268 ITR 332 4. Devidayal Rolling Mill and Another v. Y.R.Saini, ACIT

285 ITR 514Reported decision#11424 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2024.

Judgments citing 268 ITR 332 4. Devidayal Rolling Mill and Another v. Y.R.Saini, ACIT

Big Boss Foods Pvt. Ltd., Burdwan vs. ACIT, Cir. 1, Burdwan

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

ITA 398/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 250Section 40

…147 of the Act are not fulfilled, there is no case made out for upholding the proposed reassessment. The notices for all the four years are, therefore, bad in law and are quashed and set aside.” 2.3. In the case of Devidayal Rolling Mills & Another vs. ACIT, 285 ITR 514, Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under: Page 4 of 7 I.T.A. No.: 398/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Big Boss Foods Pvt. Ltd. “Where an assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act is sought to be reopened beyond four years from the end of relevant assessment year, the Revenue must establish that there was failure on the part of the assesse…

Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(5), Thane vs. Ostwal Diamond Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4397/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarito, Ward-2(5), M/S Ostwal Diamond Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 16, 6Th Floor, 201/1A, Ostwal Park, 2Nd Vs. Ashar It Park, Wagle Indl. Floor, Jesal Park, Bhayander Estate, Road No. 16Z, (W), 401105. Thane (W), 400604. Pan: Aaaco4853A Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Ashish Pophare (Dr) Respondent By : Shri Rajesh Shah (Ar)

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Pophare (DR)For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Shah (AR)
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 254(1)Section 68

…rted in 251 ITR 416. 2. ICICI Bank Ltd., vs. K.J. Rao and another reported in 268 ITR 203, 3. Hindustan Lever Ltd., vs. R.B.Wadkar, ACIT and others (No.1) reported in 268 ITR 332 4. Devidayal Rolling Mill and Another vs. Y.R.Saini, ACIT and others reported in 285 ITR 514, no reopening after expiry of four 5 ITA No. 4397 Mum 2017-M/s Ostwal Diamond Pvt. Ltd. years is valid unless department shows that there is failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts. Accordingly, we do not find any justification in the reopening so made u/s.147. 20. Now, coming to the merit of the addit…

Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 2, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3873/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 220(2)Section 44ASection 80RSection 90Section 94(7)

…ported in 268 ITR 203 9 ITA Nos._3791,3795,3796,3814-3816/2013 Ms. Aishwarya Rai Bachchan 3. Hindustan Lever Ltd., vs. R.B.Wadkar, ACIT and others (No.1) reported in 268 ITR 332 4. Devidayal Rolling Mill and Another vs. Y.R.Saini, ACIT and others reported in 285 ITR 514 In view of the above provisions of law and decisions of the jurisdictional High Court, it is respectfully prayed before your Honour to quash the impugned order passed u/s.143(3)r.w.s.147 of the Income Tax Act. 12. On merit, AO made an addition of Rs.52,83,630/- in the assessment year 2004-2005 on account of tax deducted at source in the countrie…

DCIT CC 2, Mumbai vs. Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3816/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 220(2)Section 44ASection 80RSection 90Section 94(7)

…ported in 268 ITR 203 9 ITA Nos._3791,3795,3796,3814-3816/2013 Ms. Aishwarya Rai Bachchan 3. Hindustan Lever Ltd., vs. R.B.Wadkar, ACIT and others (No.1) reported in 268 ITR 332 4. Devidayal Rolling Mill and Another vs. Y.R.Saini, ACIT and others reported in 285 ITR 514 In view of the above provisions of law and decisions of the jurisdictional High Court, it is respectfully prayed before your Honour to quash the impugned order passed u/s.143(3)r.w.s.147 of the Income Tax Act. 12. On merit, AO made an addition of Rs.52,83,630/- in the assessment year 2004-2005 on account of tax deducted at source in the countrie…

DCIT CC 2, Mumbai vs. Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3815/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 220(2)Section 44ASection 80RSection 90Section 94(7)

…ported in 268 ITR 203 9 ITA Nos._3791,3795,3796,3814-3816/2013 Ms. Aishwarya Rai Bachchan 3. Hindustan Lever Ltd., vs. R.B.Wadkar, ACIT and others (No.1) reported in 268 ITR 332 4. Devidayal Rolling Mill and Another vs. Y.R.Saini, ACIT and others reported in 285 ITR 514 In view of the above provisions of law and decisions of the jurisdictional High Court, it is respectfully prayed before your Honour to quash the impugned order passed u/s.143(3)r.w.s.147 of the Income Tax Act. 12. On merit, AO made an addition of Rs.52,83,630/- in the assessment year 2004-2005 on account of tax deducted at source in the countrie…

DCIT CC 2, Mumbai vs. Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3814/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 220(2)Section 44ASection 80RSection 90Section 94(7)

…ported in 268 ITR 203 9 ITA Nos._3791,3795,3796,3814-3816/2013 Ms. Aishwarya Rai Bachchan 3. Hindustan Lever Ltd., vs. R.B.Wadkar, ACIT and others (No.1) reported in 268 ITR 332 4. Devidayal Rolling Mill and Another vs. Y.R.Saini, ACIT and others reported in 285 ITR 514 In view of the above provisions of law and decisions of the jurisdictional High Court, it is respectfully prayed before your Honour to quash the impugned order passed u/s.143(3)r.w.s.147 of the Income Tax Act. 12. On merit, AO made an addition of Rs.52,83,630/- in the assessment year 2004-2005 on account of tax deducted at source in the countrie…

DCIT CC 2, Mumbai vs. Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3796/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 220(2)Section 44ASection 80RSection 90Section 94(7)

…ported in 268 ITR 203 9 ITA Nos._3791,3795,3796,3814-3816/2013 Ms. Aishwarya Rai Bachchan 3. Hindustan Lever Ltd., vs. R.B.Wadkar, ACIT and others (No.1) reported in 268 ITR 332 4. Devidayal Rolling Mill and Another vs. Y.R.Saini, ACIT and others reported in 285 ITR 514 In view of the above provisions of law and decisions of the jurisdictional High Court, it is respectfully prayed before your Honour to quash the impugned order passed u/s.143(3)r.w.s.147 of the Income Tax Act. 12. On merit, AO made an addition of Rs.52,83,630/- in the assessment year 2004-2005 on account of tax deducted at source in the countrie…

DCIT Cen Cir 2, Mumbai vs. Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3795/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 220(2)Section 44ASection 80RSection 90Section 94(7)

…ported in 268 ITR 203 9 ITA Nos._3791,3795,3796,3814-3816/2013 Ms. Aishwarya Rai Bachchan 3. Hindustan Lever Ltd., vs. R.B.Wadkar, ACIT and others (No.1) reported in 268 ITR 332 4. Devidayal Rolling Mill and Another vs. Y.R.Saini, ACIT and others reported in 285 ITR 514 In view of the above provisions of law and decisions of the jurisdictional High Court, it is respectfully prayed before your Honour to quash the impugned order passed u/s.143(3)r.w.s.147 of the Income Tax Act. 12. On merit, AO made an addition of Rs.52,83,630/- in the assessment year 2004-2005 on account of tax deducted at source in the countrie…

DCIT CC 2, Mumbai vs. Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3791/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 220(2)Section 44ASection 80RSection 90Section 94(7)

…ported in 268 ITR 203 9 ITA Nos._3791,3795,3796,3814-3816/2013 Ms. Aishwarya Rai Bachchan 3. Hindustan Lever Ltd., vs. R.B.Wadkar, ACIT and others (No.1) reported in 268 ITR 332 4. Devidayal Rolling Mill and Another vs. Y.R.Saini, ACIT and others reported in 285 ITR 514 In view of the above provisions of law and decisions of the jurisdictional High Court, it is respectfully prayed before your Honour to quash the impugned order passed u/s.143(3)r.w.s.147 of the Income Tax Act. 12. On merit, AO made an addition of Rs.52,83,630/- in the assessment year 2004-2005 on account of tax deducted at source in the countrie…

268 ITR 332 4. Devidayal Rolling Mill and Another v. Y.R.Saini, ACIT (285 ITR 514) — Cited in 9 Judgments | BharatTax