147. Likewise, in CIT v. N. Jayaprakash

285 ITR 369High Court2006#3900 most cited

What is 147. Likewise, in CIT v. N. Jayaprakash authority for?

An assessee who successfully persuaded the assessing authority to withdraw a notice for reassessment because it was not in conformity with the law, cannot later argue that the notice was valid due to the omission of a time limit in a subsequent Finance Act. Proceedings initiated under the then-existing law by the Income-tax Officer are not invalidated without a specific provision to that effect.

30

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2021.

Also referred to as

CIT v. N. Jayaprakash · 285 ITR 369 · Section 147 · Section 148 · reassessment notice · withdrawal of notice · time limit · Finance Act 1996 · validity of proceedings

Judgments citing 147. Likewise, in CIT v. N. Jayaprakash

DCIT Cir. 4(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Vipul Impex & Infrabuild Ltd., Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2314/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

…further proceedings under section 147. Thus, the assessment was held to be validly reopened under Explanation 2(c) to section 147. ITA Nos.2313 to 2315 and 3004 to 27 3006/Mum/2016 M/s Vipul Impex & Infrabuild Ltd. Likewise, in CIT v. N. Jayaprakash, (2006) 285 ITR 369 (Ker), where, the assessee could not, after having persuaded the assessing authority to withdraw the notice dated 1-10-1993, pointing out that it was not in conformity with law, be allowed to contend that the notice was valid due to the omission of the time-limit by the Finance (No.2) Act, 1996, with effect from 1-4-1989. In the absence of…

DCIT Cir. 4(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Vipul Impex & Infrabuild Ltd., Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2313/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

…further proceedings under section 147. Thus, the assessment was held to be validly reopened under Explanation 2(c) to section 147. ITA Nos.2313 to 2315 and 3004 to 27 3006/Mum/2016 M/s Vipul Impex & Infrabuild Ltd. Likewise, in CIT v. N. Jayaprakash, (2006) 285 ITR 369 (Ker), where, the assessee could not, after having persuaded the assessing authority to withdraw the notice dated 1-10-1993, pointing out that it was not in conformity with law, be allowed to contend that the notice was valid due to the omission of the time-limit by the Finance (No.2) Act, 1996, with effect from 1-4-1989. In the absence of…

Asst CIT Cir 3, Kalyan vs. Rich & Royal, Kalyan

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed in the manner indicated above

ITA 1007/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Apr 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1007/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Acit Cir 3 बिाम/ M/S. Rich & Royal 2N D Floor, Rani Mansion, The Raymond Shop, Murbad Road, Kalyan(W), Zojwalla Complex, V. Dist Thane 421301 Agra Road, Kalyan (W) 421301 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aadfr3357G (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri. Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Shri. Saurabh Kumar Rai
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 43B

…ot make such an assessment recorded in the order sheet illegal and that would not bar further proceedings under section 147. Thus, the assessment was held to be validly reopened under Explanation 2(c) to section 147. Likewise, in CIT v. N. Jayaprakash, (2006) 285 ITR 369 (Ker), where, the assessee could not, after having persuaded the assessing authority to withdraw the notice dated 1-10-1993, pointing out that it was not in conformity with law, be allowed to contend that the notice was valid due to the omission of the time-limit by the Finance (No.2) Act, 1996, with effect from 1-4-1989. In the absence of specif…

Mithalal D Mutha, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 16(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed as already a justified view has been taken by the Ld

ITA 594/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…t recorded in the order sheet illegal and that would not bar further proceedings under section 147. Thus, the assessment was held to be validly reopened under 28 Shri Mithalal D Mutha Explanation 2(c) to section 147. Likewise, in CIT v. N. Jayaprakash, (2006) 285 ITR 369 (Ker), where, the assessee could not, after having persuaded the assessing authority to withdraw the notice dated 1-10- 1993, pointing out that it was not in conformity with law, be allowed to contend that the notice was valid due to the omission of the time-limit by the Finance (No.2) Act, 1996, with effect from 1-4-1989. In the absence of speci…

Swanston Multiplex Cinemas P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 11(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1135/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2005-06 Swanston Multiplex Cinemas Acit, Private Limited, Circle-11(1), बनाम/ 9Th Floor, Viraj Towers, W.E. R. No.467, Vs. Highway Next To Andheri Aayakar Bhavan, Flyover Andheri (East), M. K. Road, Mumai-400093 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan No.:-Aafcs6295K

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 40

…t make such an assessment recorded in the order sheet illegal and that would not bar further proceedings under section 147. Thus, the assessment was held to be validly reopened under Explanation 2(c) to section 147. Likewise, in CIT v. N. Jayaprakash, (2006) 285 ITR 369 (Ker), where, the assessee could not, after having persuaded the assessing authority to withdraw the notice dated 1-10- 1993, pointing out that it was not in conformity with law, be allowed to contend that the notice was valid due to the omission of the time-limit by the Finance (No.2) Act, 1996, with effect from 1-4-1989. In the absence of s…

Asst CIT 14(1), Mumbai vs. Kantilal C Jain, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6924/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2010-11 Asst. Cit-14(1), Shri Kantilal C. Jain 2Nd Floor, Earnest House, M/S. Shailesh Jewellers बनाम/ Nariman Point, Shop No. 4, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400 021 108/112, Ustad Building, Zaveri Bazar, Opp. Khara Kuwa, Mumbai-400 002 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aadpj 9583 E

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…t make such an assessment recorded in the order sheet illegal and that would not bar further proceedings under section 147. Thus, the assessment was held to be validly reopened under Explanation 2(c) to section 147. Likewise, in CIT v. N. Jayaprakash, (2006) 285 ITR 369 (Ker), where, the assessee could not, after having persuaded the assessing authority to withdraw the notice dated 1-10- 1993, pointing out that it was not in conformity with law, be Shri Kantilal C. Jain allowed to contend that the notice was valid due to the omission of the time-limit by the Finance (No.2) Act, 1996, with effect from 1-4-198…

DCIT 9(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Acon Measurement P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the

ITA 4736/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit -9(1))(1), M/S Acon Measurement Pvt. Room No.260A, 02Nd Floor बनाम/ Limited, Aayakar Bhavan A-22, Nanddham Indl. Estate, Vs. M.K. Road Marol Maroshi Road, Mumbai-400020. Andheri (East), Mumbai-400059 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aaaca5078K

Section 133(6)

…make such an assessment recorded in the order sheet illegal and that would not bar further proceedings under section 147. Thus, the assessment was held to be validly reopened under Explanation 2(c) to section 147. Likewise, in CIT v. N. Jayaprakash, (2006) 285 ITR 369 (Ker), where, the assessee could not, after having persuaded the assessing authority to withdraw the notice dated 1-10-1993, pointing out that it was not in conformity with law, be allowed to contend C.O. No.112/Mum/2017 that the notice was valid due to the omission of the time-limit by the Finance (No.2) Act, 1996, with effect from 1-4-1989.…

Disha N . Lalwani, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 23(2)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6398/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2003-04 Disha N. Lalwani, Income Tax Officer- J-301, Vardhaman Nagar 23(2)(2), बनाम/ Jn. Of R.P. Rd. & M.G. Rd. C-10-Pratyakshkar Vs. Mulund (W), Bhavan, 02Nd Floor, Mumbai-400080 Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra, Mumbai-400007 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaapl6056H

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ot make such an assessment recorded in the order sheet illegal and that would not bar further proceedings under section 147. Thus, the assessment was held to be validly reopened under Explanation 2(c) to section 147. Likewise, in CIT v. N. Jayaprakash, (2006) 285 ITR 369 (Ker), where, the assessee could not, after having persuaded the assessing authority to 26 Disha N. Lalwani withdraw the notice dated 1-10-1993, pointing out that it was not in conformity with law, be allowed to contend that the notice was valid due to the omission of the time-limit by the Finance (No.2) Act, 1996, with effect from 1-4-1989. In t…

M. Pallonji & Co. P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Jt, CIT RG 2(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1594/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2004-05 M. Pallonji & Co. Pvt. Ltd. Jcit, C/O- Taj Printing Works, Range-2(2), बनाम/ 46/A, Cawasji Patel Street, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400001 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacm3525B

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 80I

…ot make such an assessment recorded in the order sheet illegal and that would not bar further proceedings under section 147. Thus, the assessment was held to be validly reopened under Explanation 2(c) to section 147. Likewise, in CIT v. N. Jayaprakash, (2006) 285 ITR 369 (Ker), where, the assessee could not, after having persuaded the assessing authority to withdraw the notice dated 1-10-1993, pointing out that it was not in conformity with law, be allowed to contend that the notice was valid due to the omission of the time-limit by the Finance (No.2) Act, 1996, with effect from 1-4-1989. In the absence of 22 M/s…

Prakash Fatandas Jassuja, Thane vs. ITO WD 3(2), Thane

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 4933/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

Section 133ASection 147

…ot make such an assessment recorded in the order sheet illegal and that would not bar further proceedings under section 147. Thus, the assessment was held to be validly reopened under Explanation 2(c) to section 147. Likewise, in CIT v. N. Jayaprakash, (2006) 285 ITR 369 (Ker), where, the assessee could not, after having persuaded the assessing authority to withdraw the notice dated 1-10- 1993, pointing out that it was not in conformity with law, be allowed to contend that the notice was valid due to the omission of the time-limit by the Finance (No.2) Act, 1996, with effect from 1-4-1989. In the absence of speci…