Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.31 seconds)Section 139 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
M/S. Bnb Investment & Properties Ltd., ... vs Dcit, Faridabad on 27 June, 2018
The same view
is considered by ITAT Delhi 'A' Bench in the case of M/s. BNB
Investment & Properties Vs. DCIT & Ors. reported in 68 ITR 567
(Del.) following the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of RRJ
Securities"
The Dit(Exemptions), Cir-1,, ... vs Gujarat Industrial Security Force ... on 13 March, 2020
24. In view of above the facts and circumstances of that case
was that the return was filed on 27.03.2000 and notice u/s 143
(2) was served on the same AR's of the asessee by held when the
AR of assessee came and filed copy of return to the AO in that
situation their lordship held that it is gross violation of scheme of
provision u/s. 143(2) of the Act as the AO has to apply his mind
to the return and thereafter, if he consider it necessary or to
ensure that the assessee has not understated his income or not
claimed excessive loss or not under paid the tax in any manner
then he may serve notice u/s. 143 (2) of the Act on the assessee
fixing a date to attend his office. It was observe by Hon'ble High
Court u/s. 143 (2) make it clear that the notice can only serve
after the AO has examined the return filed by the assessee. In
the present case we are satisfied that at the time of issuing notice
u/s. 143 (2) of the Act on 26.10.2015, the AO was only having
copy of acknowledgment of filing return of income by the assessee
and not the copy of the return. Therefore, immediately after
16
receipt of copy of acknowledgment of filing of return on
26.10.2015 immediately issuing notice u/s. 143 (2) of the Act on
the very same date would amount to issuing notice without
having benefit of perusal of return of income tax and without
examination of the same by the AO. Therefore, we incline to hold
that the notice issued by the AO on 26.10.2015 was not a valid
notice as per mandate of section 143(2) of the Act and Judgment
of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of DIT Vs. Society for
Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications (supra).
Thus, we are compelled to hold that the AO did not assume valid
jurisdiction to frame assessment u/s. 143 (3) of the Act on the
strength of notice dated 26.10.2015 u/s. 143 (3) of the Act.
Consequently, in view of aforegoing discussion impugned
assessment proceedings, assessment order and all subsequent
proceedings and orders are hereby quashed. Accordingly,
additional ground No.1 and 2 of assessee are also allowed.
Acit, New Delhi vs M/S. Mapsa Tapes Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi on 21 February, 2020
15. On careful consideration of above submissions as we have
noted above that since satisfaction u/s. 153 C of the Act, was
recorded on 22.09.2015 and, therefore, as order of ITAT Delhi in
the case of Mapsa Pvt. Ltd. (supra) the block period of this year
and the year initiation proceedings u/s. 153C of the Act has been
counted keeping in view said date of recording of satisfaction i.e.
on 22.09.2015 by the AO of the searched person.
Section 6 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii, Pune vs Sinhgad Technical Education Society on 16 October, 2015
11. Replying to the above the Ld. CIT DR submitted that
satisfaction u/s.153 C is required for A.Y. 2008-09 to 2013-14
and not for the impugned A.Y.2014-15. Further, there is no
reliance of any seized documents on the basis of which u/s.153C
6
satisfaction was recorded. Therefore, the impugned assessment
year is a regular assessment year u/s. 143 (3) as there is no
reference of any seized documents while making the addition.
Therefore, General Power of AO to assess u/s. 143 (3) is not taken
away by provision of section 153C, as addition u/s.153C will be
restricted to incriminating documents mentioned in satisfaction
Note as propounded by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT -III
Pune Vs. Sinhgad Technical Education (Supreme Court). Appeal
No.25257 of 2015, 25258 of 2015, 11082 and 11083 of 2017 [(84
taxman.com 290 (SC)]. According, it is prayed that relief should
not be given to the assessee on jurisdictional Ground that
assessment has to be necessarily framed u/s.153C even for
general issues raising out of Return of income filed.
Jute Corporation Of India Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax And Anr on 4 September, 1990
We have heard the arguments of both the sides on the
prayer of the assessee for admission of additional grounds. The
2
Ld. AR submitted that the additional grounds are of legal in
nature which goes to the root of the validity of the assessment,
therefore, the same may be adjudicated on the basis of material
already available on record without any other extraneous
material, therefore, same may be admitted for adjudication in
view of various judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court including
judgments in the case of Natural Thermal Power Company
Limited Vs. CIT 229 ITR 383 (SC) and Jute Corporation of India
Limited Vs. CIT 187 ITR 688 (SC).
C.I.T Central-Iii vs M/S Excel Industries Ltd on 8 October, 2013
4. The Ld. AO has erred both in law and in facts of the
case in not allowing suo moto the deduction of the prior
period expenses amounting to Rs. 11,05, 027/- when
there is no dispute on the allowability of the same
except the period to which these pertain. Such
expenses need be allowed in view of the decision of
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Excel
Industries Ltd. 38 Taxman 100 (SC) when there is no
dispute to the fact that there is no change in the tax rate
in the year to which expense pertain and the year under
consideration when the expenses were incurred."
National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 4 December, 1996
We have heard the arguments of both the sides on the
prayer of the assessee for admission of additional grounds. The
2
Ld. AR submitted that the additional grounds are of legal in
nature which goes to the root of the validity of the assessment,
therefore, the same may be adjudicated on the basis of material
already available on record without any other extraneous
material, therefore, same may be admitted for adjudication in
view of various judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court including
judgments in the case of Natural Thermal Power Company
Limited Vs. CIT 229 ITR 383 (SC) and Jute Corporation of India
Limited Vs. CIT 187 ITR 688 (SC).