Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 91 (4.33 seconds)
Documents citing Trustees Of H.E.H. The Nizam'S ... vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 16 February, 2000

Kamlesh Shantilal Jain, Chennai vs Acit, Chennai on 23 February, 2021

Therefore, we are of the considered view that case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of CIT vs. K.M Pachayappan (supra) and the view taken by Hon'ble High Court of Madras is fully 18 ITA No. 3335/Chny/2018 supported by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Trustees of H.E.H. The Nizam's Supplemental Family Trust v. CIT (supra) and hence, notice issued u/s. 148 dated 23.09.2016 is invalid and consequent reassessment order framed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 dated 30.12.2017 is null and void.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs Ito, Wd.9(1), Kolkata on 15 May, 2024

Income-tax Act, 1961, cannot be issued, i. e. , no reassessment proceedings can be initiated so long as assessment proceedings pending on the basis of the return already filed are not terminated. According to the revenue it is immaterial whether the order is communicated or not and the only bar to the reassessment proceedings is that proceedings on the return already filed should have been terminated". The following concluding passage from the said judgment is self-explanatory:-
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 96 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ito, Wd.9(1), Kolkata vs M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata on 15 May, 2024

Income-tax Act, 1961, cannot be issued, i. e. , no reassessment proceedings can be initiated so long as assessment proceedings pending on the basis of the return already filed are not terminated. According to the revenue it is immaterial whether the order is communicated or not and the only bar to the reassessment proceedings is that proceedings on the return already filed should have been terminated". The following concluding passage from the said judgment is self-explanatory:-
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 96 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Anant Incense Ltd.,, Ahmedabad vs Assessee on 7 December, 2015

Therefore, in the light of the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Trustees of H.E.H. the Nizam's Supplemental Family Trust vs. CIT(supra), the AO ought not to have been reopened the assessment. Therefore we hold that the reopening of the assessment is not in accordance with law. We find no merit on the reason for reopening as stated by the AO is that the auditor had made a note in Schedule-T to balance-sheet that "There was a survey proceedings by Income-tax Department at the Factory/Office premises of the Company on 30.01.2002. As per the physical verification stock found to be Rs.32,10,489/- and as per books it was Rs.22,06,723/-.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Sujatha Narayanan & Associates, ... vs Acit, Hassan on 6 January, 2017

11. We have also examined the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Trust of Trustees of HEH the Nizam's Supplementary Family Trust v. CIT, 242 ITR 381 (SC) in which it has been categorically held that it is settled law that unless the return of income already fled is disposed of, notice for reassessment u/s. 148 of the I.T. Act cannot be issued, i.e., no reassessment proceedings can be initiated so long as assessment proceedings pending on the basis of return already filed are not terminated.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 23 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Dcit, New Delhi vs Shri Virender Kumar Bhatia, New Delhi on 13 December, 2018

In fact, once it is not disputed that no order dropping proceedings had been communicated to the assessee, it ought to have been held that notice issued u/s 158BD of the Act dated 22/7/2007 was without jurisdiction held by Hon'ble Apex Court inc case of Trustees HHH, the Nizam Supplemental Family Trust Vs. CIT 242 ITR 381 and the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT Vs. KLM Royal Touch Airlines Vs. CIT 292 ITR 49.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next