1. JehanNuma Palace Hotel (P) Ltd. v. CIT (I7217; Indore)

70 ITD 214Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#25518 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2015.

Judgments citing 1. JehanNuma Palace Hotel (P) Ltd. v. CIT (I7217; Indore)

Sarah Faisal Hawa, Mumbai vs. DCIT 17(3), Mumbai

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4752/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajendra (Am) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm) "ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य, एवं "ी संदीप गोसा", "या"यक सद"य, के सम" । {Appeals Against Order U/S. 271(1)(C)} आयकर अपील सं.I.T.A. No. 4749/Mum/2013 "नधा"रण वष"(Assessment Year 2005-06)

Section 120Section 2Section 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44A

…udicial pronouncements it was further held that CIT was justified In Invoking provisions of section 263 even on debatable issues: 1. JehanNuma Palace Hotel (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (I7217; Indore) 70 ITD 552 2. D & H Secheron Electordes Ltd. Vs. DCIT (I7217; Inc/ore) 70 ITD 214 3. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd Vs. CIT (5C) 243 ITR 83 d) In the following judicial pronouncements It was held that an assessment made without conducting proper enquiries was an erroneous assessment and was also prejudicial to the interest of revenue and CIT was justified to revise the same by Invoking provisions of section 263: 1. CIT Vs. Pushpa…

Sarah Faisal Hawa, Mumbai vs. DCIT 17(3), Mumbai

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4751/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajendra (Am) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm) "ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य, एवं "ी संदीप गोसा", "या"यक सद"य, के सम" । {Appeals Against Order U/S. 271(1)(C)} आयकर अपील सं.I.T.A. No. 4749/Mum/2013 "नधा"रण वष"(Assessment Year 2005-06)

Section 120Section 2Section 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44A

…udicial pronouncements it was further held that CIT was justified In Invoking provisions of section 263 even on debatable issues: 1. JehanNuma Palace Hotel (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (I7217; Indore) 70 ITD 552 2. D & H Secheron Electordes Ltd. Vs. DCIT (I7217; Inc/ore) 70 ITD 214 3. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd Vs. CIT (5C) 243 ITR 83 d) In the following judicial pronouncements It was held that an assessment made without conducting proper enquiries was an erroneous assessment and was also prejudicial to the interest of revenue and CIT was justified to revise the same by Invoking provisions of section 263: 1. CIT Vs. Pushpa…

Sarah Faisal Hawa, Mumbai vs. DCIT 17(3), Mumbai

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4749/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajendra (Am) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm) "ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य, एवं "ी संदीप गोसा", "या"यक सद"य, के सम" । {Appeals Against Order U/S. 271(1)(C)} आयकर अपील सं.I.T.A. No. 4749/Mum/2013 "नधा"रण वष"(Assessment Year 2005-06)

Section 120Section 2Section 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44A

…udicial pronouncements it was further held that CIT was justified In Invoking provisions of section 263 even on debatable issues: 1. JehanNuma Palace Hotel (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (I7217; Indore) 70 ITD 552 2. D & H Secheron Electordes Ltd. Vs. DCIT (I7217; Inc/ore) 70 ITD 214 3. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd Vs. CIT (5C) 243 ITR 83 d) In the following judicial pronouncements It was held that an assessment made without conducting proper enquiries was an erroneous assessment and was also prejudicial to the interest of revenue and CIT was justified to revise the same by Invoking provisions of section 263: 1. CIT Vs. Pushpa…

1. JehanNuma Palace Hotel (P) Ltd. v. CIT (I7217; Indore) (70 ITD 214) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax