Venkat Rao v. CIT

203 ITR 64High Court#19804 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,615 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2022.

Judgments citing Venkat Rao v. CIT

M/S. B.Banamber & Co., Cuttack vs. CIT, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as per the direction indicated above

ITA 404/CTK/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack29 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2009-2010 2010 M/S. B.Banamber & Co., M/S. B.Banamber & Co., Vs. Cit, Bhubaneswar Cit, Bhubaneswar Bhairabi Sahi, Talcher. Bhairabi Sahi, Talcher. Pan No.Aadfb 2121 Q Pan No.Aadfb 2121 Q (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By Assessee By : S/Shri S.N..Sahu & Somanath Sahu S.N..Sahu & Somanath Sahu, Ars Revenue By : Shri M.K.Goutam, M.K.Goutam, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 10/3/ 20 / 2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/ /3/2022 O R D E R Per C.M.Garg G, Jm

For Appellant: S/Shri S.N..Sahu, & Somanath SahuFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Goutam
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44A

…compliance to notice u/s. 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961 should have been judicially considered by the learned CIT. the (earned CIT was duty bound to examine the points raised and record definite conclusions in respect of each one of them. [A. Venkat Rao Vs. CIT, 203 ITR 64]. Not doing so the order has become in- abnitio void u/s. 263 and not doing so, the order is illegal. P a g e 2 | 9 Assessment Year : 2009-2010 6. That the learned AO should have considered that where two views are possible and the CIT does not agree with that view taken by the AO and the same has resulted in loss of revenue, it cannot be treate…

Sri Lalit Murarka, Cuttack vs. ITO, Cuttack

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 409/CTK/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack10 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.188 & 409/Ctk/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Sri Lalit Murarka, Vs. Cit, Cuttack Prop- M/S Subham, Kanika Chhak, Cuttack Pan No. : Apmpm 9441 C (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.N.Sahu/Somnath Sahoo, Advs िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/03/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09/03/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: The Assessee Has Filed These Two Appeals I.E.

For Appellant: Shri S.N.Sahu/Somnath Sahoo, AdvsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263Section 263(1)

…d the points raised before him in the appellate proceeding though recorded in Para-3 of his order as he is duty bound to examine the points raised by the parties and record definite conclusions in respect of each and every one of them. [A. Venkat Rao Vs. CIT, 203 ITR 64 (Orissa)]. Not doing so his order has been vitiated in law. 3) That the learned CIT(Appeals) is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs.4,21,754/- under the head "Sundry Creditors" even after verifiing the Balance Sheet because the question of furnishing details does not arise as the assessee had made all his purchases of Zuari made furnitu…

Lalit Murarka, Cuttack vs. CIT, Cuttack

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 188/CTK/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack10 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.188 & 409/Ctk/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Sri Lalit Murarka, Vs. Cit, Cuttack Prop- M/S Subham, Kanika Chhak, Cuttack Pan No. : Apmpm 9441 C (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.N.Sahu/Somnath Sahoo, Advs िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/03/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09/03/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: The Assessee Has Filed These Two Appeals I.E.

For Appellant: Shri S.N.Sahu/Somnath Sahoo, AdvsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263Section 263(1)

…d the points raised before him in the appellate proceeding though recorded in Para-3 of his order as he is duty bound to examine the points raised by the parties and record definite conclusions in respect of each and every one of them. [A. Venkat Rao Vs. CIT, 203 ITR 64 (Orissa)]. Not doing so his order has been vitiated in law. 3) That the learned CIT(Appeals) is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs.4,21,754/- under the head "Sundry Creditors" even after verifiing the Balance Sheet because the question of furnishing details does not arise as the assessee had made all his purchases of Zuari made furnitu…

M/S. Utkal Minerals, Cuttack vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Cuttack

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

ITA 43/CTK/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack24 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.43/Ctk/2016 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2011-2012) M/S Utkal Minerals, Vs. Ito, Ward-2(3), Cuttack C/O Late D.N.Mohanty, Buxi Bazar, Cuttack स्थायी लेखा सं./Panno. : Aabfu 2706 Q (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By Sh. S.N.Sahu/Lalatendu Sahu, Advs. : िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Dr

For Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR
Section 44Section 44A

…thout giving consideration to the written submissions filed and examining the points raised is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and against the principle of natural justice and therefore the assessment is liable to be quashed. Case Laws :- a) A. Venkat Rao Vs. CIT, 203 ITR 64 (Ori) b) Gangaram Chapolia Vs. ITO, 187 ITR 594 (Ori) 2. That the ledger copy of transaction between M/s. Utkal Minerals and Sri Ganesh Sponge Iron Pvt. Ltd filed before the learned CIT(Appeals) should have been judiciously considered and accepted as true and correct in view of the facts are duly audited u/s 44 AB of the I.T. Act, 1961. and not do…

Venkat Rao v. CIT (203 ITR 64) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax