Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (1.71 seconds)
Documents citing Mantra Industries Ltd vs National Faceless Assessment Centre ... on 3 July, 2021

P.T.Lee Chengalvaraya Naicker Trust vs Https://Www.Mhc.Tn.Gov.In/Judis on 30 September, 2022

55. As for the decision in Mantra Industries (supra) relied upon by the petitioners, they point out that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has stayed the order of the High Court as reported in National Faceless Assessment Centre vs Mantra Industries Ltd [2022 137 taxmann.com 210 SC]. However, a perusal of the order as aforesaid reveals that the stay relates only to the observations made by the Bench in paragraph 9 of the order, extracted below:
Madras High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 0 - A Sumanth - Full Document

Mahant Pandey,Rohtas vs Nfac, Delhi on 21 August, 2025

14. As per the recent judgement in the case of Mantra Industries Limited Vs National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC or NEAC) & Ors. (Bombay High Court) the Assessment orders passed without application of mind liable to be set aside and invite substantial costs to be imposed on such AO HC has held that an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) should necessarily be made with sound consideration and application of mind, and any absence thereof shall make the order liable to be set aside and would warrant imposition of substantial costs on such AO. In the present petition, Mantra Industries Ltd. ("the Petitioner") had impugned the assessment order dated 08.06.2021 read with the notice of demand dated 08.06.2021 issued under Section 156 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") read with show cause notice dated 08.06.2021 issued for initiating penalty proceedings under section 274 read with Section 270A of the Act. The Petitioner had received a notice dated 22.04.2021 for Assessment Year 2018-2019 calling upon to show cause as to why assessment should not be completed as per the draft assessment order. The Petitioner was to submit its response by 23:59 hours of 24.04.2021. On 23.04.2021, the Petitioner filed its response mentioning the objections and sought 20 days to fulfill the requirements as per the notice. Additionally, the Petitioner stated that it wished to object to the modification through a personal hearing. On 27.04.2021, the Petitioner filed its response giving the quantitative details which was sought for in the show cause notice issued. On 08.06.2021, the AO issued the impugned assessment order, show cause notice and notice of demand. The Petitioner challenged the assessment order and the consequential show cause notice issued with the notice of demand on the contentions that the assessment order is an exact reproduction of the draft assessment order except one sentence which shows that the Petitioner's request for an adjournment had not been considered, request for personal hearing had not been considered and most importantly the objection filed in response to the show cause notice with the draft assessment order had not been considered. The said Page | 6 I.T.A. Nos.: 181 & 182/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mahant Pandey.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Patna Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Darshan Enterprise Through Partner ... vs Additional/ Joint/ Deputy/ Assistant ... on 3 January, 2022

5. Mr. Shah, in support of his aforesaid submissions, has placed strong reliance on one recent pronouncement of the Bombay High Court in the case of Mantra Industries Ltd. vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC or NeAC), reported in (2021) 131 taxmann.com 165 (Bombay), wherein the Bombay High Court thought fit to set aside the impugned assessment order therein as the same was found to be in breach of sub-section (9) of Section 144B and left it for the Assessing Officer to take appropriate steps as he may be advised in accordance with law.
Gujarat High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - J B Pardiwala - Full Document

Income Tax Officer, Ward-29(1), Delhi, ... vs M/S. Discovery Sales, Delhi on 8 April, 2026

P a g e |5 ITA No. 5901/Del/2024 M/ s Discovery Sales (AY; 2022-23) Thus, it becomes necessary to the AO in the regime of the faceless assessment to issue show cause notices (SCs) to the assessee intimating the variations prejudicial to the interest of the assessee, which he is going to make in the returned income and therefore it is safe to presume that the AO has violated the provisions of section 144B(1)(xii) of the Act. Further Section 144B(9) of the Act provides that any breach of the mandatory provisions as envisaged u/s 144B would make the order nonest. Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mantra Industries Ltd. v. National Faceless Assessment Centre (FAC or NeAC), reported in (2022) 441 ITR467 (Bom.- HC) has set aside the order of the AO in violation of the provisions of section 144B of the Act without going into the merit of the case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bharatkumar Rajendraprasad Dave vs Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant ... on 9 January, 2023

3. We have heard the learned advocate, Mr.Bandish Soparkar appearing for the petitioner, who has urged that this is the process case as the hearing had been point blank refused by a communication dated 23.09.2021. The entire statutory requirement is blatantly not followed and this itself is the ground for the Court to intervene. He has relied upon the decision of the Bombay High Court in case of Mantra Industries Limited vs. National Faceless in support of his submission.
Gujarat High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - S G Gokani - Full Document
1   2 Next