Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (1.03 seconds)
M/S.Srl Diagnostics Private Limited, ... vs Principal Commissioner Income Tax-7, ... on 8 January, 2021 cites

Income Tax Officer vs Dg Housing Projects Ltd on 1 March, 2012

22.10. He submitted that after making these observations, the Tribunal held that an order passed by the PCIT without showing the claim of the assesses to be incorrect is invalid. Similar observations have been made in the following judgments ITO v. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd [2012] 343 ITR 329 (Delhi) (para 6) Infinity Infotech Park Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2017] SX TTR (Trib.)
Delhi High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 312 - S Khanna - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Roadmaster Industries Of India (P) Ltd. on 17 September, 2004

24.2. The assessee relies upon the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT v. Roadmaster Industires of India Ltd [2014]223 Taxmann 13 (P&H) (page 285 to 287 of paperbook V, relevant part at page 287 para (4) wherein the High Court has clearly observed that the PCIT will not have jurisdiction to revise the order of the AOon a ground other than the ground communicated to the assessee. In the facts of the above referred judgment, a show cause notice was issued by the CIT, seeking to revise the assessment order in relation to claims made u/s 32AB and 80 HHC of the Act. The CIT however passed an order in respect of other matters in respect of which, the assessee was not given any opportunity of hearing. 24.3. Further he submitted that even otherwise, there is no whisper in the impugned order as to why the order of AO is erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue on this count. The order of the PCIT should therefore be set aside on this point as well.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 9 - N K Sud - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs M/S Kap Scan & Diagnostic Centre Pvt. Ltd on 3 December, 2010

30. He further submitted that the judgment in Kap Scan (supra) was delivered on 03rd December, 2010, much before Circular 5 of 2012 dated 01.08.2012 was issued by the CBDT. The PCIT in the facts of the Assessee has solely relied on the CBDT Circular while the High Court has not considered the Circular at all. For this reason as well, reliance placed by the Ld. DR on the judgment of the High Court is not maintainable.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 36 - A K Mittal - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Sohana Woollen Mills on 22 September, 2006

employed by the Revenue audit party and in the SCN issued by Ld. PCIT is practically identical. It is obvious and self-evident that the Ld. PCIT issued notice u/s 263 of the Act, based only on the objection raised by the Revenue Audit Party. 16.2. He submitted by relying on the decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT v. Sohana Woollen Mills [2007] 207 CTR 178 (P&H), it is held that, mere audit objection and because a different view could be taken, are not enough to say that the order of the Assessing Officer was erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 16.3.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 77 - Full Document
1