Ramnath Santu Angolkar v. DCIT

422 ITR 508Reported decision#20837 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 357,294 Indian tax judgments — from 2023 to 2023.

Judgments citing Ramnath Santu Angolkar v. DCIT

Smt. Rajyalakshmi, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals and CO of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1020/BANG/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Prashanth G.S., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Parithivel, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 153C

…confer jurisdiction on the Income-tax Officer to proceed under section 34(l)(a) had been established. " (Emphasis Added) 2.7 He placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Ramnath Santu Angolkar vs. DCIT, reported in 422 ITR 508, wherein it was held that: However, on account of non-production of the warrant of authorization, the adverse inference has to be drawn. Therefore, the first substantial question of law is answered in favour of the appellant and against the revenue, however, with the liberty to the revenue to proceed against the appellant in accordance with law.…

Smt. Rajyalakshmi, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals and CO of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1019/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Prashanth G.S., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Parithivel, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 153C

…confer jurisdiction on the Income-tax Officer to proceed under section 34(l)(a) had been established. " (Emphasis Added) 2.7 He placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Ramnath Santu Angolkar vs. DCIT, reported in 422 ITR 508, wherein it was held that: However, on account of non-production of the warrant of authorization, the adverse inference has to be drawn. Therefore, the first substantial question of law is answered in favour of the appellant and against the revenue, however, with the liberty to the revenue to proceed against the appellant in accordance with law.…

Sri. Karthik Krishna, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals and CO of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1018/BANG/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Prashanth G.S., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Parithivel, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 153C

…confer jurisdiction on the Income-tax Officer to proceed under section 34(l)(a) had been established. " (Emphasis Added) 2.7 He placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Ramnath Santu Angolkar vs. DCIT, reported in 422 ITR 508, wherein it was held that: However, on account of non-production of the warrant of authorization, the adverse inference has to be drawn. Therefore, the first substantial question of law is answered in favour of the appellant and against the revenue, however, with the liberty to the revenue to proceed against the appellant in accordance with law.…

Sri. Karthik Krishna, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals and CO of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1017/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Prashanth G.S., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Parithivel, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 153C

…confer jurisdiction on the Income-tax Officer to proceed under section 34(l)(a) had been established. " (Emphasis Added) 2.7 He placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Ramnath Santu Angolkar vs. DCIT, reported in 422 ITR 508, wherein it was held that: However, on account of non-production of the warrant of authorization, the adverse inference has to be drawn. Therefore, the first substantial question of law is answered in favour of the appellant and against the revenue, however, with the liberty to the revenue to proceed against the appellant in accordance with law.…