Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 2309 (1.90 seconds)
Documents citing Gkn Driveshafts (India) Ltd vs Income Tax Officer And Ors on 25 November, 2002

Acit, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs Emaar Hills Township Private Limited, ... on 31 July, 2025

In this view of the matter and considering the facts of the case, we are of the considered view that, there is no error in the reasons given by the learned CIT(A) in quashing the re- assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer for failure to adhere to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshrafts India Ltd., vs., ITO & Ors. (supra). Thus, we uphold the order of the learned CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Vindhya Telelinks Ltd. on 22 September, 2006

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble JM was justified in setting aside the matter back to the file of the AO for readjudication as per the decision of the Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO & Ors. (2003) 179 CTR (SC) 11 : (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC) or the Hon'ble AM was justified in holding that as there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the purpose of assessment, the reopening of assessment beyond the period of four years was contrary to the proviso to Section 147 ?
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jabalpur Cites 59 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Ram Swaroop Balai,Jaipur vs Dcit, Circle -7, Jaipur on 12 March, 2025

Thus the requirement of disposing off the objections against the notice issued under section 148 by a separate and speaking order is a mandatory requirement in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. ITO (supra), the failure of the AO to dispose off the objection renders the reassessment order not sustainable in law.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Torrent Power Sec Ltd vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax on 12 March, 2014

And therefore, the very object set out while laying down the ratio in the GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. Income-tax Officer and others (supra) and those judgments rendered following GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. Income-tax Officer and others (supra) has been rendered nugatory. The conduct on the part of the respondent clearly pointed out that the passing of the order of reassessment was in clear violation and in breach of such mandatory requirements. There is no earthly reasons for not furnishing the reasons recorded despite repeated requests and when respondent ensured to provide the same in one of the correspondences. Such flagrant violation of decision may also lead to infer the arbitrary and highhanded action on the part of the Assessing Officer.
Gujarat High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - S G Gokani - Full Document

Sagar Construction Company,Pune vs Income Tax Officer, Pune on 8 January, 2026

22. Applying the principles of law as discussed hereinabove, we are of the clear opinion that the foundation of the present case was certainly a search action which was undertaken by the Revenue against one Shilpi Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. and in such search and seizure action, materials were seized and such materials were further explored and enquired. Such enquiry revealed significant information in regard to M/s. Green Valley Gems Pvt. Ltd., which according to the Revenue had provided accommodation entries to the petitioner, in which it was also revealed that Green Valley Gems Pvt. Ltd. was a shell company. We do not find that the record would indicate something which is not on the basis of such new materials gathered under the search and seizure action under Section 132. If this be the case, then certainly the provisions of Section 153C read with Section 153A would be applicable, as held by the Supreme Court in Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. (supra) when the Court interpreted the effect and purport of Section 153C and 153A, as also held by the Rajasthan High Court in Shyam Sunder Khandelwal (supra)."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 56 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Income Tax Officer, Pune vs Sagar Construction Company, Pune on 8 January, 2026

22. Applying the principles of law as discussed hereinabove, we are of the clear opinion that the foundation of the present case was certainly a search action which was undertaken by the Revenue against one Shilpi Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. and in such search and seizure action, materials were seized and such materials were further explored and enquired. Such enquiry revealed significant information in regard to M/s. Green Valley Gems Pvt. Ltd., which according to the Revenue had provided accommodation entries to the petitioner, in which it was also revealed that Green Valley Gems Pvt. Ltd. was a shell company. We do not find that the record would indicate something which is not on the basis of such new materials gathered under the search and seizure action under Section 132. If this be the case, then certainly the provisions of Section 153C read with Section 153A would be applicable, as held by the Supreme Court in Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. (supra) when the Court interpreted the effect and purport of Section 153C and 153A, as also held by the Rajasthan High Court in Shyam Sunder Khandelwal (supra)."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 56 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jayanti Sinha vs The Principal Commissioner Of Income ... on 22 April, 2025

"1. The impugned order dated 7-1- 2022, it has been rightly contended, is a non- speaking and cryptic order. However, we are not inclined to issue notice in the present special leave petition and leave it open to the petitioner to file return of income under protest within one month, without prejudice to the rights and contentions, and ask for the reasons for issue of notice under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The procedure as prescribed in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. CIT, would be followed by the assessing officer. In case of an adverse order, it will be open to the petitioner to challenge the same.
Patna High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - P B Bajanthri - Full Document

Seema Parakh,Jodhpur vs Deputy Commissioner, Central ... on 10 December, 2024

a. GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. ITO & ors 259 ITR 19 (SC) When a notice under s. 148 is issued, the proper course of action for the notice is to file return and if he so desires, to seek reasons for issuing notices. The AO is bound to furnish reasons within a reasonable time. On receipt of reasons, the noticee is entitled to file objections to issuance of notice and the AO is bound to dispose of the same by passing a speaking order.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jodhpur Cites 63 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next