Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 221 (3.98 seconds)
Documents citing Acit, Cc-Ii, Ludhiana vs M/S Jai Bhole Steel Tubes (P) Ltd., ... on 7 September, 2018

Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central ... vs Sew Infrastructure Limited, Hyderabad on 7 October, 2024

From the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para 8, it is clear that it has approved the ratio laid down by the Delhi High Court in the case of Kabul Chawla (supra) and the Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Saumya Constructions reported in (2016) 387 ITR 529 (Guj) and the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan has followed or considered the ratio of these two cases while deciding the issue in the case of Jai Steel (India) Vs. ACIT (supra). Therefore, in our considered view, once the matter has been finally concluded by the Hon'ble Apex Court and held that in unabated or concluded assessment, the AO cannot make any additions in the absence of any incriminating material found as a result of the search, in our considered view, particularly in the case of unabated or concluded assessments, and since the AO cannot tinker with unabated or concluded assessments in the absence of any incriminating material, with equal force, the same ratio should be applicable to the assessee as well. Thus, based on the findings of the Hon'ble Apex Court, in our considered view, the appellant also cannot make any fresh claim of deduction or expenditure for the first time in the return of income filed in response to the notice issued under Section 153A of the Act. Insofar as the abated assessment is concerned, the assessee can make :39: ITA Nos. 1717 to 1720/Hyd/2017 & ITA No.1722/Hyd/2017 all claims, provided the return of income is filed in adherence to the timeline to furnish as per notice under Section 153A of the Act, failing which the assessee shall not be able to claim any deduction in view of Section 80A of the Act.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 86 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs M/S N. M. Agrofood Products Pvt. Ltd., ... on 24 August, 2022

39. In this regard, we are of the view that no final orders have been passed so far by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgments cited by the Id. DR. Therefore, the principle of " ratio descendi " are not applicable with regard to the aforementioned cases. Therefore, we are of the view that in the absence of any order by Hon'ble Supreme Court, the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Jai Steel Ltd. vs. ACIT, 88 DTR 1 (Raj.), PCIT vs. Smt. Daksha Jain, DB IT No. 125/2017 are binding on us. Further, we are also fortified with the decision in the case of CIT vs. Continental Warehousing Corporation (2015) 64 taxmann.com 34 (SC), PCIT vs. Devi Dass Garg (2020) 114 taxmann.com. 552 (SC). Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the binding precedents on this issue and SLP filed by the revenue is not decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court. We based on the binding nature of judgment hold that the additions made by the AO while passing the assessment order under section 153A for the assessment year 2012-13 are not sustainable.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 60 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central ... vs Sew Infrastructure Limited, Hyderabad on 26 February, 2025

From the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para 8, it is clear that it has approved the ratio laid down by the Delhi High Court in the case of Kabul Chawla (supra) and the Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Saumya Constructions reported in (2016) 387 ITR 529 (Guj) and the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan has followed or considered the ratio of these two cases while deciding the issue in the case of Jai Steel (India) Vs. ACIT (supra). Therefore, in our considered view, once the matter has been finally concluded by the Hon'ble Apex Court and held that in unabated or concluded 44 ITA.Nos.1721, 1722 & 1723/Hyd./2017 And ITA.No.1416/Hyd./2019 assessment, the AO cannot make any additions in the absence of any incriminating material found as a result of the search, in our considered view, particularly in the case of unabated or concluded assessments, and since the AO cannot tinker with unabated or concluded assessments in the absence of any incriminating material, with equal force, the same ratio should be applicable to the assessee as well. Thus, based on the findings of the Hon'ble Apex Court, in our considered view, the appellant also cannot make any fresh claim of deduction or expenditure for the first time in the return of income filed in response to the notice issued under Section 153A of the Act. Insofar as the abated assessment is concerned, the assessee can make all claims, provided the return of income is filed in adherence to the timeline to furnish as per notice under Section 153A of the Act, failing which the assessee shall not be able to claim any deduction in view of Section 80A of the Act.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 58 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central ... vs Sew Infrastructure Limited , Hyderabad on 26 February, 2025

From the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para 8, it is clear that it has approved the ratio laid down by the Delhi High Court in the case of Kabul Chawla (supra) and the Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Saumya Constructions reported in (2016) 387 ITR 529 (Guj) and the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan has followed or considered the ratio of these two cases while deciding the issue in the case of Jai Steel (India) Vs. ACIT (supra). Therefore, in our considered view, once the matter has been finally concluded by the Hon'ble Apex Court and held that in unabated or concluded 44 ITA.Nos.1721, 1722 & 1723/Hyd./2017 And ITA.No.1416/Hyd./2019 assessment, the AO cannot make any additions in the absence of any incriminating material found as a result of the search, in our considered view, particularly in the case of unabated or concluded assessments, and since the AO cannot tinker with unabated or concluded assessments in the absence of any incriminating material, with equal force, the same ratio should be applicable to the assessee as well. Thus, based on the findings of the Hon'ble Apex Court, in our considered view, the appellant also cannot make any fresh claim of deduction or expenditure for the first time in the return of income filed in response to the notice issued under Section 153A of the Act. Insofar as the abated assessment is concerned, the assessee can make all claims, provided the return of income is filed in adherence to the timeline to furnish as per notice under Section 153A of the Act, failing which the assessee shall not be able to claim any deduction in view of Section 80A of the Act.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 58 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle ... vs Sew Infrastucture Limited, Hyderabad on 26 February, 2025

From the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para 8, it is clear that it has approved the ratio laid down by the Delhi High Court in the case of Kabul Chawla (supra) and the Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Saumya Constructions reported in (2016) 387 ITR 529 (Guj) and the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan has followed or considered the ratio of these two cases while deciding the issue in the case of Jai Steel (India) Vs. ACIT (supra). Therefore, in our considered view, once the matter has been finally concluded by the Hon'ble Apex Court and held that in unabated or concluded 44 ITA.Nos.1721, 1722 & 1723/Hyd./2017 And ITA.No.1416/Hyd./2019 assessment, the AO cannot make any additions in the absence of any incriminating material found as a result of the search, in our considered view, particularly in the case of unabated or concluded assessments, and since the AO cannot tinker with unabated or concluded assessments in the absence of any incriminating material, with equal force, the same ratio should be applicable to the assessee as well. Thus, based on the findings of the Hon'ble Apex Court, in our considered view, the appellant also cannot make any fresh claim of deduction or expenditure for the first time in the return of income filed in response to the notice issued under Section 153A of the Act. Insofar as the abated assessment is concerned, the assessee can make all claims, provided the return of income is filed in adherence to the timeline to furnish as per notice under Section 153A of the Act, failing which the assessee shall not be able to claim any deduction in view of Section 80A of the Act.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 58 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax , ... vs Sew Infrastructure Limited , Hyderabad on 26 February, 2025

From the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para 8, it is clear that it has approved the ratio laid down by the Delhi High Court in the case of Kabul Chawla (supra) and the Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Saumya Constructions reported in (2016) 387 ITR 529 (Guj) and the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan has followed or considered the ratio of these two cases while deciding the issue in the case of Jai Steel (India) Vs. ACIT (supra). Therefore, in our considered view, once the matter has been finally concluded by the Hon'ble Apex Court and held that in unabated or concluded 44 ITA.Nos.1721, 1722 & 1723/Hyd./2017 And ITA.No.1416/Hyd./2019 assessment, the AO cannot make any additions in the absence of any incriminating material found as a result of the search, in our considered view, particularly in the case of unabated or concluded assessments, and since the AO cannot tinker with unabated or concluded assessments in the absence of any incriminating material, with equal force, the same ratio should be applicable to the assessee as well. Thus, based on the findings of the Hon'ble Apex Court, in our considered view, the appellant also cannot make any fresh claim of deduction or expenditure for the first time in the return of income filed in response to the notice issued under Section 153A of the Act. Insofar as the abated assessment is concerned, the assessee can make all claims, provided the return of income is filed in adherence to the timeline to furnish as per notice under Section 153A of the Act, failing which the assessee shall not be able to claim any deduction in view of Section 80A of the Act.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 58 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs M/S Motisons Global Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur on 15 November, 2019

search. In respect of non-abated assessment, though the assessment is to be framed regarding, the addition to the income that has already been assessed, the assessment will be made on the basis of incriminating material and in absence of any incriminating material, the completed assessment can be reiterated. Just as the appellant cannot raise any additional claim for any exemption/deduction in respect of unabated assessment where no incriminating material is found, the powers of the AC) will be also limited to make addition/disallowances only to the extent of incriminating material for a non-abated assessment. The judgment of jurisdictional high court in the case of Jai Steel (supra) has been considered in all the judgments of Delhi High court, Karnataka High Court and Gujarat High court relied upon by the appellant and therefore they ate not discussed herein. At the same time, useful reference can be made to the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Murali Agro Products Ltd. (2014) 49 Taxmann.com 172 wherein it was held thus:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 41 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next