11/2023 D…

The Udhna Udyognagar Sahakari Sangh Ltd., Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Surat

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 4/AHD/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jun 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No. 3&4/Ahd/2014/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2005-06 & 2006-07 Udhna Udyognagar Sahakari Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Sangh Ltd, Ward.3(1), Central Road No.10, Room No.116, 1St Floor, Post Box No.1224, Aayakar Bhavan, Udyognagar, Udhna, Majuragate, Surat. Surat. Pan: Aaaat 2932K अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Viresh I. Rudalal & िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Rushi J. Parekh, C.A. Shri J.K. Chandnani, Sr. Dr राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By 19.06.2018 सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 27.06.2018 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On आदेश /O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 24(1)Section 32Section 37(1)

…Udyognagar Sahakari Sangh Ltd. v. ITO,3(1),SRT./ I.T.A. No.3&4/A/2014 /05-06&06-07 Page 6 of 9 for these assessment years and allowed the claim at 30% being statutory deduction. Therefore, as held by Hon’ble S.C. in the case of Radha Sowami Satsang Mandal at 93 ITR 321 (SC) held that consistency in the assessment proceedings should be maintained. The learned counsel further placed reliance in the case of M/s. Rayala Corporation Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT [Civil appeal No.6437/2016 dtd. 11.08.2016] has allowing the assessee’s claim of treating the income from rent under the head income from Business and Profession on the…

The Udhna Udyognagar Sahakari Sangh Ltd., Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Surat

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 3/AHD/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jun 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No. 3&4/Ahd/2014/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2005-06 & 2006-07 Udhna Udyognagar Sahakari Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Sangh Ltd, Ward.3(1), Central Road No.10, Room No.116, 1St Floor, Post Box No.1224, Aayakar Bhavan, Udyognagar, Udhna, Majuragate, Surat. Surat. Pan: Aaaat 2932K अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Viresh I. Rudalal & िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Rushi J. Parekh, C.A. Shri J.K. Chandnani, Sr. Dr राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By 19.06.2018 सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 27.06.2018 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On आदेश /O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 24(1)Section 32Section 37(1)

…Udyognagar Sahakari Sangh Ltd. v. ITO,3(1),SRT./ I.T.A. No.3&4/A/2014 /05-06&06-07 Page 6 of 9 for these assessment years and allowed the claim at 30% being statutory deduction. Therefore, as held by Hon’ble S.C. in the case of Radha Sowami Satsang Mandal at 93 ITR 321 (SC) held that consistency in the assessment proceedings should be maintained. The learned counsel further placed reliance in the case of M/s. Rayala Corporation Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT [Civil appeal No.6437/2016 dtd. 11.08.2016] has allowing the assessee’s claim of treating the income from rent under the head income from Business and Profession on the…

M/S. Dayanand Contractor, Rohtak vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

In the result, original

ITA 2807/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Kumar Kamal & Lalit MohanFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 263

…ly apply in the case of the assessee and there should not have been any reason for the Pr. CIT to invoke jurisdiction under section 263 of the I.T. Act. We rely upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Radha Swamy Satsung vs. CIT (1992) 93 ITR 321. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co., Ltd., vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 held that where two views are possible and A.O. has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, the said order cannot be treated as an erroneous order, prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, unless view taken by the A.O. is unsu…

M/S. Dayanand Contractor, Rohtak vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

In the result, original

ITA 2806/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Kumar Kamal & Lalit MohanFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 263

…ly apply in the case of the assessee and there should not have been any reason for the Pr. CIT to invoke jurisdiction under section 263 of the I.T. Act. We rely upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Radha Swamy Satsung vs. CIT (1992) 93 ITR 321. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co., Ltd., vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 held that where two views are possible and A.O. has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, the said order cannot be treated as an erroneous order, prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, unless view taken by the A.O. is unsu…

Radha Swamy Satsung v. CIT (93 ITR 321) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax