Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.52 seconds)
Documents citing Tulsi Tracom Private Limited vs Commissioner Of Income Tax €“ 9 on 14 September, 2017

Metropolitan Stock Exchange Of India ... vs Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - ... on 22 October, 2018

13. Per contra, the ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the original assessment u/s. 143(3) in this case was done on 17.1.2013 and the special audit was done on 23.09.2014. That the items upon which the ld. CIT has exercised his jurisdiction u/s. 263 were not part of the original assessment. He submitted that even the issue of legal and professional fee was not logically dealt with. He submitted that all the issues submitted by the ld. Counsel of the assessee have been duly dealt with by the ld. CIT. The ld. Counsel of the assessee further placed reliance upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Amitabh Bachchan 389 ITR 200 (SC), and the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Deniel Merchants P. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. ITO (in Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.23976/2017) and Kolkata Tribunal decision in the case of Rising Tracom Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. CIT (2015) 45 CCH 201 Kol/Trib vide order dated 3.11.2015.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 27 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Smt. Meenu Bansal, Chandigarh vs Pr.Cit-1, Chandigarh on 8 October, 2018

07 .2000 (SC) ; Shyam Lai Tandon Vs. ITO, (2014) 62 SOT 0105; Mahavir Prasad Gupta Vs. JCIT, 101 TDJ 1078; CIT Vs DLF Ltd 350 ITR 0555 (Delhi); CIT Vs Kwality Steel Suppliers complex 395 ITR1 Supreme Court ; Kumar Enterprises Vs DCIT 5.1 ITR(trib) 320 Chandigarh; CIT Vs Max India 295 ITR 282 ; CIT Vs Fine Jewellery IT Appeal no 296 of 2013 Page 41- 45; Tulsi Tracom Vs CIT 161 DTR 0148, it was submitted, that the 263 proceedings may be quashed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Saraswati Educational Society ... vs Cit Exemption , Delhi on 28 November, 2024

11. Further the Jurisdictional High court in the case of Tulsi Tracom (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in (2017) 86Taxman.com 35 dated 14.09.2017, while quashing the order passed u/s 263 of the Act held that no useful purpose will be served in giving opportunity to the Assessee of being heard at this stage on considering the provisions of Section 263 (2) of the Act which bars for any order being passed pursuant to the notice u/s 263 of the Act, after the expiry of two years from the end of Financial Year in which the 20 ITA No. 1889/Del/2024 Saraswati Educational Society Vs. CIT(E) order sought to be revised was passed. The relevant portion of the observation of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi are as under: -
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vaneet Gupta, S.O. Sh. Chattur Bhuj ... vs Pcit Panchkula Jurisdictional ... on 20 January, 2025

263. There is a limitation of two years for the purposes of initiating the proceedings u/s 263, as per the Act as per the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of 'Tulsi Tracom Private Limited vs. CIT' reported in 161 DTR 148 (Del). Notice issued by the PCIT on 17.2.2022 brining in new issues was beyond two years from the end of the assessment year in which the assessment was made. Therefore, the second notice of 17.2.2022 was not a valid one. Accordingly, the order as passed by the PCIT is quashed on this issue as well.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1