1. Nayek Paper Converters vs. ACIT 93 ITD 144 Kol Trib., 2. Gift Land Handicrafts v. CIT

108 TTJ 301Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2007#16524 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2024.

Judgments citing 1. Nayek Paper Converters vs. ACIT 93 ITD 144 Kol Trib., 2. Gift Land Handicrafts v. CIT

M/S SUSHIL KUMAR GUPTA & COMPANY,AMBALA CITY vs. PR.CIT, PANCHKULA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 270/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “बी” , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH "ी आकाश दीप जैन, उपा"य" एवं "ी िव"म "सह यादव, लेखा सद"य BEFORE: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN, VP & SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO. 270/Chd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/s Sushil Kumar Gupta & बनाम The Pr. CIT Company Panchkula 107, Urban Estate Sector-9, Ambala City -134003, Haryana "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AADFS4337F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Kusum, CIT, DR सुनवाई…

TEJ PAUL BHARDWAJ,SUNAM vs. PR. CIT, PATIALA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 463/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 May 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: The Ao & Furnished The Details Called

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sandeep Dahiya CIT (DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 54

…6 of 17 jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. The Ld. counsel relied on the following decision to substantiate his contention: 1. Nayek Paper Converters vs. ACIT 93 ITD 144 Kol Trib., 2. Gift Land Handicrafts vs. CIT 108 TTJ 312 Del Trib., 3. Ajit Gupta vs. ITO 108 TTJ 301 Del. Trib., 4. Su-Raj Diamond Dealers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT ITA No 3098/ Mum, 5. R &H Property Developers vs. CIT ITA No 1906/ Mum/2019., 6. Sonali Hemant Bhavsar vs. Pr. CIT ITA No. 742/ Mumbai/2019 and 7. Akash Ganga Promotors & Develpoers vs. Pr. CIT ITA No 164/CTK/2019 8. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that since the impugned order is contrary…

THE SASME CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD,SURAT vs. PR, CIT-2, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 185/SRT/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Mar 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.Ta No.185/Srt/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Sasme Co-Op. Society Ltd, Vs. The Principal Sasme Bhavan Kotsafil Main Commissioner Of Income Road, Surat – 395 003. Tax, Surat-2. [Pan: Aaaas 3507 M] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""थ"/Respondent िनधा"रतीकीओर से/Assessee By Shri Hiren R.Vepari – Ar राज"कीओर से /Revenue By Shri Ritesh Mishra - Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 25.02.2021 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement On: 03.03.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh, Judicial Memeber: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Surat-2, (Pcit), Passed Under Section 263 Of Income-Tax Act Dated 16Th March 2020. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “(1) The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Was Not Justified In Assuming Jurisdiction Under Section 263 Without Satisfying Conditions. (2) The Appellant Submits That The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Ought Not To Have Invoked Provision Of Section 263 On The Very Same Point On Which The Assessing Officer Had Made Enquiry & Had Taken Position. (3) The Appellant Further Submit The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Did Not Appreciate The Subtle Portion Of Law We Are Proceeding Under Section 263 Do Not Extend To Sustain A Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Office To Take A Different View In The Same Matter. (5) The Learned Pcit Was Driving By Extraneous Consideration In Not Dropping The Proceeding Under Section 263.”

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P(2)(d)

…ACIT [2005] 98 TTJ 154 (Ahd).  Jet Electronics Vs. ACIT [2008] 116 TTJ 225 (Ahd).  Gujarat Guardian Ltd., Vs. DCIT [2008] 11 DTR 370 (Delhi Tribunal).  Honda Siel Power Products Ltd., Vs. CIT [2009] 22 DTR 164 (Delhi Tribunal).  Ajit Gupta Vs. ITO [2007] 108 TTJ 301 (Del).  P.N.Writer & Co. Ltd., Vs. Addl. CIT [2006] 7 SOT 346 (Mum).  N.P.Santosh Kumar Vs. ACIT [2008] 12 DTR 87 (Cochin Tribunal).  Smt.Varanandhini Raghavan Vs. ITO [2005] 15 DTR 140 (Chennai Tribunal).  Harisingh & Associates (AOP) Vs. ITO 154 Taxmann 109 (Jodhpur).  Indian Shaving Products Ltd., Addl. CIT 61 Taxmann 166 (Jodhpur).  Sal…

SAHAYAMATHA SALTERNS PVT. LIMITED,TUTICORIN vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, TUTICORIN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1498/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1498/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-2015. M/S. Sahayamatha Salterns Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd, Income Tax, 13-A-1, Meenakshipuram Circle I, West, Tuticorin. Tuticorin 628 002. Tamil Nadu

For Appellant: Shri. G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A. Sundararajan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263

…on the series of following judicial decisions. ‘’01 ITO vs. Pericles Foods, 17 SOT 602 (Mumbai Tribunal) 02 Gift land handicraft vs. CIT, 108 TTJ 0312 (Delhi Tribunal) 03 Nayek Paper Converters s. ACIT, 93 ITD 144 (Kol Tribunal) 04 Ajit Gupta vs. ITO, (2007) 108 TTJ 301 05 CIT vs. Narayana P. Dedhia, 270 ITR 572 (AP) 06 DCIT vs. Sunita Finlease Ltd, 330 ITR 491 (Chat) 07 Kwalpro Exports vs. ACIT, 109 TTJ 0869 08 CIT vs. Amal Generators Ltd, 84 DTR 0045 09 CIT vs. Howrah Flour Mills Ltd, 236 ITR 156 10 CIT vs. PVP Ventures, 211 Taxman 554 11 Jai Commercial Co. Ltd. vs. JCIT, 66 TTJ 731 12 Andhra Valley Power Sup…

SMT. PADMAVATHI,TIRUNELVELI vs. ITO, WARD 3,, TIRUNELVELI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands

ITA 1306/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri. G. Baskar, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)

…ce on CBDT :- 5 -: Instruction No.20/2015, dated 29th December, 2015 and the following case laws. 01 ‘’ITO vs. Pericles Foods, 17 SOT 602. 02 Gift land Handicraft vs. CIT, 108 TTJ 0312. 03 Nayek Paper Converters vs. ACIT, 93 ITR 144. 04 Ajit Gupta vs. ITO, 108 TTJ 301. 05 CIT vs. Narayana P. Dedhia, 270 ITR 572 06 DCIT vs. Sunita Finlease Ltd, 330 ITR 491 07 Kwalpro Exports vs. ACIT, 110 ITD 59 08 CIT vs. Amal Generators Ltd 84 DTR 0045. 09 CIT vs. Howrah Flour Mills Ltd, 236 ITR 156. 10 CIT vs. PVP Ventures 211 Taxman 554 11 Jai Commercial Co. Ltd vs. JCIT, 76 ITR 65 and 12 Andhra Valley Power Supply Co. Ltd…

1. Nayek Paper Converters vs. ACIT 93 ITD 144 Kol Trib., 2. Gift Land Handicrafts v. CIT (108 TTJ 301) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax