Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 535 (1.15 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii vs M/S. Calcutta Knitwears, Ludhiana on 12 March, 2014

Smt G Lakshmi Aruna , Bellary vs Assessee on 18 October, 2016

The facts of the present case as discussed ITA No.1451 to 1457(Bang)/2014 Page 25 of 26 above shows that in the present case also, no satisfaction was recorded by the AO in his capacity as AO of the searched person because it is seen that the so-called satisfaction note prepared by the AO is in his capacity as AO of assessee, although he happens to be the AO of the searched persons also, it could not be shown by the revenue that any satisfaction note was prepared by him as AO of searched persons and therefore, under these facts, this is to be accepted that no satisfaction was recorded by the AO of searched person and therefore, this Tribunal order and those judgments of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court rendered in the case of M/s. Gopi Apartment (supra) and of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Calcutta Knitwears (supra) and Manish Maheshwari (supra) are applicable and therefore, respectfully following these judgments, we hold that in the present case, notice issued by the AO u/s. 153C of the I.T. Act deserves to be quashed and accordingly, we quash these assessment orders framed by the AO u/s. 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the I.T. Act. Accordingly, additional ground is allowed in all the seven years.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cit ... vs Smt. G. Lakshmi Aruna on 31 March, 2023

2) (2014) 6 SCC 444 - Commissioner of Income Tax - III vs. Calcutta Knitwears, Ludhiana "37. The Tribunal and the High Court are of the opinion that it could only be prepared by the assessing officer during the course of the assessment proceedings under Section 158BC of the Act and not after the completion of the said proceedings. The Courts below have relied upon the limitation period provided in Section 158BE(2)(b) of the Act in respect of the assessment proceedings initiated under Section 158BD, i.e., two years from the end of the 75 month in which the notice under Chapter XIV-B was served on such other person in respect of search initiated or books of account or other documents or any assets are requisitioned on or after 01.01.1997. We would examine whether the Tribunal or the High Court are justified in coming to the aforesaid conclusion.
Karnataka High Court Cites 69 - Cited by 0 - K Somashekar - Full Document

The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cit ... vs Shri. Gali Janardhana Reddy on 31 March, 2023

2) (2014) 6 SCC 444 - Commissioner of Income Tax - III vs. Calcutta Knitwears, Ludhiana 69 "37. The Tribunal and the High Court are of the opinion that it could only be prepared by the assessing officer during the course of the assessment proceedings under Section 158BC of the Act and not after the completion of the said proceedings. The Courts below have relied upon the limitation period provided in Section 158BE(2)(b) of the Act in respect of the assessment proceedings initiated under Section 158BD, i.e., two years from the end of the month in which the notice under Chapter XIV-B was served on such other person in respect of search initiated or books of account or other documents or any assets are requisitioned on or after 01.01.1997. We would examine whether the Tribunal or the High Court are justified in coming to the aforesaid conclusion.
Karnataka High Court Cites 65 - Cited by 0 - K Somashekar - Full Document

Farooqi Gulamsamdani,Hyderabad vs Dcit., Central Circle - 1(3), Hyderabad on 24 December, 2025

12. The sum and substance of ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT-III Vs. Calcutta Knitwears (supra) and Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bharat Bhushan Jain (supra) and also the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Pr.CIT Vs. Jitendra H Modi HUF (supra) is that the Assessing Officer must record satisfaction as required u/s.153C of the Act, either at the time or along with the initiation of proceedings against searched person u/s.153A of the Act or in the course of assessment proceedings u/s.158BC/153A of the Act or immediately after the assessment proceedings are completed u/s.158BC/153A of the Act. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court and Hon'ble Gujarat High Court by considering the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held that any notice issued after a period of 10 months or 1 ½ year from the date of completion of assessment of searched person, is not a valid notice and consequently the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer in pursuant to the said notice cannot be upheld. In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that there is a gap of more than 20 months from the date of assessment of ITA No.814/Hyd/2025 26 searched person to the date of issue of notice u/s.153C of the Act and therefore, in our considered opinion, the notice issued by the Assessing Officer is not a valid notice and consequently the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer in pursuant to the said notice cannot be upheld.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Gali Janardhana Reddy, Bellary vs Assessee on 17 October, 2016

9. From the above Tribunal's order, it is seen that the Tribunal has not only followed the judgment of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court rendered in the case of M/s. Gopi Apartment (supra), but the Tribunal has also considered and followed the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in the case of Calcutta Knitwears (supra) and the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Manish Maheshwari as reported in 289 ITR 341.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Fayaz Mohammed,Hyderabad vs Dcit, Central Circle 2(4), Hyderabad, ... on 25 February, 2026

On 25.02.2008, letter was filed by assessee stating that original return of income filed be treated as return filed in response to notice issued under section 153C r.w.s. 153A of the Act. Thereafter, assessment proceedings were taken up on various occasions and assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act was passed on 30.12.2008. In such scenario, where assessment of searched person was completed on 27.03.2006, then the handing over of seized documents by Assessing Officer of searched person to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer of assessee on 15.06.2007 is belated and is beyond the period prescribed in section 153C of the Act for initiation of proceedings under section 153C of the Act. Accordingly, we hold so. Even the Circular issued by CBDT dated Page 13 of 16 ITA Nos 1671 and 1672 of 2025 Fayaz Mohammed 31.12.2015 lays down such proposition, in turn, applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Calcutta Knitwears (supra). Accordingly, we hold that proceedings initiated under section 153C of the Act are beyond the time prescribed and hence, are invalid and consequently, assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act stands annulled. The grounds of appeal No.4 and 5 raised by assessee are thus, allowed and all other grounds of appeal raised by assessee become academic in nature."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Acit, Meerut vs Sh. Ramesh Dhingra, Meerut on 30 September, 2022

9. Respectfully following the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta Knitwears (supra) and the judgement of the jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. V.K. Narang (supra), we hold that the ld.CIT(A) was not correct and justified in granting relief to the assessee by holding that non-recording of reasons by the AO before completion of assessment in the case of the person searched constitute legal infirmity, by which the initiation of assessment and assessment order u/s 158BD of the Act stand vitiated. Therefore, the findings arrived at by the ld.CIT(A) in the first part of para 4 are set aside and we hold that recording of satisfaction u/s 158BD on 14.01.2005 after completion of assessment order in the case of the person searched on 31.12.2004 is a valid jurisdiction and, thus, the AO had assumed valid jurisdiction to initiate the proceedings and to pass assessment order u/s 158BD of the Act in the case of the other person, i.e., the present assessee, Shri Ramesh Dhingra. Accordingly, ground No.4 of the Revenue is allowed. Grounds No.1 and 2.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Splendor Landbase Limited, New ... vs Acit, New Delhi on 31 December, 2019

5.1 However, in this case, for assessment year 2007-08, the notice u/s 153C has been issued prior to the issuance of notice u/s 153A to the searched person. The CBDT Circular No.24/2015 dated 31.12.2015 has instructed that guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Calcutta Knitwears (supra) will also be applicable to proceedings u/s 153C and, therefore, we are afraid that the Revenue has no case in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Calcutta Knitwears (supra) and the CBDT Circular No.24/2015 dated 31.12.2015. Since, undisputedly, the satisfaction note in the case of the assessee was prepared prior to the issuance of notice to the searched person, the assessment for assessment year 2007-08 becomes null and void because the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153C is defective. Accordingly, we have no option but to hold that Page | 17 ITA Nos.1507, 1508/Del/2014 ITA Nos.3532 & 3533/Del/2010 (Asst.Years:2007-08 & 2008-09) the assessment framed for assessment year 2007-08 was without jurisdiction and is, therefore, unsustainable in law. The same is hereby quashed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next