SYEDA RAHIMUNNISA v. MALAN BI BY L.RS. AND ORS.

10 SCC 315Reported decision2016#4272 most cited

What is SYEDA RAHIMUNNISA v. MALAN BI BY L.RS. AND ORS. authority for?

The High Court, when exercising powers under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, cannot interfere with a finding of fact unless it is demonstrated to be perverse. This principle is crucial in appeals before the High Court where the existence of a substantial question of law is a prerequisite.

27

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Syeda Rahimunnisa v. Malan Bi by L.Rs. · Section 260A · High Court powers · substantial question of law · perverse finding of fact · interference with findings

Sections most often in play

Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 260ASection 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)(iv)Section 154

Issues it is cited on

section 246a(1)(a)section 80ia(4)(i)section 2(45)section 34(1)(iv)section 34(1)initial assessment yearsection 143(1)(a)(iv)section 36(1)(iv)section 260section 260asection 43(1)section 80ia(4)

Judgments citing SYEDA RAHIMUNNISA v. MALAN BI BY L.RS. AND ORS.

COUNTRY CLUB HOSPITALITY & HOLIDAYS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 1480/HYD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2026AY 2011-12
Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 250

…आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण में, हैदराबाद ‘बी’ बेंच, हैदराबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad “B” Bench, Hyderabad श्री मंजूनाथ जी, माननीय लेखा सदस्य एवं श्री रवीश सूद, माननीय न्याययक सदस्य SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1480/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2011-12) Country Club Hospitality & Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Holidays Limited, Income-tax, C/o. 6-3-655/2/3, Central Circle – 1(1), P. Murali and Co., Hyderabad. Chartered Accountants, Somajiguda, Hyderabad – 500082., PAN : AAACC8276B (अपीलार्थी/ Appel…

SRI LAKSHMI ROAD TRANSPORT COMPANY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1209/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1209/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S Sri Lakshmi Road Vs. Dy. Cit Transport Company Circle 6(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aatfs6596A (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri C. Maheshwar Reddy, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 24/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 26/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

For Appellant: Shri C. Maheshwar Reddy, CAFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

…t is perverse. It is well settled in law that this Court, in exercise of powers under Section 260A of the Act, cannot interfere with the finding of fact until and unless the same is demonstrated to be perverse. (see Syeda Rahimunnisa v. Malan Bi by LRs (2016) 10 SCC 315 and Pr. CIT v. Softbrands India (P.) Ltd. [2018] 94 taxmann.com 426/406 ITR 513 (Karnataka)). 14. In view of the preceding analysis, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. The same fails and is, hereby, dismissed. No costs.” 9. On a perusal of the above, we observe that the Hon’ble High Court, has dealt with a sit…

SHRI JAGDISH KUMAR GULIA,BHOPAL vs. THRE ASSTT.DIRECTORE OF INCOME TAX ,CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed

ITA 245/IND/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 260ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

…ion 260A of the Act, cannot interfere with the finding of fact until and Page 6 of 13 Shri Jagdish Kumar Gulia I.T.A. No. 245/Ind/2023 Assessment Year -2018-19 unless the same is demonstrated to be perverse. (see Syeda Rahimunnisa vs. Malan Bi by LRs (2016) 10 SCC 315 and Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore vs. Softbrands India Private Limited (2018) 94 taxmann.com 426 / 406 ITR 513 (Karnataka). 14. In view of the preceding analysis, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. The same fails and is, hereby, dismissed. No costs.” (iii) Diversified Services Vs. Income-tax…

M/S DAULATARAM ENGINEERING SERVICES P.LTD,MANDIDEEP vs. THE ADIT/CPC , BANGALORE

In the result, this appeal is dismissed

ITA 244/IND/2023[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Indore08 May 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234ASection 260ASection 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…is perverse. It is well settled in law that this Court, in exercise of powers under Section 260A of the Act, cannot interfere with the finding of fact until and unless the same is demonstrated to be perverse. (see Syeda Rahimunnisa vs. Malan Bi by LRs (2016) 10 SCC 315 and Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore vs. Softbrands India Private Limited (2018) 94 taxmann.com 426 / 406 ITR 513 (Karnataka). 14. In view of the preceding analysis, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. The same fails and is, hereby, dismissed. No costs.” (iii) Diversified Services Vs. Income-tax O…

SUCH MEDIA PUBLICATION P LTD ,CIT (A) NFAC DELHI vs. NFAC DELHI, DELHI

In the result, this appeal is dismissed

ITA 66/IND/2022[AY 2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Indore08 May 2025

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 36(1)(va)

…is perverse. It is well settled in law that this Court, in exercise of powers under Section 260A of the Act, cannot interfere with the finding of fact until and unless the same is demonstrated to be perverse. (see Syeda Rahimunnisa vs. Malan Bi by LRs (2016) 10 SCC 315 and Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore vs. Softbrands India Private Limited (2018) 94 taxmann.com 426 / 406 ITR 513 (Karnataka). 14. In view of the preceding analysis, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. The same fails and is, hereby, dismissed. No costs.” Page 6 of 12 Such Media Publication I.T.A…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 2 vs. M/S CELEBI DELHI CARGO MANAGEMENT INDIA PVT. LTD.

ITA/619/2019HC Delhi30 Jan 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR

Section 263Section 80I

…y the Tribunal. It is well settled in law that the concurrent findings of fact do not suffer from any perversity warranting interference of this court in exercise of powers under section 260A of the Act. [See: Syeda Rahimunnisa v. Malan Bi By L.RS. (2016) 10 SCC 315 and Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Softbrands India (P.) Ltd. (2018) 406 ITR 513].” 21. We, with due respect, note that principles which guide us in evaluating whether a writ petition would be maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be extrapolated to answer whether a transaction would fall within the scope of S…

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMA LABORATORIES LTD.,, MUMBAI

In the result, the Department’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 741/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 80Section 80I

…h have been recorded on the aforesaid issue, could not be demonstrated to be perverse. Therefore, no interference is called with the aforesaid concurrent findings of fact in this appeal under section 260A of the Act. [SEE: Syeda Rahimunnisa v. Malan Bi [2016] 10 SCC 315 and Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, v. Softbrands India (P.) Ltd. [2018] 94 taxmann.com 426/406 ITR 513 (Kar.) In view of aforementioned well settled legal principles, the second substantial question of law is also answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee.” 31.4. Respectfully following the judicial precedents, we have no he…

SUN PHARMA LABORATORIES LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA

In the result, the Department’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 712/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 80Section 80I

…h have been recorded on the aforesaid issue, could not be demonstrated to be perverse. Therefore, no interference is called with the aforesaid concurrent findings of fact in this appeal under section 260A of the Act. [SEE: Syeda Rahimunnisa v. Malan Bi [2016] 10 SCC 315 and Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, v. Softbrands India (P.) Ltd. [2018] 94 taxmann.com 426/406 ITR 513 (Kar.) In view of aforementioned well settled legal principles, the second substantial question of law is also answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee.” 31.4. Respectfully following the judicial precedents, we have no he…

INDIANOIL SKYTANKING PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 407/BANG/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 80Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.583/Bang/2019, 299 & 407/Bang/2020 Assessment years : 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Indianoil Skytanking Private Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Fuel Farm Facility, of Income Tax, Bangalore International Airport, Circle 3(1)(1), Devanahalli, Bengaluru. Bangalore – 560 300. PAN: AABCI 5709C ASSESSEE RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Padamchand Khincha, CA Respondent by : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 06.05.2022 Date of Pronounc…

M/S. INDIANOIL SKYTAKING PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 299/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 80Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.583/Bang/2019, 299 & 407/Bang/2020 Assessment years : 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Indianoil Skytanking Private Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Fuel Farm Facility, of Income Tax, Bangalore International Airport, Circle 3(1)(1), Devanahalli, Bengaluru. Bangalore – 560 300. PAN: AABCI 5709C ASSESSEE RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Padamchand Khincha, CA Respondent by : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 06.05.2022 Date of Pronounc…

M/S INDIANOIL SKYTANKING PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 583/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 80Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.583/Bang/2019, 299 & 407/Bang/2020 Assessment years : 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Indianoil Skytanking Private Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Fuel Farm Facility, of Income Tax, Bangalore International Airport, Circle 3(1)(1), Devanahalli, Bengaluru. Bangalore – 560 300. PAN: AABCI 5709C ASSESSEE RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Padamchand Khincha, CA Respondent by : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 06.05.2022 Date of Pronounc…

M/S. BRIGADE ENTERPRISES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 2364/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Brigade Enterprises Ltd., 26/1, 30Th Floor Wtc, The Dy. Commissioner Of Dr. Rajkumar Road, Income-Tax, Malleshwaram, Circle-2(3), Rajajinagar, Bengaluru. Vs. Bengaluru-560 100. Pan – Aaacb 7459 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri P.C Kincha, C.A Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 20-07-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-10-2021 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 30/08/2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-11, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. General Ground 1.1. The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) ["Cit(A) For Short Hereinafter"] To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. 2. Disallowance Under Section 14A R.W. Rule 8D 2.1. The Learned Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle - 2(3), Bangalore ["Ao" For Short Hereinafter] Has Erred In Making A Disallowance Of Rs. 2,02,22,837/- Under Se Tion 14A Comprising Of Disallowa,,Ø-1S. 1,73,98,969/- Under Rule 8D(2)(Ii) & Rs. 28,23,868/- Under Rule 8D(2)(Iii) & The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Said Disallowance.

For Appellant: Shri P.C Kincha, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 14ASection 35DSection 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/s. Brigade Enterprises Ltd., 26/1, 30th Floor WTC, The Dy. Commissioner of Dr. Rajkumar Road, Income-tax, Malleshwaram, Circle-2(3), Rajajinagar, Bengaluru. Vs. Bengaluru-560 100. PAN – AAACB 7459 F APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri P.C Kincha, C.A Revenue by : Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR) Date of Hearing : 20-07-2021 Date of Pronouncement : 11-10-2021 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal has been filed by assessee agai…

PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 vs. M/S MENZIES AVIATION

In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby

ITA/224/2021HC Karnataka09 Aug 2021

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

Section 260Section 260ASection 40ISection 80I

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM I.T.A.NO.224 OF 2021 BETWEEN: 1. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDINGS, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BANGALORE ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI.SANMATHI E I, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S.MENZIES AVIATION BOBBA (BANGALORE) PVT LTD PLOT NO.C-041 BANGALORE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT DEVANAHALLI, BANGALORE -560 300 PAN-AAECM6862D …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.ANNAM…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III, vs. M/S. TELCO CONSTRUCTION

In the result, we do not find any merit in this

ITA/336/2014HC Karnataka16 Feb 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 260Section 40

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY I.T.A. NO.336 OF 2014 BETWEEN: 1. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III C.R. BUILDINGS, QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE-560001. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-12(4), BANGALORE. .... APPELLANTS (BY MR. E.I. SANMATHI, ADV.,) AND: M/S. TELCO CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT CO. LTD., JUBLIEE BUILDING NO.45, MUSEUM ROAD BANGALORE-560038 PAN: AAACT90778B. ... RESPONDENT (BY MR. A. SHANKAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR MR. M. LAVA, ADV…

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S MAJESTIC DEVELOPERS

ITA/287/2018HC Karnataka05 Feb 2021

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 260Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80I

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA I.T.A. NO.287/2018 BETWEEN 1. THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 BMTC COMPLEX KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4(3)(1) BANGALORE …APPELLANTS (BY SRI E.I.SANMATHI, ADVOCATE) AND M/S MAJESTIC DEVELOPERS 67/3, SARAKKI GATE KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD BANGALORE …RESPONDENT (BY SRI K.R.VASUDEVAN, ADVOCATE) THIS…

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S MAHAVEER CALYX

ITA/825/2017HC Karnataka05 Feb 2021

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

Section 143(3)Section 260Section 80I

…IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA I.T.A. NO.825/2017 BETWEEN 1. THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, BMTC COMPLEX KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4(3)(3), BENGALURU. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI SANMATHI.E.I, ADVOCATE) AND M/S MAHAVEER CALYX NO.9,MAHAVEER HOMES 24TH MAIN, 6TH PHASE J.P NAGAR BANGALORE-560 078 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI A.SHANKAR, SR.ADVOCATE FOR SRI M.LAVA, ADVOCATE) T…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S MENZIES AVIATION BOBBA (B'LORE) PVT LTD.,

In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby

ITA/262/2014HC Karnataka25 Jan 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

Section 143(2)Section 260Section 260ASection 80I

…It is well settled in law that the concurrent findings of fact do not suffer from any perversity warranting interference of this court in exercise of powers under Section 260A of the Act. [SEE: SYEDA 20 RAHIMUNNISA VS. MALAN BI BY L.RS. AND ORS. (2016)10 SCC 315 and PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE & ORS. VS. SOFTBRANDS INDIA P. LTD., (2018) 406 ITR 513]. 12. In view of preceding analysis, the substantial questions of law are answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE RV…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S MENZIES AVIATION

In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby

ITA/186/2016HC Karnataka25 Jan 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

Section 143(2)Section 260Section 260ASection 80I

…It is well settled in law that the concurrent findings of fact do not suffer from any perversity warranting interference of this court in exercise of powers under Section 260A of the Act. [SEE: SYEDA 20 RAHIMUNNISA VS. MALAN BI BY L.RS. AND ORS. (2016)10 SCC 315 and PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE & ORS. VS. SOFTBRANDS INDIA P. LTD., (2018) 406 ITR 513]. 12. In view of preceding analysis, the substantial questions of law are answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE RV…

JINESH (HUF) vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal, the same fails

ITA/168/2012HC Karnataka22 Jan 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

Section 143(3)Section 260Section 260ASection 68

…verse. It is well settled that this court in exercise of powers under Section 260A of the Act cannot interfere with the finding of fact until and unless the same is demonstrated to be perverse. [See: SYEDA RAHIMUNNISA VS. MALAN BI BY L.RS. AND ORS. (2016)10 SCC 315 and PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE & ORS. VS. SOFTBRANDS INDIA P. LTD., (2018) 406 ITR 513] 11 In view of preceding analysis, the substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal, the same fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE ss…

DR H KRISHNA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX

In the result, we do not find

ITA/541/2014HC Karnataka17 Nov 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 260Section 260A

…meticulous appreciation of evidence on record. The findings of fact do not suffer from any perversity warranting interference of this court in exercise of powers under Section 260A of the Act. [SEE: SYEDA RAHIMUNNISA VS. MALAN BI BY L.RS. AND ORS. (2016)10 SCC 315 and PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE & ORS. VS. SOFTBRANDS INDIA P. LTD., (2018) 406 13 ITR 513]. In view of preceding analysis, the substantial questions of law are answered against the assessee and in favour of the assessee. In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal, the same fails and is hereby dismissed.…

Showing 1–20 of 27 · Page 1 of 2

SYEDA RAHIMUNNISA v. MALAN BI BY L.RS. AND ORS. (10 SCC 315) — Cited in 27 Judgments | BharatTax