Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 35 (0.62 seconds)

Sh. Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya, 005, ... vs Pcit (Central), Jaipur on 10 August, 2022

The Rajasthan High Court in CIT vs. KeshrimalParasmal (1985) 48 CTR (Raj) 61 : (1986) 157 ITR 484 (Raj), Gauhati High Court in Surendra Prasad Singh &Ors. vs. CIT (1988) 71 CTR (Gau) 125 : (1988) 173 ITR 510 (Gau) and Calcutta High Court in CIT vs. Linotype & Machinery Ltd. (1991) 192 ITR 337 (Cal) have followed the judgment of Delhi High Court in J.K. D'Costa's (1981) 25 CTR (Del) 224 : (1982) 133 ITR 7 (Del) case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 24 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Harish Jain, Jaipur vs Pcit (Central), Jaipur on 25 November, 2022

The Rajasthan High Court in CIT vs. KeshrimalParasmal [1985] 48 CTR (Raj) 61 : [1986] 157 ITR 484 (Raj), Gauhati High Court in Surendra Prasad Singh &Ors. vs. CIT (1988) 71 CTR (Gau) 125 : (1988) 173 ITR 510 (Gau) and Calcutta High Court in CIT vs. Linotype & Machinery Ltd. (1991) 192 ITR 337 (Cal) have followed the judgment of Delhi High Court in J.K.D's Costa's case (supra).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 59 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Dhankot Filling Station , Gurgaon vs Pr.Cit, Faridabad on 24 April, 2023

The Rajasthan High Court in CIT vs. Keshrimal Parasmal (1985) 48 CTR (Raj) 61 : (1986) 157 ITR 1984 (Raj), Gauhati High Court in Surendra Prasad Singh & Ors. vs. CIT (1988) 71 CTR (Gau) 125 : (1988) 173 ITR 510 (Gau) and Calcutta High Court in CIT vs. Linotype & Machinery Ltd. (1991) 192 ITR 337 (Cal) have followed the judgment of Delhi High Court in J.K.D's Costa's case (supra).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Savitri Verma, Raigarh, Raigarh vs Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 27 September, 2024

The Rajasthan High Court in CIT vs.Keshrimal Parasmal [1985] 48 CTR (Raj) 61 : [1986] 157 ITR 484 (Raj), Gauhati High Court inSurendra Prasad Singh & Ors. vs. CIT (1988) 71 CTR (Gau) 125 : (1988) 173 ITR 510 (Gau) andCalcutta High Court in CIT vs. Linotype & Machinery Ltd. (1991) 192 ITR 337 (Cal) havefollowed the judgment of Delhi High Court in J.K.D's Costa's case (supra).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Raipur Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Hasmukh Hirji Gada,Pune vs Pcit (Central), Pune, Pune on 7 November, 2024

The Rajasthan High Court in CIT vs. Keshrimal Parasmal (1985) 48 CTR (Raj) 61 : (1986) 157 ITR 484 (Raj), Gauhati High Court in Surendra Prasad Singh & Ors. vs. CIT (1988) 71 CTR (Gau) 125 : (1988) 173 ITR 510 (Gau) and Calcutta High Court in CIT vs. Linotype & Machinery Ltd. (1991) 192 ITR 337 (Cal) have followed the judgment of Delhi High Court in J.K.D's Costa's case (supra).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ch Goverdhan Naidu, Prodduturu, ... vs Assessee on 5 August, 2015

8. As regards the second mistake allegedly pointed out by the Ld. CIT in the orders passed by the A.O. under section 143 read with section 153A for all the five years under consideration in not initiating penalty proceedings under section 271D/271E for the violation of the provisions of section 269SS and 269T, it is observed that this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Kolkata Bench of this Tribunal in the case of M. Dhara & Broters vs. CIT-XVI, Kolkata (supra) wherein it was held by the Tribunal by following the decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Linotype & Machinery Ltd., (supra) that the failure of the A.O. to initiate proceedings under section 271D for violation of section 269SS could not be considered as an error calling for revision under section 263. We therefore, find merit in the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that there were no errors in the orders passed by the A.O. under section 143(3) read with section 153A of the Act for all the five years under consideration which were prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue calling for revision by the Ld. CIT(A) under section 263. Accordingly, the impugned common order passed by the Ld. CIT under section 263 for all the five years under consideration is set aside restoring back the orders passed by the A.O. under section 143(3) read with section 153A.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jayesh V. Sheth, Mumbai vs Cit 16, Mumbai on 20 September, 2017

ITA NO.3920 to 3922/MUM/2017 Jayesh V. Sheth The Rajasthan High Court in CIT vs. Keshrirnal Parasmal (1985) 48 CTR (Raj) 61: (1986) 157 ITR 484 (Raj), Gauhati High Court in Surendra Prasad Singh & Ors. vs. CIT (1988) 71 CTR (Gau) 125: (1988) 173 ITR 510 (Gau) and Calcutta High Court in CIT vs. Linotype & Machinery Ltd. (1991) 192 ITR 337 (Cal) have followed the judgment of Delhi High Court in J.K. D'Costa's (1981) 25 CTR (Del) 224: (1982) 133 ITR 7 (Del) case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Star Realtech And Developers P. ... vs Pr. Cit -1, Chandigarh on 1 November, 2023

The Rajasthan High Court in CIT vs. Keshrimal Parasmal (1985) 48 CTR (Raj) 61 : (1986) 157 ITR 1984 (Raj), Gauhati High Court in Surendra Prasad Singh & Ors. vs. CIT (1988) 71 CTR (Gau) 125 : (1988) 173 ITR 510 (Gau) and Calcutta High Court in CIT vs. Linotype & Machinery Ltd. (1991) 192 ITR 337 (Cal) have followed the judgment of Delhi High Court in J.K.D's Costa's case (supra).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Narendar Kumar Agarwal, Jawali ... vs Pcit, Jaipur-1, Jaipur on 21 July, 2022

The Rajasthan High Court in CIT vs. Keshrimal Parasmal (1985) 48 CTR (Raj) 61 : (1986) 157 ITR 484 (Raj), Gauhati High Court in Surendra Prasad Singh & Ors. vs. CIT (1988) 71 CTR (Gau) 125 : (1988) 173 ITR 510 (Gau) and Calcutta High Court in CIT vs. Linotype & Machinery Ltd. (1991) 192 ITR 337 (Cal) have followed the judgment of Delhi High Court in J.K. D'Costa's (1981) 25 CTR (Del) 224 : (1982) 133 ITR 7 (Del) case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 40 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next