Superintendent Engineer v. B. Subba Reddy AIR

82 ITD 449Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2002#25855 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2019.

Judgments citing Superintendent Engineer v. B. Subba Reddy AIR

ITO WD 1(3) NASHIK, NASHIK vs. LALINIRMAN BUSINESS DEVELOMENT P. LTD,, NASHIK

ITA 840/PUN/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Prasad

Section 143(2)

…filed by the assessee would still be maintainable and shall be treated as an independent appeal. In support of his contentions, the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions: 5 CO No.35/PUN/2013 A.Y. 2009-10 (a) ACIT Vs. Kripa Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. [82 ITD 449 (Pune)] (b) DBS Bank Ltd. vs. DDIT [C.O.No.189/Mum/2013] dated 15.06.2016 (c) Solidcore Techsoft Systems vs. ITO [C.O.No.3/Bang/2019] dated 10.05.2019 11. The Ld. AR submitted that there was delay of 10 days in filing of Cross Objections on account of mis-communication between the staff of assessee company and the office of Chartered Accountant t…

ACIT CIR-2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. L & T CAPITAL CO. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, CO is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3787/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Pawan Singhacit, Circle 2(2)(1), फनाभ/ M/S. L & T Capital Co. Ltd., Mumbai. L & T House, N.M. Marg, Vs. Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 400 001. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacl5880E (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) C.O. No.38/Mum/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita No.3787/M/2015 (Ay 2010-2011) M/S. L & T Capital Co. Ltd., फनाभ/ Acit, Circle 2(2)(1), L & T House, N.M. Marg, Mumbai. Vs. Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 400 001. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacl5880E (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) अऩीराथी की ओय से / Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Revenue By : Shri Saurabhkumar Rao, Dr

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Saurabhkumar Rao, DR

Section 14ASection 253(4)

…he appeal. In support of this proportion, the learned A.R. for the assessee placed reliance, inter alia, on the following judicial pronouncements: - i) Superintendent Engineer vs. B. Subba Reddy AIR (1999) SCW 1479 ii) ACIT vs. Kripa Chemicals (P) Ltd. (2002) 82 ITD 449 (Pune) iii) CIT vs. Purbanchal Paribahan Gosthi (1998) 234 ITR 663 (Gauhati) iv) Income Tax Officer vs. Fagoomal Lakshmi Chand (1979) 118 ITR 766 (Mad.) 3.3.1 We have heard both parties and perused and carefully considered the judicial pronouncements referred to (supra). Section 253(4) of the Act deals with the filing of COs. Rule 22 of the IT(AT)…

SYNGENTA INDIA LTD,PUNE vs. CIT(A) 3, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 5537/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jun 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran, Am & Shri Amit Shukla, Jm Assessment Year : 2005-06 Syngenta India Ltd., The Dy. Cit 1(3), Amar Paradigm, Mumbai Vs. S N 110/11/3 Baner Road, Pune 411 045 Pan Aaecs9424P (Appellant) Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri A K Nayak

Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80I

…g judicial precedents: i) CIT vs. India Gelatine & Chemicals Ltd. 275 ITR 284, judgment dated 08.04.2004 ii) ITAT Chandigarh Bench in the case of ITO vs. Kiran Enterprises 92 TTJ 104 iii) ITAT Pune Bench in the case of ACIT vs. Kripa Chemicals Private Ltd. 82 ITD 449 Besides these it was submitted that it was only after the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India Ltd. vs. CIT 317 ITR 218, which was rendered on 31.08.2009 these matters were decided against the assessee by the Tribunal. The decision of the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for the first time came on 09.11.2012. Thus,…