Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.37 seconds)
Growmore Research & Assets Management ... vs Dcit, Cc 4 (3), Mumbai on 9 April, 2021 cites

Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax ... vs Idbi Federal Life Insurance Company ... on 15 January, 2019

"13. We have heard the submissions of both the parties and perused the material on record including the various citations by the rival parties. We observe that in this case the assessee has not filed any return of income despite the issue of notice under section 148 due to the fact that all the records of the assessee were seized by the various government agencies and assessee was not having any access to such records at the relevant point of time. This fact was brought to the notice of the AO. Thereafter, the assessee requested by various letters dated 19.04.1999, para 5, 02.03.2001 para 9, during course of the assessment proceedings to supply the reasons but AO did not supply any reasons recorded for re-opening. Even after completion of the assessment, the assessee again requested vide letter dated 30.05.2018 and 01.05.2019 to supply copy of reasons but some were not supplied to the assessee. In our opinion, once it has established that assessee has not been supplied copy of reasons recorded, then the reassessment proceedings as well as the assessment framed as a result thereof are invalid. The case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. IDBI Ltd. (supra) wherein it has been held that where the reasons recorded are not supplied to the assessee, the order of reassessment would be without jurisdiction.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 8 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

Shri Arun Sehlot, Bhopal vs The Acit, 3(1), Bhopal on 25 March, 2021

were filed as additional evidences for the first time before the Tribunal in the first round and Tribunal after admitting the same restored the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with the direction to decide the appeal of the assessee afresh. However, we note that Ld. CIT(A) has disregarded the books of accounts filed by the assessee without even pointing a single defect for the said rejection. In our opinion, the rejection of books of accounts by the Revenue authorities is not correct in view of the fact that the related evidences such as contract notes, dividend, warrants and the bank statements and other relevant evidences were accepted which were used to complete the books of accounts. In our opinion the books of accounts constitute an important piece of evidence and therefore we are not in agreement with the conclusion drawn by the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue that too without pointing out any defects and deficiency in the books of accounts. We also note that the books of accounts were also rejected in the cases of the related entities. We note that in one of the related entities M/s. Hitesh S. Mehta vs. ACIT (supra), the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal under similar circumstances has held the rejection of books of accounts as invalid and incorrect and accordingly decided the issue in favour of the assessee. Accordingly, following the said decision of the co- ordinate bench of the Tribunal we also hold that there is no reason for rejecting the books of accounts as both the authorities below have failed to give the reasons for rejection of books of accounts. Accordingly, we allow this ground in favour of the assessee.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Indore Cites 20 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Dy. Cit vs Aatur Holding (P) Ltd. on 12 August, 2004

the decision of co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in the cases of related entities by the coordinate benches wherein it has been held that dividend earned on unregistered shareholdings cannot be brought to tax. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the said decisions of the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal have been upheld by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. The Ld. A.R. specifically relied on the decision of CIT vs. Aatur Holding Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.2214 of 2006 dated 12.03.2008 wherein the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has affirmed the view of the Tribunal that no addition can be made on the estimated dividend on unregistered holding held by the assessee.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 14 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Dy. Cit Central Circle 31 vs Pallavi Holdings (P.) Ltd. on 1 August, 2005

Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court by holding that no addition can be made on account of estimated dividend on unregistered share holding held by the assessee. Similarly, we note that in similar issue in the case of CIT vs. Pallavi Holdings Pvt. Ltd. (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court has dismissed the SLP filed by the Revenue. In view of these facts, we are inclined to set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the addition. Ground no. 4 is allowed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 Next