TR 238 (MP) Liquidator, Mysore Agencies P Ltd vs CIT 114 ITR 853(Karn) K.V. Moosa Koya & Co. v. CIT

201 ITR 756High Court#19766 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2024.

Judgments citing TR 238 (MP) Liquidator, Mysore Agencies P Ltd vs CIT 114 ITR 853(Karn) K.V. Moosa Koya & Co. v. CIT

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune vs. Indus Biotech Private Limited, Pune

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 863/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri S.S. Godara"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Dcit, Vs. Indus Biotech Pvt. Ltd. Circle-1(1), 1, Rahul Residency, Pune Plot Nos.6 & 7, Off Salunke Vihar Road, Kondhwa, Kondhwa Bk B.O., Pune – 411048 Maharashtra Pan: Aaaci5708E Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 41(1)

…lowing decisions: • Steel and General Mills Co. Ltd vs CIT 96 ITR 438 (Del) • CIT vs Nathubhai Desha Bhai 130 ITR 238 (MP) • Liquidator, Mysore Agencies P Ltd vs CIT 114 ITR 853(Karn) • K.V. MoosaKoya & Co vs CIT 175 ITR 120,124 (Ker) • CIT vs Pranlal P Doshi 201 ITR 756 (Guj) 8.4 The third burden which was on A.O. was to establish that cessation if at all has happened, has happened in the year under appeal. After all, liability to tax can be fixed in the year to which it pertains and to no other year. Merely because A.O. chose to enquire about the creditors in this year and if assessee fails to establish the ex…

ACIT Circle-7(1), New Delhi vs. Delmos Aviation Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, Appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7894/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: or during the hearing of this appeal.”

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 41Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI N. K.BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER ACIT M/s Delmos Aviation Circle-7(1) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi Vs. 209, Prakash Deep Building, 07 Tolstoy Marg, Cannaught Place New Delhi-110 001 PAN-AABCD 9009J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Mr. T. James Singson, CIT- Ld. Departmental Representative Respondent by Mr. S. K. Chaturvedi, CA Date of Hearing 10/08/2023 Date of Pronouncement 06/10/2023 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JM: This appeal by Revenue is filed against the order of Learned Commission…

Rasna Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT., Circle-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal ITA 2334/Ahd/2015 filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2334/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri P.F. Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Lalit P. Jain, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 36Section 41(1)

…ount or benefit is obtained in a subsequent year! 8.2 To invoke provisions of sec.41(1), the above said conditions should be fulfilled. It is specifically held by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Pranlal P.I Doshi (1993) reported at 201 ITR 756 (Guj) and CIT vs Bharat Iron & Steel Industries (1993) 199 ITR 67 (Guj;), that Sec.41(1) jcreates a legal fiction. Therefore, facts necessary by way of condition precedent for raising the legal fiction have to be established first and they can be established only on the basis of evidence On record. In the case in hand, the appellant has specifica…

Sh. Lok Nath Narang, Prop, New Delhi vs. ITO, Gurgaon

ITA 6708/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamblelok Nath Narang, Prop. Vs Ito C/O. M/S. Rra Tax India, Ward-2(1) D-28, South Extension, Part-I Gurgaon New Delhi Pan : Adrpn8014H

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 41(1)Section 68

…. Steel and General Mills Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 96 ITR 438 (Del) ii. CIT vs. Nathubhai Desha Bhai 130 ITR 238 (MP) iii. Liquidator, Mysore Agencies P. Ltd. vs. CIT 114 ITR 853 (Karn) iv. K.V.Moosa Koya & Co vs. CIT 175 ITR 120, 124 (Ker) v. CIT vs. Pranlal P Doshi 201 ITR 756 (Guj) 7. The Ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer failed to establish that cessation if at all has happened, has happened in the year under appeal as held by Delhi Bench of Tribunal in the case of Madan Lal Brothers. After all, liability to tax can be fixed in the year to which it pertains and to no other year. Liability to tax any ceased…