Sriram Jhabarmull (Kalimgpong) Limited v. CIT

49 ITR 314High Court1963#12878 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Judgments citing Sriram Jhabarmull (Kalimgpong) Limited v. CIT

ULTRA TECH CEMENT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. CIT CC-1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1303/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2023AY 2010-11
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 154(7)Section 250Section 801ASection 80I

…the Hon’ble Madras High Court relied on the observations made by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of 9 M/s. Ultratech Cement Ltd. (Successor to M/s.Samruddhi Cement Ltd.) Vedantham Raghaviah vs. Third Additional Income Tax Officer, Madras reported in 49 ITR 314 as under:- “Once an order of rectification is passed the assessment itself is modified and what remains is not the order of rectification, but only the assessment as rectified.” 4.6. In any case, we find that eligibility of claim of deduction u/s.80IA of the Act was not an issue of dispute in rectification proceedings u/s.154 of the Act dated 10…

M/S EDELWEISS RURAL & CORPORATE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. JCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 1041/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2015-16
Section 127(2)Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

…passed the order was the order as rectified by the order under section 154. In support of this proposition reliance may be placed on the observations of the Madras High Court in the case of Vedantham Raghaviah v. Third Addl. Income-tax Officer, Madras [1963] 49 ITR 314 (Mad) and the observations appearing at page 320 of the report. The same view was reiterated by the Madras High Court in the case of S. Arthanari v. First Income-tax Officer, Salem [1972] 83 ITR 828 (Mad). The application of the doctrine of merger, however, depends on the nature of the appellate or revisional order in each case and the scope of th…

M/S EDELWEISS RURAL & CORPORATE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOW AS M/S EDELWEISS COMMODITIES SERVICES LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 1040/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2012-13
Section 127(2)Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

…passed the order was the order as rectified by the order under section 154. In support of this proposition reliance may be placed on the observations of the Madras High Court in the case of Vedantham Raghaviah v. Third Addl. Income-tax Officer, Madras [1963] 49 ITR 314 (Mad) and the observations appearing at page 320 of the report. The same view was reiterated by the Madras High Court in the case of S. Arthanari v. First Income-tax Officer, Salem [1972] 83 ITR 828 (Mad). The application of the doctrine of merger, however, depends on the nature of the appellate or revisional order in each case and the scope of th…

M/S. KINGPIN INVESTMENT & FINANCE P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR -9(2), MUMBAI

ITA 309/MUM/2007[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2016AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.309,1717 &1718/Mum/2007 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2001-2002,2002-03 & 2003-04)

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…hows that the receipt was not of an income nature the department can not act unreasonably and reject the explanation hold that it was income. Reference may be also made to decision of Calcutta high court in case of Sriram Jhabarmull (Kalimgpong) Limited V CIT 49 ITR 314'where in it has been held that it is not correct to say that AO is not entitled to reject the explanation without some positive evidence falsifying the assessee’s case. The true view is that while, the AO is not bound to accept as true as any possible explanation which the assessee may put forth, he can not also arbitrarily reject the assessee’s e…

DCIT - 9(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. KINGPIN INVESTMENT & FINANCE P. LTD., MUMBAI

ITA 1971/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.309,1717 &1718/Mum/2007 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2001-2002,2002-03 & 2003-04)

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…hows that the receipt was not of an income nature the department can not act unreasonably and reject the explanation hold that it was income. Reference may be also made to decision of Calcutta high court in case of Sriram Jhabarmull (Kalimgpong) Limited V CIT 49 ITR 314'where in it has been held that it is not correct to say that AO is not entitled to reject the explanation without some positive evidence falsifying the assessee’s case. The true view is that while, the AO is not bound to accept as true as any possible explanation which the assessee may put forth, he can not also arbitrarily reject the assessee’s e…

ACIT - 9(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. KINGPIN INVESTMENT & FINANCE P. LTD., MUMBAI

ITA 1853/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2016AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.309,1717 &1718/Mum/2007 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2001-2002,2002-03 & 2003-04)

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…hows that the receipt was not of an income nature the department can not act unreasonably and reject the explanation hold that it was income. Reference may be also made to decision of Calcutta high court in case of Sriram Jhabarmull (Kalimgpong) Limited V CIT 49 ITR 314'where in it has been held that it is not correct to say that AO is not entitled to reject the explanation without some positive evidence falsifying the assessee’s case. The true view is that while, the AO is not bound to accept as true as any possible explanation which the assessee may put forth, he can not also arbitrarily reject the assessee’s e…

M/S. KINGPIN INVESTMENT & FINANCE P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR -9(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1717/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2016AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.309,1717 &1718/Mum/2007 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2001-2002,2002-03 & 2003-04)

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…hows that the receipt was not of an income nature the department can not act unreasonably and reject the explanation hold that it was income. Reference may be also made to decision of Calcutta high court in case of Sriram Jhabarmull (Kalimgpong) Limited V CIT 49 ITR 314'where in it has been held that it is not correct to say that AO is not entitled to reject the explanation without some positive evidence falsifying the assessee’s case. The true view is that while, the AO is not bound to accept as true as any possible explanation which the assessee may put forth, he can not also arbitrarily reject the assessee’s e…

DCIT - 9(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. KINGPIN INVESTMENT & FINANCE P. LTD., MUMBAI

ITA 1288/MUM/2007[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2016AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.309,1717 &1718/Mum/2007 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2001-2002,2002-03 & 2003-04)

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…hows that the receipt was not of an income nature the department can not act unreasonably and reject the explanation hold that it was income. Reference may be also made to decision of Calcutta high court in case of Sriram Jhabarmull (Kalimgpong) Limited V CIT 49 ITR 314'where in it has been held that it is not correct to say that AO is not entitled to reject the explanation without some positive evidence falsifying the assessee’s case. The true view is that while, the AO is not bound to accept as true as any possible explanation which the assessee may put forth, he can not also arbitrarily reject the assessee’s e…

Sriram Jhabarmull (Kalimgpong) Limited v. CIT (49 ITR 314) — Cited in 8 Judgments | BharatTax