Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.40 seconds)Section 47 in The Registration Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 139 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 147 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
B.R. Bamasi vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... on 16 February, 1970
6. Thus, Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 contemplates
that the respondent can support the order of the learned CIT (A)
against which the other party has filed the appeal on any of the
ground decided against him. The scope of raising a plea under
Page 8 of 22
ITA No 573 of 2025 Ratan Kumar Ingu
Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules to defend against the appeal filed by the
other party and thereby if the issue raised by the respondent is
decided in favour of the respondent may lead to failure of the
appeal filed by the other party. Therefore, even if the issue which
is raised by the respondent assessee is decided in favour of the
assessee holding that the reopening of the assessment is not valid
and liable to be quashed, the impugned order of the learned CIT
(A) would stand and will have full effect in so far as it is against
the Revenue, but the assessee will succeed only to the extent that
the appeal filed by the Revenue would fail. The Hon'ble Bombay
High Court in the case of B.R. Bamasi vs. CIT reported in 83 ITR
223 has discussed the scope of Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules, 1963
as under:
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 50C in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Smt. Madhu Soni vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax on 1 September, 2015
In support of his contention, he has
relied upon the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in case
of Smt. Madhu Gangwani v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-
tax, reported in 111 Taxmann.com 30. The learned Counsel for
the assessee has further submitted that the reopening is also not
valid as the Assessing Officer as the Assessing Officer has not
followed the procedure before issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on
30/03/2021 as prescribed in the CBDT Instruction No.14/2013
dated 23/09/2013. Thus, the learned Counsel for the assessee
has submitted that once the reopening of the assessment is not
valid and liable to be quashed, then the appeal of the Revenue is
also liable to be dismissed.
Mamta Kothari , Secunderabad vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-15(1), ... on 15 March, 2021
He has also relied upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Abhishek
Jain vs. Income Tax Officer (2018) 94 taxmann.com 355 (Delhi).
The learned DR has pointed out that the learned CIT (A) has
considered the relevant facts regarding the registration of the
document and reporting of these documents by the Sub Registrar
and given a factual finding that these documents were registered
on 18th April 2016 and not on 24/03/2016 as claimed by the
assessee. He has relied upon the impugned order of the
authorities below.
The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax ... vs Kalinga Institute Of Industrial ... on 1 May, 2023
In support of his
Page 6 of 22
ITA No 573 of 2025 Ratan Kumar Ingu
contention, he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Dy.CIT vs. Kalinga Institute of
Industrial Technology dated 01/03/2023 in Special Leave Petition
No.29304 of 2019 and submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has reversed the order of the Hon'ble High Court whereby the
assessment order was quashed on the ground that the
jurisdictional Assessing Officer has not adjudicated upon the
return. The jurisdiction has been changed after the return was
filed. Therefore, once the assessee has not disputed the
jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer, then the time limit as
prescribed u/s 124(3) of the Act, the assessee cannot question the
jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer.
1