Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.59 seconds)
Documents citing Shrenuj Gems & Jewellery Ltd, Mumbai vs Ito 8(3)(1), Mumbai on 16 November, 2016

Rohit Baid, Kolkata vs Ito, Ward-36(1), Kolkata on 12 September, 2024

In the case of Shivaaditiya Jems and Jewellery Pvt Ltd Vs ITO [2022] 143 taxmann.com 64 (Allahabad), the Allahabad High Court that Monetary limit fixed for assessment to be done by ACIT won't preclude jurisdictional A.O to initiate reassessment. The Allahabad High Court held that the Board had issued a directed by Instruction No. 01 of 2011 dated 31-1- 2011 and 6 of 2011 dated 8-4-2011 for equitable distribution of works amongst the Assessing Officers.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ito 3(3)(4), Mumbai vs Watermark Systems (I) P. Ltd., Mumbai on 27 February, 2023

08.03.2021) (refer page no. 535 of PB) wherein that assessee challenged the pecuniary jurisdiction of AO to have issued notice u/s 148 of the Act and the Hon'ble High Court finding that AO didn't enjoy the pecuniary jurisdiction as per instruction 1/2011 dtd 31 st Jan 2011 issued by CBDT held in favour of the assessee and quashed the notice u/s 148 of the Act. Further, according to the Ld. AR, the legal issue can be raised before the Tribunal by way of filing of Rule 27 application by assessee. However, this contention of the assessee has been vehemently opposed by the Ld. CIT-DR who relied on the decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court order in Shiva Adityiya Jems & Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO order dated July 14, 2022 wherein when jurisdictional issue came up before the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, their Lordship's held in favour of the revenue and the issue of jurisdiction was not entertained by the Hon'ble High Court because it was not raised before the AO as per section 124(4) of the Act. According to Ld. CIT-DR the judicial-precedents cited by the Ld. AR of assessee to support the plea against jurisdiction of AO (be it pecuniary or territorial) if examined carefully will reveal that those assessee's have approached Hon'ble High Court at the first instance, after having objected to the jurisdiction of AO as per section 124 of the Act; and since the AO rejected their plea, has filed immediately writ before the respective High Courts; and then in such cases, the Hon'ble High Court including the jurisdictional High Court have held in favour of the assessee. Drawing our attention to both the orders of the 10 ITA Nos. 4827, 4828, 4830 to 4834 & 4836/Mum/2016 A.Y. 2006-07 to 2010-11 M/s Watermark F. Consultants Ltd.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Acit, Circle-2(2), Hyd, Hyderabad vs Ta Infra Projects Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad on 26 April, 2017

6. Coming to the issue of disallowance of Rs.1,03,000 made by the A.O. under section 40(a)(ia) in AY 2011-12, it was the contention of the assessee that these amounts were compensations paid in respect of demolition of structures, trees and crops which were ready for harvesting, while laying the infrastructure pipelines as part of the project. The provisions of TDS are not applicable for a such payments made for compensation and expenditure is incurred towards commercial expediency. Ld. CIT(A) while not agreeing with the contention of the assessee on the disallowance, however accepted the alternate contention that the amount disallowed in the business computation would be eligible for deduction under section 80IA, following the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Gem Plus Jewellery vs. CIT 330 ITR 175 and the decision of the Hyderabad Bench of ITAT in the case of M/s. Koya and Company Construction P. Ltd., Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad (ITA.Nos.221/Hyd/2009 dated 22.03.2012). As noted above, Assessee is contesting disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) whereas Revenue is contesting the direction of the CIT in allowing proportionate deduction under section 80IA.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 2 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1