Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.18 seconds)
Shri Bithal Dass Mundra , Kota vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kota on 20 December, 2018
cites
Section 153A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Rajeev Kumar Maan, Meerut vs Assessee on 12 February, 2016
Respectfully following the decision of ITAT Chandigarh Bench in the case
of Rajeev Kumar vs. ACIT (supra), it is noted that the legal objection
raised by the assessee before the Id. CIT(A) has merit and we concur
with the submissions of the assessee. Thus Ground No. 1 of the assessee
is allowed."
M/S Ag8 Ventures Limited, Bhopal vs The Dcit Central-1, Bhopal on 16 January, 2017
The Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the
case of Smt. Seema Mundra Vs DCIT (supra) has considered this issue in
para 2.1 to 2.4 as under:
Section 132A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Shalendra Kumar Sharma, Jaipur vs Dcit, Jaipur on 20 December, 2016
In circumstances akin to us Hon'ble Chandigarh Bench in Rajeev Kumar
vs. AC1T (2017) 186 TTJ 522 relying on decision of Hon'ble Delhi Bench of
ITAT in Upendra Kumara Sharma vs. DCIT, Circle 9(1) (ITA
No.3141/DEL/09 dated 12.04.2010) have quashed assessment order.
The Finance Act, 2018
Section 10 in The Coinage Act, 2011 [Entire Act]
Section 132 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Rajiv Mehta, Jaipur vs Acit, Kota on 18 September, 2017
In support of his
contention, he has relied upon the decision of the Chandigarh Benches of
4 ITA 433/JP/2018_
Bithal Dass Mundra Vs DCIT
the Tribunal in the case of Rajiv Kumar Vs ACIT 186 TTJ 522 as well as
decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal dated 21/6/2018 and
25/06/2018 in case of Smt. Seema Mundra Vs DCIT and M/s Mundra &
Jain Marbles Vs DCIT in ITA No. 431/JP/2018 and 432/JP/2018
respectively. Thus, the ld AR has submitted that this assessment year
being the search year, the Assessing Officer should not have issued notice
U/s 153A of the Act but the assessment could have been framed U/s
143(3) by issuing the notice U/s 143(2) of the Act. Hence, the ld AR has
submitted that the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer is invalid
and liable to be quashed.