Yogesh Ginning Mill v. ACIT

1 SCC 78Supreme Court of India1993#16359 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 346,713 Indian tax judgments — from 1996 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144B(6)(vii)Section 144B(6)(viii)Section 147Section 148Section 151ASection 250

Issues it is cited on

section 269section 44asection 44double taxationincome-tax officerunexplained cash creditsection 26section 142reassessment proceedingsassistant commissionerundisclosed incomesection 68

Judgments citing Yogesh Ginning Mill v. ACIT

George Sumesh, Ernakulam vs. ITO, Ward-1 & Tps, Aluva

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 395/COCH/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Sri.AivanRaj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144B(6)Section 144B(6)(viii)Section 250Section 69A

…to be heard is an important facet of natural justice. Thus, before passing an adverse order, a reasonable opportunity of hearing is required to be afforded to the petitioner. 14. In C.B. Gautam v. Union of India &Ors.: MANU/SC/0673/1992: 1992:INSC:313 (1993) 1 SCC 78, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court also observed that even in case where statute does not provide for an opportunity to be heard, the same is one of the principles of natural justice. 15. Undisputedly, in the present case, the Act expressly provided for the concerned Unit to afford the assessee an opportunity of hearing. In this view, we f…

Yogesh Ginning Mill, Prop. Yogesh Chand Gupta, Govindgarh vs. ACIT, Circle I, Alwar

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 540/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: This Tribunal Which Were Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)- 4, Jaipur [ For Short Cit(A) ] Passed On Dates & F For The Assessment Years Mentioned As Tabulated Here In Below, In Turn Those Orders Were Arises Because The Assessee Has Yogesh Ginning Mill Vs. Acit

For Appellant: Shri Paridhi Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gajendra Singh (Addl.CIT) a
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 68

…had granted 30 days to assessee to file return of income concerning six assessment years in issue, impugned assessment orderswere to be set aside Yogesh Ginning Mill vs. ACIT vi) The Hon’ble apex court in case of CB Gautam Vs. Union of India and Ors.[(1993)1 SCC 78(SC)]has held that party must have an opportunity to show cause and rebut the presumption. The relevant para giving said observation reads as under: “even though it was not statutorily required, yet the authority was liable to give notice to the affected parties while purchasing their properties under Section 269-UD of the Income Tax Act, namely, the…

Yogesh Ginning Mill, Prop. Yogesh Chand Gupta, Govindgarh vs. ACIT, Alwar

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1045/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: This Tribunal Which Were Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)- 4, Jaipur [ For Short Cit(A) ] Passed On Dates & F For The Assessment Years Mentioned As Tabulated Here In Below, In Turn Those Orders Were Arises Because The Assessee Has Yogesh Ginning Mill Vs. Acit

For Appellant: Shri Paridhi Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gajendra Singh (Addl.CIT) a
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 68

…had granted 30 days to assessee to file return of income concerning six assessment years in issue, impugned assessment orderswere to be set aside Yogesh Ginning Mill vs. ACIT vi) The Hon’ble apex court in case of CB Gautam Vs. Union of India and Ors.[(1993)1 SCC 78(SC)]has held that party must have an opportunity to show cause and rebut the presumption. The relevant para giving said observation reads as under: “even though it was not statutorily required, yet the authority was liable to give notice to the affected parties while purchasing their properties under Section 269-UD of the Income Tax Act, namely, the…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Jaipur vs. Mukesh Kumar Soni, Jaipur

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

ITA 656/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

For Appellant: Sh. S. B. Natani (FCA)For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar (CIT)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148A

…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, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 656/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2018-19 cuke Income Tax Officer, Mukesh Kumar Soni, Vs. Ward-1(2), Jaipur 1524, Sintali Valo Ki Gali Chaura Rasta, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AHUPS 6698 H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent CO No. 06/JP/2023 (Arising out of ITA No. 656/JP/2023) fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Asse…

Adair Dutt & Co. India Pvt. Ltd vs. Appropriate Authority, Income Tax Deptt

C.A. No.-001109-001109 - 1995Supreme Court25 Sept 1996
For Respondent: THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT
Section 269

…http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5 PETITIONER: ADAIR DUTT & CO. INDIA PVT. LTD. Vs. RESPONDENT: THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25/09/1996 BENCH: KULDIP SINGH, K.T. THOMAS ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T THOMAS, J. Whether a bona fide statutory tenant has the right to continue in possession even after an order of purchase was made under Section 269-UE (1) in Chapter XX-C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’), is the question sught to be raesed in this appeal. Accroding to the appella…

Yogesh Ginning Mill v. ACIT (1 SCC 78) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax