Surrendra Overseas Ltd. v. CIT in Income-tax Reference No. 406 of

120 ITR 872High Court1979#8728 most cited
12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2022.

Judgments citing Surrendra Overseas Ltd. v. CIT in Income-tax Reference No. 406 of

M/S. IBM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-4, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 2588/BANG/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr

…tion by the ITO. On this short ground, this contention of the petitioner has to be upheld." Emphasis applied 4.5 The Ld.AR submitted that in the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Surendra Overseas Ltd. V. Commissioner of Income-tax [1979] 120 ITR 872 (CAL), Hon'ble Court held as under: "31. With respect, we agree with the principle laid down in Pulipati Subbarao & Co. [1959] 35 ITR 673 (AP), viz., that where the order of the AAC is specific, it is not open to the ITO to conduct a fresh enquiry beyond the said directions and to proceed to make a fresh assessment without any reference to the ea…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE vs. M/S. BAJAJ FINANCE LTD,, PUNE

ITA 1722/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Respondent: Assessee by Ms. Vasanti B. Patel
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37Section 37(1)

…ried to distinguish the judgment itself along with other cases which is not in accordance with the judicial decorum. We find that the Hon‟ble Calcutta High court in the case of Surrendra Overseas Ltd. Vs. CIT in Income-tax Reference No. 406 of 1975 - (1979) - 120 ITR 872 (Cal) wherein the facts were that the assessee preferred appeals before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (hereinafter referred to as “the AAC” for short) against the additions made on account of hundi loans. The AAC remanded the matter for fresh consideration. While acting under AAC‟s directions the A.O withdrew development rebate allowed in…

BAJAJ FINANCE LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

ITA 1394/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Respondent: Assessee by Ms. Vasanti B. Patel
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37Section 37(1)

…ried to distinguish the judgment itself along with other cases which is not in accordance with the judicial decorum. We find that the Hon‟ble Calcutta High court in the case of Surrendra Overseas Ltd. Vs. CIT in Income-tax Reference No. 406 of 1975 - (1979) - 120 ITR 872 (Cal) wherein the facts were that the assessee preferred appeals before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (hereinafter referred to as “the AAC” for short) against the additions made on account of hundi loans. The AAC remanded the matter for fresh consideration. While acting under AAC‟s directions the A.O withdrew development rebate allowed in…

DCIT, CIRCLE-8 vs. M/S. BAJAJ FINANCE LTD. PUNE, AKURDI PUNE

ITA 819/PUN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala and Ms. Vasanti B. Patel
Section 14ASection 37Section 37(1)

…ried to distinguish the judgment itself along with other cases which is not in accordance with the judicial decorum. We find that the Hon‟ble Calcutta High court in the case of Surrendra Overseas Ltd. Vs. CIT in Income-tax Reference No. 406 of 1975 - (1979) - 120 ITR 872 (Cal) wherein the facts were that the assessee preferred appeals before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (hereinafter referred to as “the AAC” for short) against the additions made on account of hundi loans. The AAC remanded the matter for fresh consideration. While acting under AAC‟s directions the A.O withdrew development rebate allowed in…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE vs. M/S. BAJAJ FINANACE LTD,, PUNE

ITA 818/PUN/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala and Ms. Vasanti B. Patel
Section 14ASection 37Section 37(1)

…ried to distinguish the judgment itself along with other cases which is not in accordance with the judicial decorum. We find that the Hon‟ble Calcutta High court in the case of Surrendra Overseas Ltd. Vs. CIT in Income-tax Reference No. 406 of 1975 - (1979) - 120 ITR 872 (Cal) wherein the facts were that the assessee preferred appeals before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (hereinafter referred to as “the AAC” for short) against the additions made on account of hundi loans. The AAC remanded the matter for fresh consideration. While acting under AAC‟s directions the A.O withdrew development rebate allowed in…

BAJAJ FINANCE LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

ITA 767/PUN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala and Ms. Vasanti B. Patel
Section 14ASection 37Section 37(1)

…ried to distinguish the judgment itself along with other cases which is not in accordance with the judicial decorum. We find that the Hon‟ble Calcutta High court in the case of Surrendra Overseas Ltd. Vs. CIT in Income-tax Reference No. 406 of 1975 - (1979) - 120 ITR 872 (Cal) wherein the facts were that the assessee preferred appeals before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (hereinafter referred to as “the AAC” for short) against the additions made on account of hundi loans. The AAC remanded the matter for fresh consideration. While acting under AAC‟s directions the A.O withdrew development rebate allowed in…

BAJAJ FINANCE LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

ITA 766/PUN/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala and Ms. Vasanti B. Patel
Section 14ASection 37Section 37(1)

…ried to distinguish the judgment itself along with other cases which is not in accordance with the judicial decorum. We find that the Hon‟ble Calcutta High court in the case of Surrendra Overseas Ltd. Vs. CIT in Income-tax Reference No. 406 of 1975 - (1979) - 120 ITR 872 (Cal) wherein the facts were that the assessee preferred appeals before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (hereinafter referred to as “the AAC” for short) against the additions made on account of hundi loans. The AAC remanded the matter for fresh consideration. While acting under AAC‟s directions the A.O withdrew development rebate allowed in…

BAJAJ FINANCE LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

ITA 1393/PUN/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 37Section 37(1)

…ried to distinguish the judgment itself along with other cases which is not in accordance with the judicial decorum. We find that the Hon‟ble Calcutta High court in the case of Surrendra Overseas Ltd. Vs. CIT in Income-tax Reference No. 406 of 1975 - (1979) - 120 ITR 872 (Cal) wherein the facts were that the assessee preferred appeals before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (hereinafter referred to as “the AAC” for short) against the additions made on account of hundi loans. The AAC remanded the matter for fresh consideration. While acting under AAC‟s directions the A.O withdrew development rebate allowed in…

BAJAJ FINANCE LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

ITA 1392/PUN/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 37Section 37(1)

…ried to distinguish the judgment itself along with other cases which is not in accordance with the judicial decorum. We find that the Hon‟ble Calcutta High court in the case of Surrendra Overseas Ltd. Vs. CIT in Income-tax Reference No. 406 of 1975 - (1979) - 120 ITR 872 (Cal) wherein the facts were that the assessee preferred appeals before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (hereinafter referred to as “the AAC” for short) against the additions made on account of hundi loans. The AAC remanded the matter for fresh consideration. While acting under AAC‟s directions the A.O withdrew development rebate allowed in…

M/S CHITRAKALA INVESTMENT TRADE & BUSINESS FINANCE LTD.,,MANIPAL vs. DCIT, UDUPI

In the result, the appeals filed by all the assessees are dismissed

ITA 1324/BANG/2012[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 May 2017AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava1. 2. 3. 1. M/S.Mangala Investments Ltd. Syndicate House, Manipal-576 104. Pan: Aaacm 8838 R 2. M/S.Sea Rock Investments Ltd., Syndicate House, Manipal-576104. Pan:Aaccs 4700 N 3. M/S.Chitrakala Investments Trade & Business Finance Ltd. Syndicate House, Manipal-576104. Pan: Aaacc 7246 H ... Appellant Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Udupi. ... Respondent Assessees By : Ms. Prathibha, Advocate. Respondent : Dr.Shakir Hussain, Cit(A) Date Of Hearing : 30/01/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/05/2017 O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : These Are Appeals Filed By Three Assessees Against Identical Orders Of The Cit(A), Mysore, For The Assessment Year 1996-97. Ita Nos.1322 To 1324/Bang/2012 Page 2 Of 14 2. Since In All These Appeals Common Issues Are Involved, We Propose To Dispose Of The Same Vide This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Respondent: Dr.Shakir Hussain, CIT(A)
Section 2(47)

…hority for the proposition that the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer after remand would depend upon the terms of the remand order and he would not be entitled to go beyond the same. The same view has been followed in Surrendra Overseas Ltd. v. CIT [1979] 120 ITR 872(Cal), wherein it was clearly stated that "Where the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is specific it is not open to the Income-tax Officer to conduct a fresh enquiry beyond the said directions and to proceed to make a fresh assessment without any reference to the earlier assessment." This decision has been followed by the Allahabad Hi…

M/S SEA ROCK INVESTMENTS LTD.,,MANIPAL vs. DCIT, UDUPI

In the result, the appeals filed by all the assessees are dismissed

ITA 1323/BANG/2012[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 May 2017AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava1. 2. 3. 1. M/S.Mangala Investments Ltd. Syndicate House, Manipal-576 104. Pan: Aaacm 8838 R 2. M/S.Sea Rock Investments Ltd., Syndicate House, Manipal-576104. Pan:Aaccs 4700 N 3. M/S.Chitrakala Investments Trade & Business Finance Ltd. Syndicate House, Manipal-576104. Pan: Aaacc 7246 H ... Appellant Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Udupi. ... Respondent Assessees By : Ms. Prathibha, Advocate. Respondent : Dr.Shakir Hussain, Cit(A) Date Of Hearing : 30/01/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/05/2017 O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : These Are Appeals Filed By Three Assessees Against Identical Orders Of The Cit(A), Mysore, For The Assessment Year 1996-97. Ita Nos.1322 To 1324/Bang/2012 Page 2 Of 14 2. Since In All These Appeals Common Issues Are Involved, We Propose To Dispose Of The Same Vide This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Respondent: Dr.Shakir Hussain, CIT(A)
Section 2(47)

…hority for the proposition that the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer after remand would depend upon the terms of the remand order and he would not be entitled to go beyond the same. The same view has been followed in Surrendra Overseas Ltd. v. CIT [1979] 120 ITR 872(Cal), wherein it was clearly stated that "Where the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is specific it is not open to the Income-tax Officer to conduct a fresh enquiry beyond the said directions and to proceed to make a fresh assessment without any reference to the earlier assessment." This decision has been followed by the Allahabad Hi…

M/S MANGALA INVESTMENTS LTD.,,MANIPAL vs. DCIT, UDUPI

In the result, the appeals filed by all the assessees are dismissed

ITA 1322/BANG/2012[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 May 2017AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava1. 2. 3. 1. M/S.Mangala Investments Ltd. Syndicate House, Manipal-576 104. Pan: Aaacm 8838 R 2. M/S.Sea Rock Investments Ltd., Syndicate House, Manipal-576104. Pan:Aaccs 4700 N 3. M/S.Chitrakala Investments Trade & Business Finance Ltd. Syndicate House, Manipal-576104. Pan: Aaacc 7246 H ... Appellant Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Udupi. ... Respondent Assessees By : Ms. Prathibha, Advocate. Respondent : Dr.Shakir Hussain, Cit(A) Date Of Hearing : 30/01/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/05/2017 O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : These Are Appeals Filed By Three Assessees Against Identical Orders Of The Cit(A), Mysore, For The Assessment Year 1996-97. Ita Nos.1322 To 1324/Bang/2012 Page 2 Of 14 2. Since In All These Appeals Common Issues Are Involved, We Propose To Dispose Of The Same Vide This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Respondent: Dr.Shakir Hussain, CIT(A)
Section 2(47)

…hority for the proposition that the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer after remand would depend upon the terms of the remand order and he would not be entitled to go beyond the same. The same view has been followed in Surrendra Overseas Ltd. v. CIT [1979] 120 ITR 872(Cal), wherein it was clearly stated that "Where the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is specific it is not open to the Income-tax Officer to conduct a fresh enquiry beyond the said directions and to proceed to make a fresh assessment without any reference to the earlier assessment." This decision has been followed by the Allahabad Hi…

Surrendra Overseas Ltd. v. CIT in Income-tax Reference No. 406 of (120 ITR 872) — Cited in 12 Judgments | BharatTax