Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.01 seconds)

Milky Way Consultants Llp, New Delhi vs Ito Ward - 37(1), New Delhi on 16 June, 2023

In the case of PCIT vs. SNG Developers Ltd. (supra) the Hon'ble High Court concurring the view taken by the Tribunal held that the jurisdictional mandatory requirement for reopening of assessment u/s. 147 and issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act has to be held as not satisfied in a case where there was clear non application of mind by the Assessing Officer while recording the reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment. Respectfully following the same we hold that in the present case the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening of assessment u/s. 147 of the Act do not meet the requirement of law and hence the same has to held as unsustainable being bad in law. Accordingly ground no. 1 to 4 of assessee are allowed and initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act, notice u/s. 148 of the Act and all consequent orders and proceedings are quashed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Winsome Textile Industries ... vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 27 February, 2025

)(HC)  PCIT v. SNG Developers Ltd. [2018] 404 ITR 312 (Delhi)(HC)  PCIT v. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 395 ITR 677 (Delhi) (HC)  PCIT vs RMG Polyvinyl Ltd ITA 29/2017 & CM 1009/2017 DATED 07/07/2017  PCIT v. G & G Pharma India Ltd. [2017] 384 ITR 147 (Delhi)(HC)  CIT v. Multiplex Trading & Industrial Co. Ltd. (2016) 378 ITR 351 (Delhi) (HC)  SABH Infrastructure vs ACIT WP(C) No. 1357/2016 DATED 25/09/2017  CIT v. Insecticides (India) Ltd. (2013) 357 ITR 300 (Delhi)(HC)  CIT v. Fair Invest Ltd. (2013) 357 ITR 146 (Delhi)(HC)  CIT v. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. (2014) 361 ITR 220 (Delhi)(HC)  Sarthak Securities Co. (P.)
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 74 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs Winsome Textile Industries Ltd, ... on 27 February, 2025

)(HC)  PCIT v. SNG Developers Ltd. [2018] 404 ITR 312 (Delhi)(HC)  PCIT v. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 395 ITR 677 (Delhi) (HC)  PCIT vs RMG Polyvinyl Ltd ITA 29/2017 & CM 1009/2017 DATED 07/07/2017  PCIT v. G & G Pharma India Ltd. [2017] 384 ITR 147 (Delhi)(HC)  CIT v. Multiplex Trading & Industrial Co. Ltd. (2016) 378 ITR 351 (Delhi) (HC)  SABH Infrastructure vs ACIT WP(C) No. 1357/2016 DATED 25/09/2017  CIT v. Insecticides (India) Ltd. (2013) 357 ITR 300 (Delhi)(HC)  CIT v. Fair Invest Ltd. (2013) 357 ITR 146 (Delhi)(HC)  CIT v. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. (2014) 361 ITR 220 (Delhi)(HC)  Sarthak Securities Co. (P.)
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 74 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sapna Rastogi, New Delhi vs Ito Ward 1(2)(5), Meerut on 28 August, 2024

5.3 The judgments which the ld. DR has relied when taken into consideration, are not applicable to the facts and circumstances as the judgements in the cases of Home Finders Housing Ltd. (supra) and Sagar Developers (supra) are in the context of the non-disposal of the objections and the judgement in the cases of Abhishek Jain (supra) and S.S. Ahluwalia (supra) are primarily concerned with territorial jurisdiction in regard to which there may be instance of concurrent jurisdiction of the two assessing officers. However, the case before us concerns the pecuniary jurisdiction vested by the 5 ITA No.617/Del/2024 Board and if that is not complied, the invoking of jurisdiction is vitiated and, consequently, the assessment order is vitiated. The ground No.1 with sub- grounds in regard to this issue are sustained.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1