Smt. Urmila Ratilal v. CIT

136 ITR 797Reported decision1982#14921 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2021.

Judgments citing Smt. Urmila Ratilal v. CIT

PERI (INDIA ) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. JT CIT (OSD) CIR -13(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th grounds of appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3181/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri N.K. Pradhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. M.P. Lohia, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Sushil Mishra, DR
Section 143(3)Section 206ASection 250Section 9(1)(vi)

…on of law that where an additional evidence has been allowed to be adduced, the interests of justice demand that the other side must be given an opportunity to explain or rebut such additional evidence as held in the case of Smt. Urmial Ratilal v. CIT, (1982) 136 ITR 797, 799 (Guj); Hiralal Devdutt Jagadhri v. Addl. CIT, (1980) 18 CIT (Punj) 96, 98. Having considered the facts of the case and having regard to the above position of law, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the above grounds of appeal and restore the matter to the file of the TPO/AO to make an order afresh after giving reasonable opportunity…

KANAKIA SPACES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are allowed for

ITA 7288/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta with Shri Govind Javeri (AR)For Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai ( Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 22Section 254(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…d that where an additional evidence has been allowed to be adduced, the interests of justice demand that the other side must be given an opportunity to explain or rebut such additional evidence as clarified in the decision in Smt. Urmila Ratilal v. CIT (1982) 136 ITR 797, 799 (Guj); Hiralal Devdutt Jagadhri v. Addl. CIT (1980) 18 CTR (Punj) 96, 98. In view of the above facts and position of law, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter relating to the 3rd and 4th ground of appeal to the file of the AO to make a de novo order as per the ratio laid down in Madhav Prasad Jatia (supra) and Relian…

LINE-ONE TRADING PVT. LTD.,THANE vs. ITO - 2(5) THANE, THANE

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2847/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Line-One Trading Income Tax Officer, 2(5), Pvt. Ltd. 601, Hitakshi Mumbai. Vs. Heights, Indra Lok Phase-6, Bhayander East, Thane-401105 Pan No. Aaccl2001K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Neelkanth Khandelwal, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Satishchandra Rajore, Dr Date Of Hearing : 14/11/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/01/2019

For Appellant: Mr. Neelkanth Khandelwal, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Satishchandra Rajore, DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

…e additional evidence filed by the assessee would help the AO in arriving at a proper finding. In the interests of justice, we admit the additional evidence filed by the assessee. We also abide by the decision in the case of Smt. Urmila Ratilal v. CIT, (1982) 136 ITR 797, 799 (Guj); Hiralal Devdutt Jagadhri v. Addl. CIT, (1980) 18 CTR (Punj) 96, 98 that where an additional evidence has been allowed to be adduced, the interests of justice demand that the other side must be given an opportunity to explain or rebut such additional evidence. It is well settled that in order to discharge the onus u/s 68 of the Act, th…

KANAKIA SPACES P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6686/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Kanakia Spaces Pvt. Acit, Central Circle- Ltd. 215 Atrium, 10Th Floor, 4(1), Air India Vs. Near Marriot Courtyard Building, 19Th Floor, Hotel, Andheri-Kurla Road, Nariman Point, Andheri (E), Mumbai- Mumbai. 400093. Pan No. Aaack2629J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Anuj Kisnadwala, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 07/08/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Anuj Kisnadwala, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, DR
Section 143(3)Section 22Section 23Section 24

…d that where an additional evidence has been allowed to be adduced, the interests of justice demand that the other side must be given an opportunity to explain or rebut such additional evidence as clarified in the decision in Smt. Urmila Ratilal v. CIT (1982) 136 ITR 797, 799 (Guj); Hiralal Devdutt Jagadhri v. Addl. CIT (1980) 18 CTR (Punj) 96, 98. In view of the above facts and position of law, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter relating to the 3rd and 4th ground of appeal to the file of the AO to make a de novo order as per the ratio laid down in Madhav Prasad Jatia (supra) and Relian…

KAYPANEXPORTS P.LTD FORMLERY KNOWN AS MUKUND EXPORTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO-6(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2944/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S Kaypan Exports Pvt. The Income Tax Ltd. 2, Vardhaman Officer-6(2)(4), Vs. Complex, Lbs Marg, Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Vikhroli (West), Mumbai- Road, Churchgate, 400083. Mumbai-400020 Pan No. Aaack3404B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Dinkle Hariya, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Sachchidanand Dube, Dr Date Of Hearing : 07/09/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 19/09/2018

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle Hariya, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Sachchidanand Dube, DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

…l evidence under Rule 29 are relevant materials in adjudicating the contentious issue in the present case. Therefore, we admit the additional evidence filed by the assessee. However, as rightly pointed out in the decision in Smt. Urmila Ratilal v. CIT, (1982) 136 ITR 797, 799 (Guj); Hiralal Devdutt Jagadhri v. Addl. CIT, (1980) 18 CTR (Punj) 96, 98 that where an additional evidence has been allowed to be adduced, the interests of justice demand that the other side must be given an opportunity to explain or rebut such additional evidence. M/s Kaypan Exports 7 In view of the above facts and position of law, we set…

ISMAIL SAHABJAN SHAIKH,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(3)(2), KALYAN

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 218/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ismail Sahabjan Shaikh Income Tax Officer - Room No. 3, Maharashtra Vs. 19(3)(2), Mumbai Now Nagar No.1 Sloughter Assessed With Ito- House Compound, Bandra 23(1)(2). (E), Mumbai-400050. Pan No. Ccmps1035D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. K. Gopal, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Saurabh Kumar Rai, DR
Section 131Section 144Section 148Section 68

…t where an additional evidence has been allowed to be Ismail Sahabjan Shaikh 5 adduced, the interest of justice demands that the other side must be given an opportunity to explain or rebut such additional evidence as held in Smt. Urmila Ratilal v. CIT (1982) 136 ITR 797, 799 (Guj); Hiralal Devdutt Jagadhari v. Addl. CIT, (1980) 18 CTR (Punj) 96, 98; Uttam Construction Co. v. CIT (1985) 156 ITR 459, 462 (MP). In view of the above reasons, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the AO to make a de novo order after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.…

Smt. Urmila Ratilal v. CIT (136 ITR 797) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax