31. In Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow v. Prem Kumar Rastogi

124 ITR 381High Court1980#22244 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,607 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2019.

Judgments citing 31. In Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow v. Prem Kumar Rastogi

Anidhi Impex P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 4(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 2041/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh() & Shri G Manjunatha () Anidhi Impex Pvt Ltd Vs Ito-4(1)(3), Mumbai C/O A Porwal & Associates 201, Rajshila, 597, Jss Road Near Marine Lines, Mumbai- 400 002 Pan : Aaeca7748J Appellant Respondednt

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 282Section 68

…All. HC Ltd. (2017) (390 ITR381) 3. CITv.ChetanGupta (2016) DelHC (382 ITR 613) 4. CIT v. Dr. Ajay Prakash All. HC (2014) (42 taxmann.com 387) 5. CIT v. Rajesh Kumar Sharma Del. HC (2007) (165 Taxman 488) 6. Addl. CIT v. Prem Kumar All. HC Rastogi (1980) (124 ITR 381) 7. Jayanthi Talkies Mad. HC Distributors v. CIT ( 1 979) (120 ITR 576) 8. Heaven Distillery (P.) Ltd. v. Mum. ITAT 1TO (2017) (185TTJ 197) 9.DCIT v. M/s. M. K. Enterprise (ITA Nos. !81and426/Kol/2013) 10. Anil Kumar Goel v. ITO (2008) (116 TTJ 239) 11.Hind Book House v. ITO (2005) (92ITD 415) 12. ITO v. Suraj Prakash (1984) (7 ITD 839) 13…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Sudev Industries Ltd

ITA/805/2005HC Delhi31 May 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 230A(1)Section 260ASection 282(2)

…artner of a firm in which the assessee was a partner was rejected for several reasons. This order takes into account cumulative facts, which established prejudice. 31. In Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow versus Prem Kumar Rastogi, [1980] 124 ITR 381 (All), the issue raised related to starting point for computation of period of limitation for appeal, and in that context it was held that the service on third person who was not an authorized agent would not matter. ITA No. 805 /2005…

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/S Sudev Industries Limited

ITA-805/2005HC Delhi31 May 2018
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 230A(1)Section 260ASection 282(2)

…artner of a firm in which the assessee was a partner was rejected for several reasons. This order takes into account cumulative facts, which established prejudice. 31. In Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow versus Prem Kumar Rastogi, [1980] 124 ITR 381 (All), the issue raised related to starting point for computation of period of limitation for appeal, and in that context it was held that the service on third person who was not an authorized agent would not matter. 2018:DHC:3632-DB ITA No. 805 /2005…

31. In Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow v. Prem Kumar Rastogi (124 ITR 381) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax