Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (1.18 seconds)
Documents citing Comissioner Of Income Tax &Anr. vs Adani Exports Ltd Etc on 29 January, 2015

Cit vs Igate Global Solutions Limited on 18 December, 2020

Ms. S. Yamunah Nachiar, AOR Mr. Rustom B. Hathikhanawala, AOR 4 UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Civil Appeal No.10603/2014; Civil Appeal No.10780/2014; Civil Appeal No.10781/2014; Civil Appeal No.10782/2014; and, Civil Appeal No.10783/2014 It is accepted by the learned counsel appearing for the parties that these appeals are covered by the judgment of this Court rendered in Commissioner of Income Tax-5 & Another v. Avani Exports & Another, (2016) 16 SCC 741.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 1 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Ito 4(3)(1), Mumbai vs Parekh Pipes P. Ltd, Mumbai on 30 April, 2019

In support of these contention, the Ld. Representative of the assessee has placed reliance upon the law settled in P. S. Veerappa Vs. CIT, 127 ITR 247 (Mad) and CIT Vs. Adani Export, 240 ITR 224 (Guj). It is also argued that on account of change of opinion the provision u/s 147/148 of the Act is not liable to be invoked and in support of this contention, the Ld. Representative of the assessee has relied upon the law settled in the case of Bharat Jayantilal Patel, 378 ITR 596 (Bom) and Kelvinator of India Ltd., 320 ITR 561 (SC). On the other hand, the Ld. Representative of the Department has refuted the said contention. It is a case in which the assessment of the assessee was reopened on the basis of the information received from the Investigation Wing, Mumbai of Income Tax Department in which it was conveyed that the Sales Tax Authorities of Maharashtra conducted the enquiry and found that the parties which has been mentioned in the assessment order are indulging by giving the bogus entries of purchases. No 8 ITA. No.5847/M/16 CO. No. 207/M/2017 A.Y. 2009-10 doubt, after the receipt of the information, the AO issued the notices to the parties' u/s 133(6) of the Act but no notice was served. It is incumbent upon the assessee to prove the purchase as genuine. The notice was given to the assessee and the assessee has also submitted the reply, it is not a case of change of opinion and the AO took into the notice on receipt of the information from DGIT Investigation, the law relied by the Ld. Representative of the assessee is distinguishable with the facts of the present case. Taking into account, all the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the notice issued u/s 147/148 of the Act is quite reasonable which is not reliable to be set aside in accordance with law. Accordingly, we decide these cross- objection against the assessee.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Radha Metals vs The Assistant Commissioner Of Income ... on 18 June, 2018

2. Learned counsel on either side submits that the issue involved in these writ petitions is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax and another v. Avani Exports and another reported in 2015 (277) CTR 460, which was taken note of by this court in the case of Geral Pereira v. Income Tax Officer made in W.P.Nos.13909 and 13910 of 2008, dated 06.09.2016 and in the case of P.M.Palani Mudaliar & Co. v. Union of India Rep. by Union of India, Rep. by the Secretary, Ministry of Finance,North Block,New Delhi and another made in W.P.No. 15507 of 2007, dated 19.09.2017.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - T S Sivagnanam - Full Document

M/S.Sri Lakshmi Saraswathi Textiles ... vs Union Of India on 23 April, 2024

(Order of the court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Senior Panel Counsel for the second respondent are ad idem that the issue is no longer res integra and the same has been decided by the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax-5 and another v. Avani Exports and another, (2016) 16 SCC 741.
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - J S Prasad - Full Document
1   2 Next