Tatawarthy Narayana Murthy vs. CIT, (1963) 49 ITR 0766 (AP). 3.CIT v. Sannanna Chetty & Sons.

144 ITR 557High Court1983#22568 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Judgments citing Tatawarthy Narayana Murthy vs. CIT, (1963) 49 ITR 0766 (AP). 3.CIT v. Sannanna Chetty & Sons.

Barkha Khandelwal, Aggrieved Assessee, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer-3(1), Indore

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

ITA 85/IND/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanismt. Barkha Khandelwal Ito -3(1) Aggrieved Assesse Indore 1108, Pinnacle D Dreams, Tower -1 Vs. Near Bhawan Prominent School Pipliyakumar, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Ajnpk4150B Assessee By Shri Rakesh Gupta, Ar Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 12.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20 .09.2024

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 68

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Smt. Barkha Khandelwal ITO -3(1) Aggrieved Assesse Indore 1108, Pinnacle D Dreams, Tower -1 Vs. Near Bhawan Prominent School Pipliyakumar, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) PAN: AJNPK4150B Assessee by Shri Rakesh Gupta, AR Revenue by Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 12.09.2024 Date of Pronouncement 20 .09.2024 O R D E R Per Vijay Pal Rao, JM : This appeal by assessee is directed against the order dated…

Estate of Late Shri Vrajlal Chandulal Mehta, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-3(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 4252/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 132(4)Section 148

…this appeal, the Ld A.R submitted, by placing reliance on the following case law, that any person aggrieved by the order passed by the tax authorities is entitled to file appeal:- (a) Kikabai Abdulali vs. ITAT (32 ITR 762)(Bom) (b) CIT vs. N.Ch.R Row & Co. (144 ITR 557)(Cal). In both the cases, it has been held that the right of appeal to Tribunal is not confined technically to party who is party to appeal, but it is a much wider right which can be exercised by any person who becomes liable to pay tax by any order against which appeal is preferred. He submitted that, in the instant case, the Estate has receive…

DDIT (It) 4(2), Mumbai vs. Abu Dhabi Ship Bldg Pjsc, Mumbai

In the result, Department’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 5418/MUM/2013[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2016AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Dr. Dipak Ripote
Section 195(2)Section 246A(1)Section 9(1)

…ssee being a person aggrieved by order passed under section 195(2), is entitled to file an appeal under section 246A. For such proposition, he relied upon the following case laws. i) Kikabhai Abdulali v/s ITAT, 32 ITR 762 (Bom.); ii) CIT v/s N.Ch. Row & Co., 144 ITR 557 (Cal.); iii) CIT v/s Hindustan Steel Ltd., 45 Taxmann 273 (Cal.); iv) Shankarrao Sathwane v/s ITO, 89 ITD 611 (Hyd. Trib.); v) Chittaluri Peda Venkaa Subhaiah v/s ITO, 6 ITD 507 (Hyd. Trib.); and 22 M/s. Abu Dhabi Ship Building PJSC vi) Jyoti Tin & Allied Industries v/s ITO, 44 ITD 743 (Hyd. Trib.) 10. As far as the contention of the learned De…

Tatawarthy Narayana Murthy vs. CIT, (1963) 49 ITR 0766 (AP). 3.CIT v. Sannanna Chetty & Sons. (144 ITR 557) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax