Ganesh Ganga Investments Pvt. Ltd., ... vs Ito, Ward- 10(1), New Delhi on 7 November, 2019
ITAT, Mumbai in the case of GTL Ltd. vs. ACIT
reported in 37 ITR (Trib.) 0376 (Mum.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.02 seconds)Documents citing
Gtl Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs Acit Ltu-2, Mumbai on 28 June, 2019
Charbuja Marmo (India) Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs Pr.Cit- 2 , New Delhi on 31 December, 2019
Further placed reliance on the decision of
ITAT, Mumbai in the case of GTL Ltd. vs. ACIT
reported in 37 ITR (Trib.) 0376 (Mum.), notice u/s.
148 of the Act does not mention the fact that the
same is issued after the satisfaction of the
authority u/s. 151 of the Act, such non-mentioning
135
ITA.No.4749/Del./2019 M/s. Charbuja
Marmo (India) Pvt. Ltd., Delhi.
Behat Holdings Ltd., New Delhi vs Ito Ward-4(3), New Delhi on 15 January, 2020
Further placed reliance on the decision of
ITAT, Mumbai in the case of GTL Ltd. vs. ACIT
reported in 37 ITR (Trib.) 0376 (Mum.
Vrc Township P Ltd., Delhi vs Ito, New Delhi on 14 October, 2020
Further placed reliance on the decision of
ITAT, Mumbai in the case of GTL Ltd. vs. ACIT
reported in 37 ITR (Trib.) 0376 (Mum.), notice u/s.
148 of the Act does not mention the fact that the
same is issued after the satisfaction of the
authority u/s. 151 of the Act, such non-mentioning
64
ITA.No.1503/Del./2017 VRC
Township P. Ltd., Delhi.
Maheshwari Roller Flour Mills Pvt Ltd, ... vs Ito Ward - 16(1), New Delhi on 17 December, 2020
Further placed reliance on the decision of
ITAT, Mumbai in the case of GTL Ltd. vs. ACIT
reported in 37 ITR (Trib.) 0376 (Mum.), notice u/s.
148 of the Act does not mention the fact that the
same is issued after the satisfaction of the
authority u/s. 151 of the Act, such non-mentioning
82
ITA.No.4257/Del./2019 Maheshwari Roller
Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi..
Madhu Apartment Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs Ito, Ward- 16(1), New Delhi on 2 February, 2021
Further placed reliance on the decision of
ITAT, Mumbai in the case of GTL Ltd. vs. ACIT
reported in 37 ITR (Trib.) 0376 (Mum.), notice u/s.
148 of the Act does not mention the fact that the
same is issued after the satisfaction of the
authority u/s. 151 of the Act, such non-mentioning
62
ITA.Nos.3869 & 3870/Del./2018 M/s. Madhu
Apartment Private Limited, Delhi.
Acit, New Delhi vs M/S. Maharaji Education Trust, ... on 13 October, 2021
18. He further referred to the Paper book page No. 16, which is a notice
dated 27.11.2013 issued under Section 148 of the Act. He submitted
that notice did not mention the fact that it has been issued after
satisfaction of authority under Section 151 of the Act. He submitted that
non-mentioning of this jurisdictional fact renders the re-assessment
notice invalid in law. For this proposition, he relied on the decision of the
co-ordinate bench in GTL Ltd. Vs. ACIT 37 ITR (Trib) 376 which was
based on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in DSJ
Communications Vs. DCIT 222 Taxman 129 (Bom.) wherein it has been
Page | 9
held that non-mentioning of the above fact in the notice under Section
148 of the Act vitiates the entire initiation of re-opening proceedings.
Navnirman Infracon Private ... vs Ito, Ward 10(2), , Kolkata on 28 October, 2025
The
case of the assessee also find support from the co-ordinate Bench in the
case of M/s GTL Limited VS. ACIT in ITA No. 6416/MUM/2010 vide order
dated 02.11.2015 which has followed the Hon'ble Bombay High Court
decision in the case of DSJ Communications vs DCIT, reported in 222
Taxman 129 (Bom) as referred to above, wherein the co-ordinate Bench in
para no.24 has held as under: -
1