V.M.Salgaocar & Bros.(P) Ltd. v. CIT

243 ITR 383Supreme Court of India2000#497 most cited

What is V.M.Salgaocar & Bros.(P) Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

An order by the Supreme Court dismissing a Special Leave Petition (SLP) at the threshold without detailed reasons does not constitute a declaration of law or a binding precedent. Such dismissal in limine offers no legal assistance.

189

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

V.M. Salgaocar & Bros. (P) Ltd. v. CIT · SLP dismissal · declaration of law · binding precedent · Article 141 · Supreme Court

Also reported as

110 Taxmann 67

Sections most often in play

Section 57(iv)Section 56(2)(viii)Section 10(37)Section 263Section 143(3)Section 45(5)Section 145ASection 145A(b)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 145bsection 45(5)section 57(iv)section 56(2)(viii)section 145a(b)section 10(37)enhanced compensationsection 145acompulsory acquisitionsection 264section 143(3a)lack of enquiry

Judgments citing V.M.Salgaocar & Bros.(P) Ltd. v. CIT

Shastri Lal, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward -4(1), Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3918/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Sh. Rajat Chaudhary, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

…upra) overlooking the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ghanshyam's HUF's case is not sustainable. Reliance of the Ld. CIT-DR on the decision in Mahender Pal Narang's case is misplaced. Needless to emphasis that in V.M. Salgaocar and Bros Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 243 ITR 383 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that an order dismissing the SLP at the threshold without detailed reasons does not constitute any declaration of law or a binding precedent. Therefore, overemphasising the fact of dismissal of SLP in limine by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahender Pal's case by the Revenue is not of any legal assistance t…

Dilbag Singh, Rohtak vs. Income Tax Officer, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3909/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

…upra) overlooking the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ghanshyam's HUF's case is not sustainable. Reliance of the Ld. CIT-DR on the decision in Mahender Pal Narang's case is misplaced. Needless to emphasis that in V.M. Salgaocar and Bros Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 243 ITR 383 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that an order dismissing the SLP at the threshold without detailed reasons does not constitute any declaration of law or a binding precedent. Therefore, overemphasising the fact of dismissal of SLP in limine by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahender Pal's case by the Revenue is not of any legal assistance t…

DCIT, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad vs. Prakash Nimmagadda, Hyderabad, Secunderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 974/HYD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Dec 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.974/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09) Dy.Cit Vs. Shri Prakash Nimmagadda Circle 1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Acbpn4246R (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Meghnath Chowhan, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 16/12/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order, Dated 20/03/2017 Of The Learned Cit (A)-9, Hyderabad, Relating To A.Y.2008-09. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, CAFor Respondent: : Dr. Meghnath Chowhan, CIT(DR)
Section 17(2)(c)Section 28

…special clause is absent u/s 28 even as on today, in spite of multiple Supreme Court rulings emphasizing on such computation rules. Hence shares are not taxable as perquisites u/s 28 as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of VM Salgaocar Pvt Ltd (2000) 243 ITR 383 11. The difference in Full value consideration and Cost is taxable as capital gains on sale of shares. The purported perquisite value would then be taxed as part of capital gain. When two views are possible for taxing the income, the one favourable to the Assessee has to be adopted. There are no provisions u/s 49 to define cost of acquisition in…

Mulkh Raj Mehta and Sons HUF, Hisar vs. Pr. CIT, Rohtak

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 2406/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganeshita No. 2406/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Mulkh Raj Mehta & Sons Huf, Vs Pr. Cit, 374, Sector-15A, Hisar, Rohtak, Haryana-125001 Haryana-124001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaihm9927L Assessee By : Sh. Mahfuzur Rahman, Ca & Sh. Surajh Bhan Nain, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. B. S. Anand, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.12.2024 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2018-19, Arises Against The Order Of Pcit, Rohtak Dated 18.03.2024 In Din & Order No. Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2023-24/1062878615(1), In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Mahfuzur Rahman, CA &For Respondent: Sh. B. S. Anand, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 145B(1)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

…upra) overlooking the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ghanshyam’s HUF’s case is not sustainable. Reliance of the Ld. CIT-DR on the decision in Mahender Pal Narang’s case is misplaced. Needless to emphasis that in V.M. Salgaocar and Bros Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 243 ITR 383 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that an order dismissing the SLP at the threshold without detailed reasons does not constitute any declaration of law or a binding precedent. Therefore, overemphasising the fact of dismissal of SLP in limine by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mahender Pal’s case by the Revenue is not of any legal assistance t…

Nishant Choudhary, Fatehabad vs. ITO, Ward-1, Fatehabad

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 2863/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganeshita No. 2863/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Nishant Choudhary, Vs Income Tax Officer, S/O Sh. Vijay Choudhary, Choudhary Ward-1, Niwas, G.T. Road (Opp. Ratia Fatehabad, Crossing), Fatehabad, Haryana-125050 Haryana-125050 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aempc0965Q Assessee By : Sh. Raj Kumar, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.12.2024 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2015-16, Arises Against The Order Of Cit(A)-5, Ludhiana Dated 13.02.2019 In Case No. 255/Rot/It/Cit(A)-5/Ldh/2018-19, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Raj Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145B(1)Section 263Section 28

…upra) overlooking the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ghanshyam’s HUF’s case is not sustainable. Reliance of the Ld. CIT-DR on the decision in Mahender Pal Narang’s case is misplaced. Needless to emphasis that in V.M. Salgaocar and Bros Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 243 ITR 383 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that an order dismissing the SLP at the threshold without detailed reasons does not constitute any declaration of law or a binding precedent. Therefore, overemphasising the fact of dismissal of SLP in limine by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mahender Pal’s case by the Revenue is not of any legal assistance t…

Sharad Kumar, Chennai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Media Circle

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1381/CHNY/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Sept 2024AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1381/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 V. Mr. Sharad Kumar, The Dcit, New No.6, Old No.7, Media Circle-1, Nawab Habibullah Avenue, Chennai. 3Rd Street, Chennai-6. [Pan: Aasps 2554 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. D. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. T.M.Suganthamala
Section 2(24)(iv)

…foresaid factual matrix, we find that no benefit or perquisites have accrued to the assessee. And for such a proposition, we rely on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of V.M. Salgaocar & Bros. (P) Ltd. Etc. v. CIT Etc. reported in [2000] 243 ITR 383 (SC), wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court approved the following passage from the judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in P.R.S. Oberoi’s case reported in [1990] 183 ITR 103 (Cal.) in the context whether non-charging of interest by a company on advances/loan given to its employee-director would attract tax being perquisite and the Hon’bl…

Veena Shah, Panipat vs. Pr CIT, Rohtak

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1222/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member), SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA (Accountant Member)

Section 10(37)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

…(Supra) was incorrect & amounted to per incuriam. Further, it was argued that the dismissal of SLP in the case of Mahender Pal Narang was not reasoned out (emphasizing the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of V. M. Salgaocar and Bros Pvt. Ltd. 243 ITR 383; therefore, it did not formulate any law of the land and the said dismissal was subsequent to the assessment order. Therefore, it was argued that the decision in the case of Mahender Pal Narang (Supra) was not applicable in this case. To buttress his contention, the Ld. Counsel placed emphasis on the decisions in the case of Pawan Kumar [2024] 15…

Om Prakash, Fatehabad vs. Pr. CIT, Rohtak

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1674/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Delhi19 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh.Shamim Yahya & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Om Prakash Vs. Principal Cit 45 Matana Majra, Rohtak Fatehabad, Haryana Haryana Pan: Cmspp7173D Appellant Respondent

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 263

…upra) overlooking the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ghanshyam's HUF's case is not sustainable. Reliance of the Ld. CIT-DR on the decision in Mahender Pal Narang's case is misplaced. Needless to emphasis that in V.M. Salgaocar and Bros Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 243 ITR 383 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that an order dismissing the SLP at the threshold without detailed reasons does not constitute any declaration of law or a binding precedent. Therefore, overemphasising the fact of dismissal of SLP in limine by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahender Pal's case by the Revenue is not of any legal assistance t…

Jai Parkash, Fatehabad vs. Pr. CIT, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1675/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usa.Yr. : 2018-19 Jai Parkash, Vs. Principal Commissoiner Of Bhattu Road, Income Tax, Rohtak Near Anaj Mandi, Fatehabad – 125050 Haryana (Pan: Amypk5328D) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Waseem Arshad, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(viii)

…e (supra) overlooking the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ghanshyam's HUF's case is not sustainable. Reliance by the Ld PCIT on the decision in Mahender Pal Narang's case is misplaced Needless to emphasis that in V.M. Salgaocar and Bros Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 243 ITR 383 (SC), the Hon 'ble Supreme Court has held that an order dismissing the SLP at the threshold without detailed reasons does not constitute any declaration of law or a binding precedent. Therefore, overemphasising the lact of dismissal of SLP in limine by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahender Pal's case by the Revenue is not of any legal assistance…

Gulshan Kumar, Fatehabad vs. Pr. CIT, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1676/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan, CAFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 203Section 263Section 56(2)(viii)

…(supra) overlooking the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ghanshyam’s HUF’s case is not sustainable. Reliance by the Ld. PCIT on the decision in Mahender Pal Narang’s case is misplaced. Needless to emphasis that in V.M. Salgaocar and Bros Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 243 ITR 383 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that an order dismissing the SLP at the threshold without detailed reasons does not constitute any declaration of law or a binding precedent. Therefore, overemphasising the fact of dismissal of SLP in limine by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mahender Pal’s case by the Revenue is not of any legal assistance t…

Purnimasareen, Panipat vs. Pr. CIT, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 892/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2018-19 Smt. Purnima Sareen Vs. Pr. Cit, 744-745, Model Town, Rohtak Panipat, Haryana-132103 Pan Bokps2116C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(viii)

…the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ghanshyam’s HUF’s case is not sustainable. Reliance by the Ld. PCIT and the Ld. CIT-DR on the decision in Mahender Pal Narang’s case is misplaced. Needless to emphasis that in V.M. Salgaocar and Bros Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 243 ITR 383 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that an order dismissing the SLP at the threshold without detailed reasons does not constitute any declaration of law or a binding precedent. Therefore, overemphasising the fact of dismissal of SLP in limine by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mahender Pal’s case by the Revenue is not of any legal assistance t…

Pawan Kumar, Fatehabad vs. Prcit, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1655/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2018-19 Pawan Kumar Vs. Prcit, Near Aggarsain Chowk, Rohtak Prince Plywood Home, Fuwara Chowk, Fatehabad, Haryana 125050 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Surajbhan Nain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 203Section 263Section 28

…upra) overlooking the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ghanshyam’s HUF’s case is not sustainable. Reliance of the Ld. CIT-DR on the decision in Mahender Pal Narang’s case is misplaced. Needless to emphasis that in V.M. Salgaocar and Bros Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 243 ITR 383 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that an order dismissing the SLP at the threshold without detailed reasons does not constitute any declaration of law or a binding precedent. Therefore, overemphasising the fact of dismissal of SLP in limine by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mahender Pal’s case by the Revenue is not of any legal assistance t…

Siddhi Vinayaka Graphics Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. A.D.I.T., CPC, Bengaluru / I.T.O., Circle - 7(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 143/KOL/2023[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jun 2023AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri P. R. Kothari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…warranted upto asst. yr. 2020-21 even in case of belated deposit of employees' contribution if the same is deposited within due date of filing ITR which in the instant case for asst. yr. 2020-21 was 15.02.2021. a) V.M. Salgaocar & Bros (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 383 (SC) (2000) 110 Taxmann 67 (SC) b) Goa Glass Fibre Limited Vs. State of Goa and another (2010) 6 Supreme Court Cases 499 c) Easland Combines, Coimbatore Vs. CCE, Coimbatore (2003) 3 Supreme Court Cases 410 d) Lumino Industries Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2022) 94 ITR (Trib) 0675 (Kolkata) (2021) 63 CCH 0510 Kol.Trib 24. The Parliament, by way of amendment of…

Sona Gold Agrochem Pvt Ltd, Patna vs. Adcir, CPC

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed”

ITA 88/PAT/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Patna31 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

…ITA No. 88/PAT/2021 A.Y. 2019-2020 Sona Gold Agrochem Pvt. Limited IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA-PATNA ‘e-COURT’, KOLKATA [Virtual Court Hearing] Before Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President & Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member I.T.A. No. 88/PAT/2021 Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Sona Gold Agrochem Pvt. Limited,...........Appellant Karmali Chak Mohali Riad, Patna-800008, Bihar [PAN: AAJCS0688L] -Vs.- ADCIR, CPC,.........................................Respondent Bengaluru-560500, Karnataka Appearances by: Shri Rakesh Kumar, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the assesseee Shri Rupesh Agrawal, Sr. D.R.,…

M/S Kiritikunj Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed”

ITA 128/KOL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

…ITA No. 128/KOL/2022 A.Y. 2018-2019 M/s. Kirtikunj Automobiles Pvt. Limited IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President & Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member I.T.A. No. 128/KOL/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 M/s. Kirtikunj Automobiles Pvt. Limited,.....Appellant Room No. 213, 2nd Floor, 156A, Lenin Sarani, Kolkata-700013 [PAN: AADCK6013F] -Vs.- Assistant Director of Income Tax,............Respondent Centralised Processing Centre, Income Tax Department, Bangalore-560500, Karnataka Appearances by: N o n e, appeared on behalf of the assesseee Smt. Ranu Bisw…

Siddhi Vinayaka Graphics Pvt., Kolkata vs. A.D.I.T., CPC, Bengaluru/ACIT, Circle - 7(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 61/KOL/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 May 2023AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargi.T.A No.61/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Siddhi Vinayaka Graphics Pvt. Ltd.................................................……Appellant 58/5B, B.T. Road, Kolkata-700002 [Pan: Aakcs3206R] Vs. Adit, Cpc, Bengaluru/ Acit, Circle-7(2), Kolkata….…...................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri P. R. Kothari, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 13, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 16, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.11.2022 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “For That On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), Nfac Erred In Sustaining The Addition On Account Of Alleged Late Deposit Of Employee’S Contribution To Pf/Esi Etc. To The Extent Of Rs.792872/- Made By The Ld. Assessing Officer In Summary Assessment.”

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…warranted upto asst. yr. 2020-21 even in case of belated deposit of employees' contribution if the same is deposited within due date of filing ITR which in the instant case for asst. yr. 2020-21 was 15.02.2021. a) V.M. Salgaocar & Bros (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 383 (SC) (2000) 110 Taxmann 67 (SC) b) Goa Glass Fibre Limited Vs. State of Goa and another (2010) 6 Supreme Court Cases 499 c) Easland Combines, Coimbatore Vs. CCE, Coimbatore (2003) 3 Supreme Court Cases 410 d) Lumino Industries Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2022) 94 ITR (Trib) 0675 (Kolkata) (2021) 63 CCH 0510 Kol.Trib 24. The Parliament, by way of amendment of…

ACIT, CC-4, Jaipur vs. Shri Ramesh Kumar Mantri, Jaipur

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

ITA 165/JPR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh]U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 164 & 165/JP/2020 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2010-11 & 2011-12 cuke The Assistant Commissioner of Shri Ramesh Kumar Mantri Income-tax, Vs. 211, Laxmi Complex, M.I. Central Circle-4, Road, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ACTPM 0737 H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent CO No. 15 & 16/JP/2020 (Arising…

ACIT, CC-4, Jaipur vs. Shri Ramesh Kumar Mantri, Jaipur

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

ITA 164/JPR/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh]U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 164 & 165/JP/2020 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2010-11 & 2011-12 cuke The Assistant Commissioner of Shri Ramesh Kumar Mantri Income-tax, Vs. 211, Laxmi Complex, M.I. Central Circle-4, Road, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ACTPM 0737 H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent CO No. 15 & 16/JP/2020 (Arising…

ACIT, CC-4, Jaipur vs. Shri Mukesh Jain, Jaipur

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

ITA 162/JPR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh]U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 164 & 165/JP/2020 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2010-11 & 2011-12 cuke The Assistant Commissioner of Shri Ramesh Kumar Mantri Income-tax, Vs. 211, Laxmi Complex, M.I. Central Circle-4, Road, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ACTPM 0737 H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent CO No. 15 & 16/JP/2020 (Arising…

ACIT, CC-4, Jaipur vs. Shri Mukesh Jain, Jaipur

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

ITA 161/JPR/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh]U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 164 & 165/JP/2020 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2010-11 & 2011-12 cuke The Assistant Commissioner of Shri Ramesh Kumar Mantri Income-tax, Vs. 211, Laxmi Complex, M.I. Central Circle-4, Road, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ACTPM 0737 H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent CO No. 15 & 16/JP/2020 (Arising…