Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.95 seconds)
Documents citing Madhya Pradesh Industrial Development ... vs Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income ... on 5 July, 2023

M/S. Jindal Brugs Private Limited ... vs Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 23 April, 2025

Ltd. vs. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (2024) 168 taxmann.com 197 (Del.), we observe that in both the cases, no enquiry was raised by the AO during the original assessment proceedings on the issues involved in the proceedings u/s 263 of the Act and therefore the Hon'ble High Courts have affirmed the decisions of the Pr. CITs u/s 263 of the Act but here admittedly the instant case is factually dissimilar to the aforesaid cases and therefore the said judgements would not applicable to the instant case .
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Chennai Co-Op. Societies Employees ... vs Pcit-8, Chennai on 18 September, 2025

In this regard other than the case laws cited supra, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee placed before us two decisions one rendered by Lucknow Bench of ITAT in the case of Inder Kumar Bachani (HUF) vs ITO 99 ITD 621 (Luck) and ITAT Mumbai ' G ' Bench in the case of M/s. Westlife Development Ltd. Vs Principal C.I.T. in ITA NO.688/Mum/2016. In both the decisions a view has been taken by the Tribunal that when an Assessment order passed u/s 147 of the Act was without jurisdiction, the Ld. PCIT cannot invoke the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act against such void or non-est order. In the second decision cited, the Mumbai bench of the Tribunal has specifically framed the following questions :-
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Thomas Victor,Chennai vs Income Tax Officer, Non Corp Ward 19(6), ... on 28 October, 2025

In this regard other than the case laws cited supra, the Ld.AR for the assessee placed before us two decisions one rendered by Lucknow Bench of Tribunal in the case of Inder Kumar Bachani (HUF) vs ITO 99 ITD 621 (Luck) and the Mumbai Tribunal ' G ' Bench in the case of M/s. Westlife Development Ltd. Vs Principal C.I.T. in ITA No.688/Mum/2016. In both the decisions a view has been taken by the Tribunal that when an Assessment order passed u/s 147 of the Act was without jurisdiction, the Ld. PCIT cannot invoke the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act against such void or non-est order. In the second decision cited, the Mumbai bench of the Tribunal has specifically framed the following questions :-
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next