Sushil Chandra Ghose v. ITO

35 ITR 379High Court1959#17784 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 115JBSection 153Section 10(38)Section 14ASection 144BSection 14A(2)Section 156

Issues it is cited on

section 150section 65book profitssection 115jbincome-tax officersection 153section 15section 143prescribedtransfersection 14section 143(3)

Judgments citing Sushil Chandra Ghose v. ITO

RAYMIX CONCRETE INDIA PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-5(1), , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2771/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2771/Chny/2024 Assessment Years: 2015-16 Raymix Concrete India Private Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of Income No.1/107 & 108, Agr Tower, Tax, P.H.Road, Nerkundram, Corporate Circle-5(1), Chennai- 600 107 Chennai. [Pan: Aaecr6993A] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Ms.Lekha,C.A प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.08.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Ms.Lekha,C.AFor Respondent: Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 37

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ’सी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI माननीय श्री मनु कुमार धिरर ,न्याधयक सदस्य एवं माननीय श्री अमिताभ शुक्ला, लेखा सदस्य के सिक्ष BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON’BLE SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.2771/Chny/2024 Assessment Years: 2015-16 Raymix Concrete India Private Limited, Deputy Commissioner of Income No.1/107 & 108, AGR Tower, Tax, P.H.Road, Nerkundram, Corporate Circle-5(1), Chennai- 600 107 Chennai. [PAN: AAECR6993A] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assess…

WRITEMEN MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-7(1)(3), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1516/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ashwin D Gowda, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 153Section 56(2)(viib)

…Form I.T.N.S. 150. We, therefore, think that the statutory provision has been duly complied with and that the assessment order was not, in any manner, vitiated. A brief reference may be made to the decisions on the issue. In Sushil Chandra Ghose v. ITO [1959] 35 ITR 379 (Cal), the assessee was served, apart from the assessment order, with a copy of the form known as I.T.N.S. 150 which was not signed by the Income-tax Officer but the court upheld the assessment because the original thereof had been duly signed. In S. Mubarik Shah Naqshbandi v. CIT [1977] 110 ITR 217 (J & K), the "assessment order" did not determin…

ACIT-1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BENNETT COLEMAN & COMPANY LIMITED, MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed and revenue is dismissed

ITA 1520/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bleι.Τ.Α. No.1387/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd. The Times Of India Building, Dr. Dadabhai Naoroji Road Fort, Mumbai-400 001 [Pan: Aaacb4373Q] Vs National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्य्थी / (Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1520/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Acit-1(1)(1), Mumbai Vs Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd. The Times Of India Building, Dr. Dadabhai Naoroji Road Fort, Mumbai-400 001 [Pan: Aaacb4373Q] Assessee By : Shri P.J. Pardiwala A/W. Shri Madhur Agrawal, Shri Jas Sanghavi, Shri Yash Prakash & Shri Vikas Poojary Revenue By : Shri S. Srinivasu Cit Dr A/W. Shri Ashok Ambastha, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2024 2 आदेश/Order आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Ι.Τ.Α. No.1387/Mum/2023 & 1520/Mum/2023 Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. Per Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w. Shri MadhurFor Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu CIT DR a/w. Shri Ashok
Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 14ASection 14A(2)Section 153

…orm I.T.N.S. 150. We, therefore, think that the statutory provision has been duly complied with and that the assessment order was not in any manner vitiated. A brief reference may be made to the decisions on the issue. In Shushil Chandra Ghose v. I.Τ.Ο. [1959]35 ITR 379(Cal), the assessee was served, apart from the assessment order, with a copy of the form known as I.T.N.S. 150 which was not signed by the I.T.O. but the Court upheld the assessment because the original thereof had been duly signed. In Mubarik Shah Naqshbandi v. CIT [1977]110 ITR 217, the "assessment order" did not determine the tax payable and the…

BENNETT COLEMAN & CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE. , DELHI

ITA 1387/MUM/2023[2018--2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2024

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bleι.Τ.Α. No.1387/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd. The Times Of India Building, Dr. Dadabhai Naoroji Road Fort, Mumbai-400 001 [Pan: Aaacb4373Q] Vs National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्य्थी / (Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1520/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Acit-1(1)(1), Mumbai Vs Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd. The Times Of India Building, Dr. Dadabhai Naoroji Road Fort, Mumbai-400 001 [Pan: Aaacb4373Q] Assessee By : Shri P.J. Pardiwala A/W. Shri Madhur Agrawal, Shri Jas Sanghavi, Shri Yash Prakash & Shri Vikas Poojary Revenue By : Shri S. Srinivasu Cit Dr A/W. Shri Ashok Ambastha, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2024 2 आदेश/Order आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Ι.Τ.Α. No.1387/Mum/2023 & 1520/Mum/2023 Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. Per Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w. Shri MadhurFor Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu CIT DR a/w. Shri Ashok
Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 14ASection 14A(2)Section 153

…orm I.T.N.S. 150. We, therefore, think that the statutory provision has been duly complied with and that the assessment order was not in any manner vitiated. A brief reference may be made to the decisions on the issue. In Shushil Chandra Ghose v. I.Τ.Ο. [1959]35 ITR 379(Cal), the assessee was served, apart from the assessment order, with a copy of the form known as I.T.N.S. 150 which was not signed by the I.T.O. but the Court upheld the assessment because the original thereof had been duly signed. In Mubarik Shah Naqshbandi v. CIT [1977]110 ITR 217, the "assessment order" did not determine the tax payable and th…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - AGARTALA , AGARTALA vs. SHRI SUBHAJIT PAUL, AGARTALA

In the result, cross-objection nos

ITA 116/GTY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati31 Jul 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.116/Gau/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Rockein Saikia, JCIT, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Modi, FCA
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153D

…(SC), EsthuriAswathiah Vs. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 764 (Mys.), Badri Prasad Bajoria Vs. CIT (1967) 64 ITR 362 (Cal.) etc.] or that the notice of the demand should also be served on the assessee within that period. [Also relied on Sushil Chandra Ghose Vs. ITO (1959) 35 ITR 379 (Cal.) CAgIT Vs. Kappumalai Estate (1998) 234 ITR 187, 188 (Ker.) etc.]. What is required for completion of the assessment is the determination of the tax liability and issue of demand notice, but certainly not the -service of the same on the assessee. [India Ferro Alloy Industry Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1993) 202 ITR 671, 677 (Cal.), N. Subha Rao 48 IT…

Sushil Chandra Ghose v. ITO (35 ITR 379) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax