Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.40 seconds)
Documents citing Gaurav Goel vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax And Ors. on 16 May, 2000

Ganpati Finsec Pvt. Ltd., Rajasthan vs Dcit, New Delhi on 19 April, 2017

6. In view of the foregoing, especially when the Id. CIT(A) has not passed a speaking order on various issues raised before him ,we consider it fair and appropriate to set aside the order of the Id. CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file for deciding the issues raised in the grounds raised before him by the assessee, afresh in accordance with law, after allowing sufficient opportunity to both the parties. Needless to say that while re-deciding the appeal, the Id. CIT(A) shall pass a speaking order, keeping in mind, inter alia, the mandate of provisions of sec. 250(6) of the Act." (C.3). Respectfully following the aforesaid precedents, including orders of Co-ordinate Benches of ITAT, Delhi in the cases of Gaurav Goel vs ITO (supra) and M/s Haryana Liquor Company vs ACIT (supra), we set aside I.T.A .No.-2425/Del/2016 Ganpati FInsec Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT Page 6 of 6 the order of Ld.CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with the direction to the Ld.CIT(A) to pass a denovo order on merits. (D). In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Om Prakash Gupta And Ors. vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward 1, Gwalior And ... on 20 March, 2001

5. Counsel for the petitioner referred to a judgment in the case of Gaurav Goel v. CIT [2000] 245 ITR 169 (Cal), and submitted that the scope and ambit of Section 281B of the Act, is that where, during the pendency of any proceeding for the assessment of any income or for the assessment or reassessment of any income which has escaped assessment, the Assessing Officer is of the opinion that for the purpose of protecting the interests of the Revenue it is necessary so to do, he may with the previous approval of the Chief Commissioner, Commissioner, Director-General or Director, by order in writing, attach provisionally any property belonging to the asses-see in the manner provided in the Second Schedule. Counsel submitted that the concerned Assessing Officer cannot pass the order in a mechanical manner without assigning any reason in the order itself and without giving any indication as to the prior approval of the higher authority as provided under the section itself. Counsel submitted that such order is not valid and is liable to be quashed.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Saurav Goel,Deogarh vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), ... on 15 July, 2025

(THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING) BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/ITA No.44/CTK/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-2019) Saurav Goel, Vs ITO, Ward-2(1), Sambalpur At/PO/PS-Bhitrisahi, Dist : Deogarh-768108 PAN No. :BJVPG 4527 R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri P.K.Mishra, Himanshu Jena & Narahari Swain, Ars राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Nishanth Rao, B, Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 15/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 15/07/2025 आदे श / O R D E R Per Bench :
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Cuttack Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1