Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.19 seconds)Hotel Mount View vs Commissioner Of Income Tax And Ors. on 5 August, 2005
i) Hotel Mount View Vs. CIT reported in (2006) 280 ITR 0051(Cal),
Smt. Tarawati Debi Agarwal vs Income-Tax Officer on 15 January, 1986
ii) Taravati Debi Agarwal (smt.) Vs. ITO (1986) 162 ITR 0606 (Cal),
Income-Tax Officer And Ors. vs Santosh Kumar Dalmia on 28 May, 1993
iii) ITO Vs. Santosh Kumar Dalmia (1994) 208 ITR 0337 (Cal),
Smt. Uma Devi Jhawar vs Income-Tax Officer on 23 December, 1992
v) Uma Devi Jhawar (smt.) Vs. ITO (1996) 218 ITR 0573 (Cal),
Dhara Vegetable Oil & Foods Co. Ltd., New ... vs Department Of Income Tax on 23 February, 2016
4. The issue to be considered in this appeal is that whether the assessment
proceedings in this case could be reopened based on the valuation report given by
Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) wherein, difference in valuation of properties
were noticed in the sum of Rs.83,20,932/-. We find that this aspect has been fully
covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of ACIT Vs. Dhariya Construction Co. reported in (2010) 328 ITR 0515 (SC), wherein
it was held that -
Smt. Amala Das vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax And Anr. on 10 February, 1983
x) Amala Das (smt.) Vs. CIT (1984) 146 ITR 0216 (P&H),
Haji Abdul Gaffar vs Income-Tax Officer, "E"-Ward And Ors. on 25 June, 1984
xi) Haji Abdul Gaffar Vs. ITO (1985) 154 ITR 0001 (MP) &
Abdul Majid vs Income-Tax Officer And Ors. on 24 February, 1989
xii) Abdul Majid Vs. ITO (1989) 178 ITR 0616 (MP)
In view of the aforesaid decisions, we find that the reassessment proceedings initiated
based on the valuation report is bad in law and hence, we dismiss the appeal of the
revenue.
Manjusha Estates Pvt. Ltd. vs The Income Tax Officer Opponent(S) on 2 April, 2008
vi) Manjusha Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (2009) 314 ITR 0263 (Guj)