How many judgments cite 153 (Gujarat) 8 Shakti Karnawat v. ITO?

171 judgments on BharatTax cite 153 (Gujarat) 8 Shakti Karnawat v. ITO (296 ITR 90), spanning 2016 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does 153 (Gujarat) 8 Shakti Karnawat v. ITO come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 148, Section 147, Section 143(3), Section 142(1), Section 68, Section 143(2).

153 (Gujarat) 8 Shakti Karnawat v. ITO

296 ITR 90High Court2008#561 most cited

What is 153 (Gujarat) 8 Shakti Karnawat v. ITO authority for?

When the Assessing Officer rejects objections to a reassessment notice issued under Section 148, the officer must not proceed to pass the reassessment order for a period of four weeks from the date the assessee receives the order rejecting objections, allowing time for legal remedies.

171

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Shakti Karnawat v. ITO · Asian Paints Ltd. v. DCIT · Section 148 · reopening of assessment objections · rejection of objections · four-week waiting period · reassessment procedure · 296 ITR 90 · assessee's legal remedies · procedural compliance · validity of reassessment order

Sections most often in play

Section 148 Section 147 Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 68 Section 143(2)Section 133(6)Section 151

Issues it is cited on

third party information live link material facts necessary for assessment entry operator reopening of assessment reason to believe change of opinion escapement of income accommodation entry appeal before cit(a)speaking order reassessment proceedings

Judgments citing 153 (Gujarat) 8 Shakti Karnawat v. ITO

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PAREL vs. N K FAMILY TRUST, LOWER PAREL

Accordingly, all the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 8969/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: us, at the outset, invited our attention to the Cross Objection raised by the Assessee whereby the Assessee has challenged the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Act which reads as under: "1. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the reopening of

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai

Section 143(3)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J (SMC)” BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Income Tax Officer 22(2)(1) Room No.312, 3rd Floor, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Mumbai - 400012. Maharashtra. …………. Appellant Vs N. K. Family Trust 333-B, Adhyaru Industrial Estate, Sunmill Compound, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400012. Maharashtra [PAN:AAATN2399F] …………. Respondent Cross Objection No.32/Mum/2026 (In ITA No.8969/Mum/2025) (Assessment Year:2012-2013) N. K. Family Trust 333-B, Adhyaru Industrial Estate, Sunmill Compound, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400012. Maharashtra [PAN…

SPICE OF LIFE HOTELS AND ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 7704/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beeba Pillai, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Chaitanya Joshi &For Respondent: Assessee by

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

…reassessment as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO [2003] 259 ITR. 19 (SC) Motilal R. Todi v. United States. ACIT [2017] 85 taxmann.com 234 (Mumbai Trib) Asian Paints Ltd. v. DCIT [2008] 296 ITR 90 (Bombay HC) Dr. Batras Positive Health Clinic Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT(A) (ITA Nos. 2748, 2747 & 2761/MUM/2023) Proposition 5: Reassessment to examine another facet of said issue is impermissible QX KPO Services (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT [2018] 94 taxmann.com 467 (Gujarat HC) DCIT vs. Qx Kpo Services (P.) Ltd. [2018] 99 taxmann.com 301 (SC) Demuric Holdings (P…

SPICE OF LIFE HOTELS AND ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 7703/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beeba Pillai, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Chaitanya Joshi &For Respondent: Assessee by

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. SAGAR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the CO filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1812/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Suhas Bora and Riya OswalFor Respondent: Shri S. Sadananda Singh, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 269SSection 37Section 68

…was passed on 30.03.2022, the assessee was not provided any reasonable opportunity to challenge the reopening before the higher authorities, therefore, in view of the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Asian Paints Ltd. Vs. DCIT reported in 296 ITR 90 (Bom) and in the case of Bayer Material Science Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT reported in 382 ITR 333 (Bom) and the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vilas B. Rukari (HUF) vs. ITO (supra), such re-assessment order is bad in law. 15 CO No.43/PUN/2025 18. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee in his yet another plank of argument sub…

NEW TRACK EXIM PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 18(3), DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2765/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

…e no. 168 to 169 of PB). SABH Infrastructure Limited vs. ACIT (99 taxmann.com 409). (Kindly refer page no. 170 to 175 of PB), Bharat Jayantilal Patel vs. Union of India (5 taxmann.com 333). (Kindly refer page no. 176 to 183 of PB). Asian Paints Ltd. vs. DCIT (296 ITR 90). (Kindly refer page no. 184 to 185 of PB). M/s Meta Plast Engineering P. Ltd. vs. ITO (ITA No. 5780/Del/2014). (Kindly refer page no. 186 to 192 of PB). FGR Logistics Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (ITA No. 4560/Del/2019). (Kindly refer page no. 193 to 207 of PB). Prayer In the light of aforesaid facts and judicial pronouncement the order passed in legally n…

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GHAZIABAD vs. ARUN KUMAR, GHAZIABAD

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1035/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal & C.O 118/Del/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Arun Kumar Income Tax 201-202, 2Nd Ii-F-3 Nehru Nagar Ghaziabad Floor Cgo Complex 201001 Uttar Pradesh Hapur Chungi Ghaziabad -201002 Pan No. Aeapk1314B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr.Dr Respondent By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Shri Somil Agarwal Adv

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 67Section 68

…13. The ld. A.R of the assessee submitted that four week time was not allowed to the assessee after rejection of the objection of the assessee. The assessment is bad in law. He placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) Asian paints ltd, Vs. DCIT (2008) 296 ITR 90 High Court of Bombay. (ii) Bharat Jayantilal Patel vs. Union of India (2015) 378 ITR 596 High Court of Bombay (iii) Aroni Commercial Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2014) 362 ITR 403 High Court of Bombay (iv) Hirachand Kanuga vs. DCIT (2015) 68SOT 205 ITAT Mumbai Bench 14. In the case in hand notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued on 14- 12-2021 & 20-01-2021and…

AVON CONTAINNERS PVT. LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as above

ITA 5161/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…passing general order to dispose of the objections without provide "FOUR WEEKS" time period to assessee to seek its legal remedies from the date of receipt/service of said order on objections as well settled by Bombay High Court in cases of M/s Aslan Paints (296 ITR 90) and M/s Aroni Commercials (362 ITR 403). 10. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld CIT- A erred in sustaining the order passed by the AO u/s 147/143(3) without appreciating that on basis of surfeit and inundated evidences on records, burden u/s 68 of the Act lying on assessee has been fully discharged and met. So a…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, COIMBATORE vs. DAMAYANTI RAMACHANDRAN, GN MILLS POST, COIMBATORE

ITA 149/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon'Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon'Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.103/Chny/2025, निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward-4(3) Coimbatore Damayanti Ramachandran, Pb No.5303, Gn Mills Post, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu-641029 [Pan: Aabhd8298Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Co No.19/Chny/2025, निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Damayanti Ramachandran, Pb No.5303, Gn Mills Post, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu-641029 [Pan: Aabhd8298Q] Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward-4(3) Coimbatore V. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.149/Chny/2025, निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward-4(3) Coimbatore Damayanti Ramachandran, Pb No.5303, Gn Mills Post, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu-641029 [Pan: Aabhd8298Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Co No.20/Chny/2025, निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Damayanti Ramachandran, Pb No.5303, Gn Mills Post, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu-641029 [Pan: Aabhd8298Q] Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward-4(3) Coimbatore (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.Ketan K. Ved, C.A

Section 45(4)

…(supra) and in addition to such a request, also prayed before the AO to dispose off the objections at least four (4) weeks before framing of re-assessment order as held by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Asian Paints Limited v. DCIT & anr. (2008) 296 ITR 90 (Bom) and also in the case of Bharat Jayantilal Patel v. UOI reported in [2015] 378 ITR 596 (Bom.), which fact we find from perusal of Page No.86 of the Paper Book. Thus, according to the Ld. Sr. Counsel, it can be noted that the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Home Finders Housing Ltd. (order dated 25.04.2018), is disting…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, COIMBATORE vs. DAMAYANTI RAMACHANDRAN, GN MILLS POST, COIMBATORE

In the result, both the appeals of revenue for the A

ITA 103/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.103/Chny/2025, ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Mr.Ketan K. Ved, C.AFor Respondent: Mr.Bipin C.N, CIT

Section 45(4)

…(supra) and in addition to such a request, also prayed before the AO to dispose off the objections at least four (4) weeks before framing of re-assessment order as held by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Asian Paints Limited v. DCIT & anr. (2008) 296 ITR 90 (Bom) and also in the case of Bharat Jayantilal Patel v. UOI reported in [2015] 378 ITR 596 (Bom.), which fact we find from perusal of Page No.86 of the Paper Book. Thus, according to the Ld. Sr. Counsel, it can be noted that the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Home Finders Housing Ltd. (order dated 25.04.2018), is disting…

LATA HOLDING PRIVATE LIMITED,GOREGAON vs. I.T.O., WARD-12(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 1959/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Shri Prabhash Shankar, ()

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

…der of assessment is less than a month, therefore, the entire proceedings are in direct violation of the decision of the ITA No.1959/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2014-15 4 Lata Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Asian Paints Limited vs. DCIT (2008) 296 ITR 90, wherein it has specifically been mentioned that if the Assessing Officer does not accept the objections so filed, then in that eventuality, the AO shall not proceed further in the matter within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of service of the said order on objections of the assessee. 8. In order to adjudicate this ground, it is n…

PRAMOD MANIKCHAND DUGAD,PUNE vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 27/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.27/PUN/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Pramod Manikchand Dugad, Vs. ITO, NFAC, Delhi. 28, Vasant Baug, Bibwewadi, Pune- 411037. Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Suhas P. Bora Revenue by : Shri Prakash L. Pathade Date of hearing : 11.03.2025 Date of pronouncement : 30.05.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. BoraFor Respondent: Shri Prakash L. Pathade

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 148

…less Assessing Officer (FAO) did not provide four weeks time to the assessee after disposal of the objection. In support of this, reliance was placed on 2 the judgement of Hon’ble Jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of Asian Paint Ld. vs. DCIT [2009] 296 ITR 90 (Bombay - HC). 3. On the other hand, Ld. DR supported the orders of the lower authority but had failed to convert the facts narrated by Ld. Counsel for the assessee. 4. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. We observe that the assessee filed return of income u/s 139(1) on 24.10.2017 declaring income of Rs.24,29,…

SURESH BABULAL AGRAWAL,MUMBAI vs. THE ITO WARD-34(3)(7), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 6704/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Jay Bhansali, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Srinivas P., Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…ecific reference to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. 170 [2002] 125 Taxman 963/ [2003] 259 ITR 19 (SC). The Petitioner also referred to this Court's decision in the case of Asian Paints Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2008] 296 ITR 90 (Bombay), which had provided that an assessee must be given a reasonable period of about four weeks to take any remedial course of action should the Assessee’s objections to the reopening be rejected by the revenue. 11. The Petitioner's objections were never disposed of, but the impugned consolidated reassessment order dated 31 March 2022 was mad…

PAPPU JAISWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 281/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. B. Natani, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69

…ections- -If the assessee delays filing objections to the reasons and leaves the AO with little time to dispose of the objections and pass the assessment order before it gets time barred, it destroys the formula provided in Asian Paints Ltd v. Dy. CIT ( 2008) 296 ITR 90 (Bom) that the AO should not pass the assessment order for 4 weeks- A writ petition to challenge the reopening is not entertained [S.148 ] The Petitioner has raised the objections before the Assessing Officer to the notice of reopening of the assessment on 14.12.2018. Objections were disposed of by the Assessing Officer on 28.12.2018. Since the l…

ATUL NRIPRAJ BARAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 17(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6706/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: \nShri K. Gopal & Ms. Neha Paranjpe, A/RsFor Respondent: \nShri Ram Krishn Kedia, Sr. D/R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…icee is entitled to file\nobjections to issuance of notice and the assessing officer is bound to\ndispose of the same by passing a speaking order. The Hon'ble High Court\nof Bombay in the case of Asian Paints Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-\nTax [2008] 296 ITR 90(Bom), has held that “the assessee must be given a\nreasonable period of about four weeks to take any remedial course of\naction should the assessee's objections to the reopening be rejected by the\nrevenue.\"\n6.\nFacts on record show that the AO never gave any opportunity to raise\nobjections before proceeding with the assessment proceedings.\n7.…

RAJNISH BHARTI HUF,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER 20(3)(1), MUMBAI , LALBAUG, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed assessee are dismissed whereas appeals of the Revenue are allowed

ITA 3941/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Appellant: Mrs. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. C.V. Jain

Section 143(3)Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA Nos. 3912 & 3941/MUM/2023 Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Rajnish Bharti HUF, ITO, Circle 20(3)(1), 4/281, Opp. Britannia Biscuit Piramal Chambers Lalbaug, Vs. Company, Reay Road, Darukhana, Mumbai. Mumbai-10. PAN NO. AAEHR 6595 K Appellant Respondent ITA Nos. 4378 & 4377/MUM/2023 Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 ITO-41(3)(3), BKC Rajnish Bharti HUF, 436, 4th floor, Kautaliya Bhavan, 4/281, Opp. Britannia Biscuit Mumbai-400051. Vs. Company, Reay R…

RAJNISH BHARTI HUF,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER 20(3)(1), MUMBAI, LALBAUG, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed assessee are dismissed whereas appeals of the Revenue are allowed

ITA 3912/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Appellant: Mrs. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. C.V. Jain

Section 143(3)Section 148

IDFC FIRST BANK LTD.,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-1(1),, CHENNAI

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1171/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1170 & 1171/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 V. M/S. Idfc First Bank Ltd., The Pcit / Acit, [Earlier Known As Idfc Bank Ltd.], Corporate Cirlce-1(1), Krm Tower, 7Th Floor, No.1, Chennai. Harrington Road, Chetpet, Chennai. [Pan: Aadci 6523 Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Percy Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mr. R. Clement Ramesh –

Section 147Section 148Section 263

…T [2003] 259 ITR 19 (SC) (ii) Give Assessee a period of at least four weeks after service of order disposing the objections before proceeding with the reassessment proceedings as held by the Bombay High Court in the case of Asian Paint Limited vs. DCIT (2008) 296 ITR 90 (Bom) and Bharat Jayantilal Patel vs. UOI [2015] 378 ITR 596 (Bom) to undertake suitable actions We also request your goodself that once the objection is disposed off and before framing of assessment pursuant to the aforesaid notice, kindly provide us an opportunity to make detailed submission on the merits of the case and also provide us a perso…

IDFC FIRST BANK LTD.,CHENNAI vs. PCIT-1, , CHENNAI

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1170/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Mr. Percy Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mr. R. Clement Ramesh –

Section 147Section 148Section 263

JAS TRADING PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER 9(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed in the result all other Grounds raised by the Assessee need not to be disposed off

ITA 245/MUM/2024[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2024AY 2007-2008

Bench: Smt. Kavitha Rajgopal & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S. Jas Trading Pvt. Ltd. 6-D-603, Prem Nagar, S.V.P. Road, Borivali West, Mumbai – 400 092 Pan No. Aaafv3003E ...... Appellant Vs. Ito 9 (2) (1) Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 ...... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Hakkani and Ms. Neelam Jadhav, Ld. ARsFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Ld. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 68o

…e case and orders of the co-ordinate benches for A.Y.s 2004-05 to 2006-07 read with the judicial pronouncement of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the cases of CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.) (HC), Asian Paints Ltd. v. DCIT (2008) 296 ITR 90 (Bom) (HC) and PCIT- 14 v, Alag Securities Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 1512 of 2017 dated 12/06/2020 (Bom) (HC), we do not have any other option but to quash the reassessment proceedings for the year under consideration. As the reasons taken by the AO for reopening of the assessment are different from what actually has been carried 10 M/s. Jas Trading Pvt.…

ALOSHA MARKETING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 356/KOL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad (Accountant Member)

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…And Others reported in [2015] 378 ITR 596 (Bom). (viii) Aroni Commercials Ltd -Vs- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax And Another reported in [2014] 362 ITR 403 (Bom). (ix) Asian Paints Ltd -Vs- Deputy Commissioner of Income- tax And Another reported in [2008] 296 ITR 90 (Bom). (x) Hewlett Packard Financial Services (India) (P) Ltd -Vs- Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax reported in [2023] 152 taxmann.com 559 (Karnataka). 7. On the other hand, ld. D.R. vehemently argued supporting the order of ld. CIT(Appeals). 8. I have heard the rival contentions and gone through the material placed before us. Reassessment proc…

Showing 1–20 of 171 · Page 1 of 9

...