Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.26 seconds)
Shri. Sunil Kumar Jalan, Bangalore vs Income Tax Officer, Ward- 6(3)(1), ... on 28 February, 2023
cites
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... vs Durga Prasad More on 26 August, 1971
11. Aggrieved, assessee raised this issue before the first appellate authority.
The CIT(A) confirmed the view taken by the AO. The CIT(A) relied on the
following Tribunal orders to decide the issue against the assessee. [The
tribunal orders had followed the judgements of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
10 ITA No. 337/Bang/2020
Shri Sunil Kumar Jalan
cases of CIT vs. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC) and Sumati
Dayal vs. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC)]: -
Sumati Dayal vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bangalore on 28 March, 1995
11. Aggrieved, assessee raised this issue before the first appellate authority.
The CIT(A) confirmed the view taken by the AO. The CIT(A) relied on the
following Tribunal orders to decide the issue against the assessee. [The
tribunal orders had followed the judgements of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
10 ITA No. 337/Bang/2020
Shri Sunil Kumar Jalan
cases of CIT vs. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC) and Sumati
Dayal vs. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC)]: -
Smt. M K Rajeshwari , Raichur vs The Income Tax Officer Ward-3 , Raichur on 20 February, 2019
iii) Smt M.K. Rajeshwari vs. ITO (2018) 99 taxmann.com 339 (Bang-
Section 144 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 234B in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Ram Bhaj & Sons (P) Ltd. vs Ito on 13 April, 2006
8. The learned D.R., on the other hand, placed on record a copy of the
acknowledgement of the return filed by the assessee before the AO at
Madurai. The learned D.R., by placing reliance on the order of the ITAT in
Ram Bhaj & Sons (P) Ltd. vs. ITO reported in (2006) 102 ITD 93 (Amritsar)
submitted that when the assessee discloses his address at Madurai in the return
of income and did not raise objections to jurisdiction of the said AO within the
time allowed under Section 124(3) of the Act, the AO cannot be found fault in
assuming jurisdiction and completing the assessment.
The Tea Act, 1953
1