Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.21 seconds)
Bla Power Pvt.Ltd, Mumbai vs Pr. Commm Of Income Tax-3, Mumbai on 28 February, 2023 cites

C.I.T. -7 vs M/S Reliance Communications ... on 22 August, 2014

ITA no.1180/Mum./2022 the complete details of brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation of the earlier years. Vide another notice dated 09/12/2019 issued under section 142(1) of the Act, forming part of the paper book from pages no.115-116, the Assessing Officer, during the assessment proceedings, raised a specific query regarding the change in shareholding pattern by 51% or more and accordingly, asked the assessee to show cause as to why the carry forward of brought forward losses by the assessee be not disallowed. We find that vide its submission dated 17/12/2019, forming part of the paper book from pages no.117-119, the assessee submitted the reasons for the change in shareholding pattern during the year and also made submissions regarding non-applicability of section 79 to the facts of the present case. From the perusal of the notices issued by the Assessing Officer and the reply filed by the assessee, we find that this issue was specifically raised during the scrutiny assessment proceedings and the same was duly replied to by the assessee. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that this aspect was not examined by the Assessing Officer. We find that the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs Reliance Communication Ltd, [2016] 69 taxmann.com 103 (Bombay) held that the fact that the Assessing Officer did not make any reference in the assessment order cannot make the order erroneous when the issues were indeed looked into.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 69 - Full Document

Utv Software Communications Pvt. Ltd, ... vs Acit Cir 16(1) , Mumbai on 22 April, 2022

ITA no.1180/Mum./2022 decision of coordinate bench of the Tribunal in Sify Software Ltd. Vs ACIT, [2017] 80 Taxmann.com 273 (Chennai-Trib.). From the perusal of the decisions, we find that in the facts before the Hon'ble Courts either the question raised was not responded to by some explanation or no query was raised during the assessment proceedings. However, such is not the facts of the present case as is evident from the notices issued by the Assessing Officer and the reply filed by the assessee. Therefore, the decisions relied upon by the learned DR are factually distinguishable.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 6 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Khajrana Ganesh Properties P.Ltd, ... vs Dcit Cir 3(2), Mumbai on 7 September, 2017

During the hearing, the learned AR placed reliance upon the decisions of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in Khajrana Ganesh Properties Pvt Ltd. vs DCIT, in ITA No. 2629/Mum/2014, order dated 07/09/2017 and DCIT vs Instant Traders Private Limited, [2018] 96 Taxmann.com 378 (Mum-Trib.), wherein it has been held that the issue whether the loss in the year may be carried forward to following year and set off against the income of subsequent year is liable to be determined by the Assessing Officer who deals with the assessment of such a subsequent year. Thus, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the considered opinion that this issue was duly examined by the Assessing Officer during the scrutiny assessment proceedings. Therefore, the impugned revision order passed under section 263 of the Act is set aside to this extent.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Panji Cites 3 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Instant Traders P.Ltd, Mumbai vs Dcit Cir 6(3)(1), Mumbai on 20 June, 2018

During the hearing, the learned AR placed reliance upon the decisions of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in Khajrana Ganesh Properties Pvt Ltd. vs DCIT, in ITA No. 2629/Mum/2014, order dated 07/09/2017 and DCIT vs Instant Traders Private Limited, [2018] 96 Taxmann.com 378 (Mum-Trib.), wherein it has been held that the issue whether the loss in the year may be carried forward to following year and set off against the income of subsequent year is liable to be determined by the Assessing Officer who deals with the assessment of such a subsequent year. Thus, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the considered opinion that this issue was duly examined by the Assessing Officer during the scrutiny assessment proceedings. Therefore, the impugned revision order passed under section 263 of the Act is set aside to this extent.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 7 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1