216 ITR 548(Bom) CIT v. Paul Brothers

216 ITR 833High Court#19900 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,607 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2023.

Judgments citing 216 ITR 548(Bom) CIT v. Paul Brothers

M/S Jaipur Telecom Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Pr. CIT-2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 274/JPR/2021[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Jaipur14 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No.274/JPR/2021 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years :2014-15 M/s Jaipur Telecom Pvt. Ltd. 3, Amrapali Circle, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur. cuke Vs. Pr.CIT-2, Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABCJ 0763 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby :Sh. Manish Agarwal(C.A.) jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Sh. Ajey Malik (CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 15/02/2

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal(C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Ajey Malik (CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…ctive effect from 01.06.88 – Effect – Powers of Commissioner of Income Tax shall extend and shall be deemed to have extended to matters not considered and decided in appeal filed by assessee to CIT (Appeals) – Income Tax Act, 1961, sec. 263(1), Expln. cl. (c) 216 ITR 833 CIT vs. Saraf Bandhu Pvt. Ltd. (Bom.) Revision – Appeal – Appeal from assessment order – Original order merges in appellate order – Original order cannot be revised by Commissioner to Income Tax – Income Tax Act, 1961, s. 263. 138 ITR 836 Oil India Ltd. vs. CIT (Cal.) Where an appeal is preferred before the AAC and a subject is particularly raise…

Barclays Bank Plc, Mumbai vs. CIT (International Taxation)-Range-1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 827/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 263Section 37

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) & Shri Amarjit Singh (JM) I.T.A. No.827/Mum/2021 (Assessment Year 2013-14) Vs. CIT(IT), Range-1 Barclays Bank PLC 9th Floor, Building No.6 17th Floor Nirlon Knowledge Park Room No.1704, Air Off. Western Express India Building Highway Nariman Point Goregaon (E) Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 63 PAN : AAACB4876G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri P.J.Pardiwala & Madhur Agarwal Department by Shri Sanjay Singh Date of Hearing 04.10.2021 Date of 03.01.2022 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya (AM) :- This appeal by…

Shri Harish Kumar Jasoria, Alwar vs. Pr.CIT, Alwar

ITA 1194/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jan 2021AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (FCA)For Respondent: Sh. B. K. Gupta (CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(1)(vii)

…f the Assessing Officer on that subject matter. 12. In this regard reliance is placed on the following case laws: • CIT Vs. Shri Arbuda Mills Ltd. 231 ITR 50 (SC) • CIT Vs. Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. 157 ITR 315 (Kar.) • CIT Vs. Saraf Bandhu Pvt. Ltd. (Bom.) 216 ITR 833 • Oil India Ltd. Vs. CIT 138 ITR 836 (Cal.) • CIT Vs. Rajput 164 ITR 197 (M.P.) • M/s Dwarka Gems Vs. CIT (ITAT, Jpr) ITA No. 133/JP/09 orders dt. 30.04.2010 13. Without prejudice to above, “On merits” of the issue, details of properties purchased are tabulated for the sake of convenience: Sl. Description of Date of Date of Details of sale APB…

M/S Ab (Wines) Stores, Kolkata vs. PCIT, Kolkata-14, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 901/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jul 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No.901/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ab (Wines) Stores -Vs.- Pr. C.I.T., Kolkata-14 Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aajfa 6312 L] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri R.S.Biswas, Cit Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2017 Order

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.S.Biswas, CIT

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)

…48 ITR 126 (Guj) d) CIT vs Ram Kishore Raj Kishore reported in 135 Taxman 511 (All) e) CIT vs K Sera Sera Productions Ltd reported in 374 ITR 503 (Bom) f) CIT vs Palghad Shadi Mahal Trust reported in 212 ITR 287 (Ker) g) CIT vs Saraff Bandhu P Ltd reported in 216 ITR 833 (Bom) 14 15 M/s. AB (Wines) Stores A.Yr.2011-12 10.2. We hold that the ld CITA having conferred with the co-terminus powers with that of the ld AO has got every right to even enhance the assessment if circumstances so warrant. Just because the ld CITA had not exercised his enhancement powers in the instant case, even if it is to be done, that w…