Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.25 seconds)Ashok Devichand Jain vs Union Of India Through The Secretary ... on 8 March, 2022
Ashok Devichand Jain vs. Union of India (2023) 452 ITR 43 (Bom.).
The Companies Act, 1956
Commissioner Of Income Tax Ii vs Ramesh D Patel....Opponent(S) on 21 January, 2014
CIT vs Ramesh D. Patel (2014) 362 ITR 492 (Guj.).
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Laxman Das Khandelwal on 13 August, 2019
iii) ACIT vs Hotel Blue Moon (2010) 321 ITR 362 (SC), PN 358 to 365; reaffirmed
in CIT vs Laxman Das Khandelwal (2019) 417 ITR 325 (SC)
Section 250 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Gvk Inds. Ltd & Anr vs The Income Tax Officer & Anr on 1 March, 2011
vi) Cosmat Traders (P.) Ltd. vs ITO {2021) 189 ITD 504 (Kol.)
The jurisdiction over the assessee fell with ITO Ward-7(1), Kolkata. Notice u/s
143(2) was issued by ITO, Ward-6(1), Kolkata who was non jurisdictional AO.
After considering several decisions on the subject, it was he]d by the Tribunal
that notice u/s 143(2) was issued by AO who did not have jurisdiction over the
assessee and therefore, the resultant assessment is illegal.
Section 120 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Acit, Central Circle -1(4), Chennai vs Prince Gem & Jewellery Pvt.Ltd., ... on 30 September, 2022
In backdrop of aforesaid observations, respectfully following the
decision of coordinate bench of ITAT, Raipur, in the case of M/s Rajdhani
Jewells (supra), which has not been contradicted of rebutted by the
revenue taking support from any judicial pronouncement or by way of
producing any material, evidence or submission to dislodge the aforesaid
decision, adverting to the facts of the instant case, wherein admittedly, the
assessment u/s 143(2) has been framed by the ACIT-2(1), Raipur, on
12.12.2019, who was not vested with valid jurisdiction over the case of the
assessee, also the notice u/s 143(2) dated 09.08.2018 was issued by ACIT,
Circle-2(1), Raipur, having no authority to do so, being ineligible as per
communication by the CCIT dated 30.05.2011, which was issued
incompliance and adherence to the Instructions No. 1 & 6/2011 issued by
CBDT.
Ito, Ward - 36(4), Kolkata , Kolkata vs Sri Vikash Jhawar, Kolkata on 19 February, 2020
i) ITO vs Sri Ashok Kumar Periwal in IT A No. 339Niz/2016 order dt. 09.05.2018
Vide para no. 10.3, it was held that the AO in relation to assessee means, the AO
who is entrusted with the relevant jurisdiction as per notification issued in this
regard.