Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.36 seconds)Section 147 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Shri Atul Jain [Along With Ita No. 1385 Of ... on 23 May, 2007
(iv) CIT Vs. Shri Atul Jain 399 ITR 383 (Del.)
The Commissioner Of Income Tax Iii vs Sfil Stock Broking Ltd on 27 April, 2010
(v) CIT Vs., SFIL Stock broking Ltd. 325 ITR 284 (Del.)
11.1. Accordingly, we hold that the reassessment
Ankita Amit Choksey vs Income Tax Officer-19(1)(1) And 2 Ors on 24 November, 2018
10.2. We also note that ld. AO has proceeded on
fundamentally wrong facts since the amount of Rs. 25 lakh
as noted in the reason to believe forms part of the total sale
consideration reported in the P&L Account and thus, has
come to the conclusion wrongly that income chargeable to
tax had e scaped assessment. Assessee had pointed out this
fact in its objection raised before the Ld. AO who did not
consider the same. Similar issue was dealt by Hon'ble High
Court of Bombay in the case of Ankit A. Choksey Vs. ITO &
Ors. 411 ITR 207 (Bom) who had held that notice issued
u/s. 148 was without jurisdiction and therefore, quashed
and set it aside.
Section 131 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 68 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Acit (Central) Ii, Bhopal vs M/S Signature Colonisers P Ltd., Bhopal on 8 January, 2021
(ii) PCIT Vs. Shodiman Investments (P) Ltd. [2018] 93
taxmann.com 153 (Bom);
1