Union of India v. Satish Pannalal Shah

72 ITR 726High Court1969#4538 most cited

What is Union of India v. Satish Pannalal Shah authority for?

Judicial discipline requires consistency in legal interpretations. Once a view is taken in a particular year, absent contrary material, the same view should be followed to ensure finality in litigation.

26

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2022.

Also referred to as

Union of India v. Satish Pannalal Shah · 72 ITR 726 · judicial discipline · consistency · finality of litigation · contrary material · principle of law

Judgments citing Union of India v. Satish Pannalal Shah

M/S. Raj Enterprise, Surat vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Surat

ITA 1167/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

Section 145(3)Section 254(1)Section 53A

…se findings/ qualification. To support his submission, the ld. AR relied upon the following decision:  CIT Vs Padamchand Ramgopal (1970) 76 ITR 719 (SC).  CIT Vs Margadarsi Chit Funds (P) Ltd. (1985) 44 CTR (AP) 5  B. F. Varghese Vs State of Kerala (1969) 72 ITR 726 (Ker.) 29. Ground no. 2 which relates to estimation of rate of sale of plots at Rs.1,500/- per square yard. The ld. AR for the assessee submits that ld. CIT(A) after confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in rejection of books of accounts under section 145(3) confirmed estimation of sale at Rs.1,500/-, which is liable to be rejected. The A…

M/S. Raj Enterprise, Surat vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Surat

ITA 1166/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

Section 145(3)Section 254(1)Section 53A

…se findings/ qualification. To support his submission, the ld. AR relied upon the following decision:  CIT Vs Padamchand Ramgopal (1970) 76 ITR 719 (SC).  CIT Vs Margadarsi Chit Funds (P) Ltd. (1985) 44 CTR (AP) 5  B. F. Varghese Vs State of Kerala (1969) 72 ITR 726 (Ker.) 29. Ground no. 2 which relates to estimation of rate of sale of plots at Rs.1,500/- per square yard. The ld. AR for the assessee submits that ld. CIT(A) after confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in rejection of books of accounts under section 145(3) confirmed estimation of sale at Rs.1,500/-, which is liable to be rejected. The A…

The Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(3), Surat vs. M/S. Raj Enterprises, Surat

ITA 1164/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

Section 145(3)Section 254(1)Section 53A

…se findings/ qualification. To support his submission, the ld. AR relied upon the following decision:  CIT Vs Padamchand Ramgopal (1970) 76 ITR 719 (SC).  CIT Vs Margadarsi Chit Funds (P) Ltd. (1985) 44 CTR (AP) 5  B. F. Varghese Vs State of Kerala (1969) 72 ITR 726 (Ker.) 29. Ground no. 2 which relates to estimation of rate of sale of plots at Rs.1,500/- per square yard. The ld. AR for the assessee submits that ld. CIT(A) after confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in rejection of books of accounts under section 145(3) confirmed estimation of sale at Rs.1,500/-, which is liable to be rejected. The A…

The ACIT, Circle-1, Jamnagar vs. M/S. Senor Metals Pvt. Ltd., Jamnagar

In the results the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 260/RJT/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot01 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kambleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 260/Rjt/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Dushyant Maharshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Pratap Singh, C.I.T.D.R
Section 36Section 40Section 43(5)

…nsistently accepted in past, in absence of bringing on record any cogent reasons for rejecting same, addition made by Assessing Officer merely on basis of its own estimation of production, was not sustainable  B. F. Varghese (No.2) vs. State of Kerala (1969) 72 ITR 726 (Kerala) (Page no. 424-425 of paper book) The fact that the yield disclosed by the books of accounts does not satisfactorily compare with the yield as estimated by the assessing authority for the previous year is no ground for rejecting the accounts of an assessee as the yield would vary from year to year to a large extent, depending on several fa…

ACIT-8 (1) (1), Mumbai vs. Royal Western India Turf Club Limited, Mumbai

ITA 5754/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Acit-8(1)(1) M/S Royal Western Turf Club Room No. 624, 6Th Floor, Vs. Limited, Mahalaxmi Race Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Course, K.K. Marg, Mahalaxmi Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 034

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mahendra Ahuja. Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…Berger Paints India Ltd. vs CIT 266 ITR 99 (SC) v. DCIT vs United Vanaspati (275ITR124) (AT) (Chandigarh ITAT) vi. Union of India vs Kumudini N. Dalai 249 ITR 219 (SC) vii. Union of India vs Satish Pannalal Shah 249 ITR 221 ix. B.F.Varghese vs State of Kerala 72 ITR 726 (Ker.) x. CIT vs Narendra Doshi 254 ITR 606 (SC) xi. CIT vs Shivsagar Estate 257 ITR 59 (SC) xii. Pradip Ramanlal Seth vs UOI204 ITR 866 (Guj.) xiii. Radhaswamy Satsang vs CIT 193 ITR 321 (SC) xiv. Aggarwal warehousing & Leasing Ltd. 257 ITR 235 (MP) 2.5. The sum and substance of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements is that on the basis of princ…

DCIT 8(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Royal Western Indua Turf Club Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 3237/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Smt Mamta Bansal, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Salis Kapoor
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…275 ITR 124) AT) (Chandigarh ITAT) vii. Union of India vs Kumudini N. Dalai 249 ITR 219 (SC) ITA Nos. 3237 /Mum/2017 M/s. Royal Western India turf Club Ltd., Mumbai. viii Union of India vs Satish Pannalal Shah 249 ITR 221 ix. B.F.Varghese vs State of Kerala 72 ITR 726 (Ker.) x. CIT vs Narendra Doshi 254 ITR 606 (SC) xi. CIT vs Shivsagar Estate 257 ITR 59 (SC) xii. Pradip Ramanlal Seth vs UOI 204 ITR 866 (Guj.) xiii. Radhaswamy Satsang vs CIT 193 ITR 321 (SC) xiv. Aggarwal warehousing & Leasing Ltd. 257 ITR 235 (MP) 2.5. The sum and substance of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements is that on the basis of princ…

DCIT 9(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Best Paper Mills P. Ltd, Mumbai

Appeals stand dismissed

ITA 975/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

…ted 04/07/2018] ii) Mumbai Tribunal in ITO V/s Times & Space Hauler [ITA No.1824/M/2011 dated 19/06/2015] iii) Mumbai Tribunal in ITO V/s Eternity Jewels [ITA No.1318/Mum/2016 dated 04/02/2019 iv) Hon’ble Kerala High Court in B.F.Varghese V/s State of Kerala [72 ITR 726] Our findings and Conclusions 9.1 We have carefully heard the rival submissions, perused relevant material on record including the orders of lower authorities and deliberated on judicial pronouncements as cited before us. 9.2 The order of Ld. AO would reveal that yield percentage reflected by the assessee has been disturbed primarily by relying u…

Best Paper Mills P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 9(2)(1), Mumbai

Appeals stand dismissed

ITA 772/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

…ted 04/07/2018] ii) Mumbai Tribunal in ITO V/s Times & Space Hauler [ITA No.1824/M/2011 dated 19/06/2015] iii) Mumbai Tribunal in ITO V/s Eternity Jewels [ITA No.1318/Mum/2016 dated 04/02/2019 iv) Hon’ble Kerala High Court in B.F.Varghese V/s State of Kerala [72 ITR 726] Our findings and Conclusions 9.1 We have carefully heard the rival submissions, perused relevant material on record including the orders of lower authorities and deliberated on judicial pronouncements as cited before us. 9.2 The order of Ld. AO would reveal that yield percentage reflected by the assessee has been disturbed primarily by relying u…

Kashmir Steel Industries, Jammu vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Jammu

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 201/ASR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 201/Asr./2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Kashmir Steel Industries, Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Sidco Industrial Complex, Bari Tax, Circle-1, Brahmana, Jammu Jammu (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabfk4948A Assessee By : Sh. Vasu Gupta, Ca & Sh. R. K. Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Sh. M. P. Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :21.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-5, Ludhiana.

For Appellant: Sh. Vasu Gupta, CA &For Respondent: Sh. M. P. Singh, CIT DR

…ission, irregularity or other defect in the method of maintaining of accounts or positive evidence to show that the accounts did not disclose the whole income of the assessee, his books of accounts cannot be rejected. – B.F. Varghese Vs State of Kerala (1969) 72 ITR 726 (Ker) : TC1R.655 ITA No. 201/Asr./2018 5 Kashmir Steel Industries and Raghubar Mandal Harihar Mandal Vs State of Bihar (1957) 8 STC 770 (SC) relied on. Even if the ITO considered the material placed before him by the assessee to be unreliable keeping in view the comparative statement of accounts of the previous years, he could not proceed to ma…

Satypal Jaikumar Jain, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 39, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the

ITA 3965/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2010-11 Acit, Satyapal Jaikumar Jain, Cc-39, R. No.32(1), 82, Maker Chambers-Iii, बनाम/ Ground Floor, Nariman Point, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400021 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aabpj1888Q Assessment Year: 2010-11 Satyapal Jaikumar Jain, Acit, 82, Maker Chambers-Iii, Cc-39, R. No.32(1), बनाम/ Nariman Point, Ground Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400021 Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aabpj1888Q

Section 131

…er Paints India Ltd. vs CIT 266 ITR 99 (SC) vi. DCIT vs United Vanaspati (275 ITR 124) (AT)(Chandigarh ITAT) vii. Union of India vs Kumudini N. Dalal 249 ITR 219 (SC) viii. Union of India vs Satish Pannalal Shah 249 ITR 221 ix. B.F.Varghese vs State of Kerala 72 ITR 726 (Ker.) x. CIT vs Narendra Doshi 254 ITR 606 (SC) xi. CIT vs Shivsagar Estate 257 ITR 59 (SC) xii. Pradip Ramanlal Seth vs UOI 204 ITR 866 (Guj.) xiii. Radhaswamy Satsang vs CIT 193 ITR 321 (SC) xiv. Aggarwal warehousing & Leasing Ltd. 257 ITR 235 (MP) ITA Nos.3831 & 3965/Mum/2014 15 Satyapal Jaikumar Jain The sum and substance of the aforesaid j…

ACIT CC 39, Mumbai vs. Satypal Jain, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the

ITA 3831/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2010-11 Acit, Satyapal Jaikumar Jain, Cc-39, R. No.32(1), 82, Maker Chambers-Iii, बनाम/ Ground Floor, Nariman Point, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400021 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aabpj1888Q Assessment Year: 2010-11 Satyapal Jaikumar Jain, Acit, 82, Maker Chambers-Iii, Cc-39, R. No.32(1), बनाम/ Nariman Point, Ground Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400021 Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aabpj1888Q

Section 131

…er Paints India Ltd. vs CIT 266 ITR 99 (SC) vi. DCIT vs United Vanaspati (275 ITR 124) (AT)(Chandigarh ITAT) vii. Union of India vs Kumudini N. Dalal 249 ITR 219 (SC) viii. Union of India vs Satish Pannalal Shah 249 ITR 221 ix. B.F.Varghese vs State of Kerala 72 ITR 726 (Ker.) x. CIT vs Narendra Doshi 254 ITR 606 (SC) xi. CIT vs Shivsagar Estate 257 ITR 59 (SC) xii. Pradip Ramanlal Seth vs UOI 204 ITR 866 (Guj.) xiii. Radhaswamy Satsang vs CIT 193 ITR 321 (SC) xiv. Aggarwal warehousing & Leasing Ltd. 257 ITR 235 (MP) ITA Nos.3831 & 3965/Mum/2014 15 Satyapal Jaikumar Jain The sum and substance of the aforesaid j…

M/S Cargo Motors Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4439/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2012-13 Cargo Motors Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, 1/9-B, Jindal House, Circle-5(2), बनाम/ Asaf Ali Road, C.R. Building, Vs. Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110002 ("नधा%&रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacc2744C

Section 14A

…er Paints India Ltd. vs CIT 266 ITR 99 (SC) vi. DCIT vs United Vanaspati (275 ITR 124) (AT)(Chandigarh ITAT) vii. Union of India vs Kumudini N. Dalal 249 ITR 219 (SC) viii. Union of India vs Satish Pannalal Shah 249 ITR 221 ix. B.F.Varghese vs State of Kerala 72 ITR 726 (Ker.) x. CIT vs Narendra Doshi 254 ITR 606 (SC) xi. CIT vs Shivsagar Estate 257 ITR 59 (SC) xii. Pradip Ramanlal Seth vs UOI 204 ITR 866 (Guj.) xiii. Radhaswamy Satsang vs CIT 193 ITR 321 (SC) xiv. Aggarwal warehousing & Leasing Ltd. 257 ITR 235 (MP) The sum and substance of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements is that on the basis of principl…

Asst CIT 8(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Royal Western India Truf Club Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

ITA 5570/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D T Garasia & Shri N K Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri Purushottam KumarFor Respondent: Shri Salil Kapoor, Ms. Saumya Singh &
Section 143(3)Section 263

…ger Paints India Ltd. vs CIT 266 ITR 99 (SC) vi. DCIT vs United Vanaspati (275 ITR 124) AT) (Chandigarh ITAT) vii. Union of India vs Kumudini N. Dalai 249 ITR 219 (SC) viii Union of India vs Satish Pannalal Shah 249 ITR 221 ix. B.F.Varghese vs State of Kerala 72 ITR 726 (Ker.) x. CIT vs Narendra Doshi 254 ITR 606 (SC) xi. CIT vs Shivsagar Estate 257 ITR 59 (SC) xii. Pradip Ramanlal Seth vs UOI 204 ITR 866 (Guj.) xiii. Radhaswamy Satsang vs CIT 193 ITR 321 (SC) xiv. Aggarwal warehousing & Leasing Ltd. 257 ITR 235 (MP) 2.5. The sum and substance of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements is that on the basis of prin…

Asst CIT 8(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Royal Western India Truf Club Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

ITA 5569/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D T Garasia & Shri N K Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri Purushottam KumarFor Respondent: Shri Salil Kapoor, Ms. Saumya Singh &
Section 143(3)Section 263

…ger Paints India Ltd. vs CIT 266 ITR 99 (SC) vi. DCIT vs United Vanaspati (275 ITR 124) AT) (Chandigarh ITAT) vii. Union of India vs Kumudini N. Dalai 249 ITR 219 (SC) viii Union of India vs Satish Pannalal Shah 249 ITR 221 ix. B.F.Varghese vs State of Kerala 72 ITR 726 (Ker.) x. CIT vs Narendra Doshi 254 ITR 606 (SC) xi. CIT vs Shivsagar Estate 257 ITR 59 (SC) xii. Pradip Ramanlal Seth vs UOI 204 ITR 866 (Guj.) xiii. Radhaswamy Satsang vs CIT 193 ITR 321 (SC) xiv. Aggarwal warehousing & Leasing Ltd. 257 ITR 235 (MP) 2.5. The sum and substance of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements is that on the basis of prin…

S.R. Protiens Pvt. Ltd, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur

In the result, the disallowance of Rs 71,795 is hereby deleted

ITA 978/JPR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 May 2017AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 234B

…ission, irregularity or other defect in the method of maintaining the accounts or positive evidence to show that the accounts did not disclose the whole income of the assessee, his books of accounts cannot be rejected.—B.F. Varghese vs. State of Kerala (1969) 72 ITR 726 (Ker) : TC1R.655 and Raghubar Mandal Harihar Mandal vs. State of Bihar (1957) 8 STC 770 (SC) relied on. Even if the ITO considered the material placed before him by the assessee to be unreliable keeping in view the comparative statement of accounts of the previous years, he could not proceed to make an arbitrary addition and base his conclusion p…

Addl CIT 2(1), Mumbai vs. Gtl Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5419/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 10BSection 143(1)

…er Paints India Ltd. vs CIT 266 ITR 99 (SC) vi. DCIT vs United Vanaspati (275 ITR 124) (AT)(Chandigarh ITAT) vii. Union of India vs Kumudini N. Dalal 249 ITR 219 (SC) viii. Union of India vs Satish Pannalal Shah 249 ITR 221 ix. B.F.Varghese vs State of Kerala 72 ITR 726 (Ker.) x. CIT vs Narendra Doshi 254 ITR 606 (SC) xi. CIT vs Shivsagar Estate 257 ITR 59 (SC) xii. Pradip Ramanlal Seth vs UOI 204 ITR 866 (Guj.) xiii. Radhaswamy Satsang vs CIT 193 ITR 321 (SC) xiv. Aggarwal warehousing & Leasing Ltd. 257 ITR 235 (MP) The sum and substance of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements is that on the basis of principle…

Shapoorji Pallanji and Company P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 3(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3053/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Mar 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Shapoorji Pallonji & Co. Dcit, Ltd. Circle-3(3), बनाम/ Shapporji Pallonji Centre, Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Vs. 41/44 Minoo Desai Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Colaba Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400005 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaacs6994C

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…er Paints India Ltd. vs CIT 266 ITR 99 (SC) vi. DCIT vs United Vanaspati (275 ITR 124) (AT)(Chandigarh ITAT) vii. Union of India vs Kumudini N. Dalal 249 ITR 219 (SC) viii. Union of India vs Satish Pannalal Shah 249 ITR 221 ix. B.F.Varghese vs State of Kerala 72 ITR 726 (Ker.) x. CIT vs Narendra Doshi 254 ITR 606 (SC) xi. CIT vs Shivsagar Estate 257 ITR 59 (SC) xii. Pradip Ramanlal Seth vs UOI 204 ITR 866 (Guj.) xiii. Radhaswamy Satsang vs CIT 193 ITR 321 (SC) xiv. Aggarwal warehousing & Leasing Ltd. 257 ITR 235 (MP) 3.15. The sum and substance of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements is that on the basis of prin…

A.C.I.T.19(2), Mumbai vs. Alka Kiritkumar Upadhyay, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA N0

ITA 2617/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2617/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) A.C.I.T. – 19(2), Smt. Alka Kiritkumar बनाम/ Room No. 315, 3 Rd Floor, Upadhyay, V. Piramal Chambers, Alka Bldg., 6T H Floor, Lalbaug, Parel, Santacruz (W), Mumbai – 400 012. Mumbai –400 054. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaapu0228Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri A. Ramachandran
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…er Paints India Ltd. vs CIT 266 ITR 99 (SC) vi. DCIT vs United Vanaspati (275 ITR 124) (AT)(Chandigarh ITAT) vii. Union of India vs Kumudini N. Dalal 249 ITR 219 (SC) viii. Union of India vs Satish Pannalal Shah 249 ITR 221 ix. B.F.Varghese vs State of Kerala 72 ITR 726 (Ker.) x. CIT vs Narendra Doshi 254 ITR 606 (SC) xi. CIT vs Shivsagar Estate 257 ITR 59 (SC) xii. Pradip Ramanlal Seth vs UOI 204 ITR 866 (Guj.) xiii. Radhaswamy Satsang vs CIT 193 ITR 321 (SC) xiv. Aggarwal warehousing & Leasing Ltd. 257 ITR 235 (MP) The sum and substance of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements is that on the basis of principle…

Darshana B. Doshi, Mumbai vs. A.C.I.T. Circle 13(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 5462/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09 Smt. Darshana B. Doshi Acit, Circle-13(3), 31, Broach Street, Devraj 430, Aayakar Bhavan, 4Th बनाम/ Ratanshi Marg, Iron Market, Floor, M.K. Marg, Vs. Masjid Bunder, Mumbai 400 020. Mumbai 400009. Pan. No. Aabpd7806Q (राज"व /Revenue ) ("नधा"रती /Assessee)

Section 10(34)

…er Paints India Ltd. vs CIT 266 ITR 99 (SC) vi. DCIT vs United Vanaspati (275 ITR 124) (AT)(Chandigarh ITAT) vii. Union of India vs Kumudini N. Dalal 249 ITR 219 (SC) viii. Union of India vs Satish Pannalal Shah 249 ITR 221 ix. B.F.Varghese vs State of Kerala 72 ITR 726 (Ker.) x. CIT vs Narendra Doshi 254 ITR 606 (SC) xi. CIT vs Shivsagar Estate 257 ITR 59 (SC) xii. Pradip Ramanlal Seth vs UOI 204 ITR 866 (Guj.) xiii. Radhaswamy Satsang vs CIT 193 ITR 321 (SC) xiv. Aggarwal warehousing & Leasing Ltd. 257 ITR 235 (MP) 5. The sum and substance of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements is that on the basis of princi…

ITO 9(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Kalypto Risk Technologies P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1275/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 143(3)Section 32

…er Paints India Ltd. vs CIT 266 ITR 99 (SC) vi. DCIT vs United Vanaspati (275 ITR 124) (AT)(Chandigarh ITAT) vii. Union of India vs Kumudini N. Dalal 249 ITR 219 (SC) viii. Union of India vs Satish Pannalal Shah 249 ITR 221 ix. B.F.Varghese vs State of Kerala 72 ITR 726 (Ker.) x. CIT vs Narendra Doshi 254 ITR 606 (SC) xi. CIT vs Shivsagar Estate 257 ITR 59 (SC) xii. Pradip Ramanlal Seth vs UOI 204 ITR 866 (Guj.) xiii. Radhaswamy Satsang vs CIT 193 ITR 321 (SC) xiv. Aggarwal warehousing & Leasing Ltd. 257 ITR 235 (MP) The sum and substance of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements is that on the basis of principle…

Union of India v. Satish Pannalal Shah (72 ITR 726) — Cited in 26 Judgments | BharatTax