Season Rubber Ltd. v. CIT

263 ITR 385High Court2003#24088 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 357,073 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2016.

Judgments citing Season Rubber Ltd. v. CIT

Hewlett Packard Globalsoft Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

ITA 162/BANG/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri T.Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs Neera Malhotra, CIT-II

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 250Section 263

…en preferred against the order passed u/s. 263 of I.T.Act dated 21-12-2009. Under such circumstances I hold that, even if appeal has been raised on such issues I have no authority to trod upon such matters. In the cases of - Season Rubber Ltd., Vs. CIT (2003) 263 ITR 385 (Ker) And Page 9 of 13 Dr. A. Naresh Babu Vs. ITO (2009) 123 TTJ (Hyd.-Trib) 836 the assesses have not preferred any appeal against such direction of the learned CIT to the ITAT. It had been held therein that, therefore it has reached finality. Therefore I have no authority to disturb the same. The ratio of case of - Sadhuram Patel & Sons Vs.…

Mr. G. Atmaram, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 248/BANG/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri. Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri. Abraham P. Georgei.T.A No.248/Bang/2012 & Ita/165/Bang/2014 (Assessment Year : 2005-06) Shri. G. Atmaram, Prop : M/S. Gangarams Gallery, No.72, I Floor, M. G Road, Bengaluru .. Appellant Pan : Adzpa6437D V. Income-Tax Officer, Ward – 1(1), Bengaluru .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri. S. Venkatesan, Ca Revenue By : Dr. P. K. Srihari, Addl. Cit Heard On : 02.05.2016 Pronounced On : 25 .05.2016 O R D E R Per Abraham P. George:

For Appellant: Shri. S. Venkatesan, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P. K. Srihari, Addl. CIT

Section 143Section 263

…under a wrong impression that the order of the AO pursuant to proceedings u/s.263 of the Act, was not an appealable one. As per the Ld. AR, CIT placed wrong reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Season Rubber Ltd v. CIT [(2003) 263 ITR 385] that of the Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Dr. A. Naresh Babu v. ITO [(2010) 124 ITD 28] and that of Mumbai Bench of ITAT in Sadhuram Patel & Sons v. ITO [(2009)120 ITD 291]. As per the Ld. AR, ITA.165/Bang/2014 & ITA.248/Bang/2012 Page - 6 Section 246A of the Act which defines the orders that are appealable included an order o…

Ingersoll Rand (India) Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee's appeal is partly allowed

ITA 272/BANG/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. S. Praveena, Addl. CIT (D.R)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80H

…tt Packard Global Soft Pvt. Ltd. (AY 2005-06) that I have no authority to trod upon such issue. The relevant portion of the above decision is extracted below for ready reference- Reliance is placed on the ratio of cases of - “Season Rubber Ltd. Vs. CIT (2003) 263 ITR 385 (Ker) and Dr A. Naresh Babu Vs. ITO (2009) 123 TTJ (Hyd –Trib) 836 In these cases the assesses have not preferred any appeal against such direction of the learned CIT to the ITAT. It had been held therein that, therefore it has reached finality. Therefore I have no authority to disturb the same. The ratio of case of – Sadhuram Patel & Sons v. IT…