Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd. v. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner

157 ITR 342High Court1986#22809 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,356 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2022.

Judgments citing Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd. v. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner

Everest Industries Ltd., Noida vs. Dy CIT Circle- 1, Thane

In the results, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 716/MUM/2020[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S Everest Industries Ltd. 2303, Fairfield-A, Majhiwada Bridge, Thane (West)-400601 Pan: Aaace7550N ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit, Circle-1 Ashar I.T. Park, 6Th Floor, B-Wing, 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane (West)-400604. ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Ms. Nilu Jaggi, Sr.DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 155J

…es have been followed by the Hon'ble Kolkata High Court in the case of Nicco Corporation Ltd, -vs- CIT (2001) 251 ITR 791 (Cal), Similar view has also been taken by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Seshasayee Paper And Boards Ltd, -vs- ACIT (1986) 157 ITR 342 (Mad) wherein it has been held that "the decision of the Supreme Court does not automatically have the effect of vacating the order of the Tribunal which has been statutorily made final under section 254(4) of the Act. Assuming for a moment as contended by the learned counsel for the Revenue that an infirmity is now created in the order by virtue…

Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Ltu-2, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2009-10

ITA 1580/MUM/2020[UNION BANK OF INDIA]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2022

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Gagan Goyal

Section 14ASection 154Section 36(1)

…the orders of Hon'ble ITAT Union Bank of India and therefore interfered with order of Higher Appellate authority by acting beyond his jurisdiction. Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in case of Seshasayee Paper Boards Ltd v IAC 157 ITR 342 in support of above contention. 3. Without prejudice to above contention, the Ld CIT(A) failed to note that disallowance u/s 14A is a legal and debatable issue as the matter was decided by various High Courts and accordingly is not a matter of rectification u/s 154. 4. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowa…

DCIT Corp. Circle 2, Coimbatore vs. S.Balasundaram, Coimbatore

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue and the cross- objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1208/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Nov 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1208/Chny/2018 & C.O. No.105/Chny/2018 (In I.T.A. No.1208/Chny/2018) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Addl.CITFor Respondent: Shri G. Baskar, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 54B

…t. The Ld.counsel placed his reliance on the judgment of Bombay High Court in Bank of Baroda v. H.C. Shrivastava (2002) 256 ITR 385 and also on the judgment of Madras High Court in Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd. v. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (1986) 157 ITR 342. According to the Ld. counsel, since the issue whether the land sold by the assessee and purchased by the assessee are agricultural lands was concluded by the order of this Tribunal dated 27.05.2013, the Assessing Officer cannot re-examine the issue after reopening. 5 I.T.A. No.1208/Chny/18 C.O. No.105/Chny/18 5. We have considered the riva…