39 (Bom.) 9. Grindwell Norton v. ACIT: 267 ITR 673(Bom.) 10. Orient Beverages Ltd. v. ITO

210 ITR 991High Court1994#19866 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,607 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 112(1)Section 115JAA Section 133(6)Section 133A Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147

Judgments citing 39 (Bom.) 9. Grindwell Norton v. ACIT: 267 ITR 673(Bom.) 10. Orient Beverages Ltd. v. ITO

Hero Motocorp Ltd (As Successor of Hero Investment P.Ltd), New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle 11(1), New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 1053/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(3)

…Del.) 7. German Remedies Ltd. v. DCIT: 287 ITR 494 (Bom.) 8. Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. ACIT: 268 ITR 339 (Bom.) 9. Grindwell Norton v. ACIT: 267 ITR 673(Bom.) 10. Orient Beverages Ltd. v. ITO: 208 ITR 509 (Cal.) 11. Peico Electronics & Electricals Ltd. v. DCIT: 210 ITR 991 (Cal.) 12. Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd: 216 ITR 371 (Guj.) 13. Garden Silk Mills Ltd. v. DCIT: 222 ITR 27 (Guj.) CIT vs. Veer Overseas Ltd.: ITA No. 510 of 2009 (P&H.) 18. In the present case, admittedly the notice under section 148 was issued on 31.03.2018, i.e., after the expiry of period of four years from the end of th…

DCIT, CC-2, Jaipur vs. Shri Vimal Chand Surana(HUF), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 62/JPR/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) &For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 139Section 143Section 147Section 150(2)Section 153CSection 2Section 250Section 69

…given by the Settlement Commission in an order passed on an application made by a third party has been held not sufficient so as to attract the provision of section 150 (1).” Further in the case of Peico Electronics & Electricals Ltd. v Deputy CIT. (1994) 210 ITR 991, 994 (Cal.) it is held “In order to attract the provisions of section 150 (1), it is necessary that the finding or direction must be in respect of the assessment of the year in question.” 2.1 It is further submitted that in case of A.B. Parikh v ITO (1993) 203 ITR 186, 190, 191 (Guj) that for the purpose of section 150, so as to enable the auth…

DCIT (Ltu), New Delhi vs. M/S. Gail (India) Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal filed by the ld AO on the limited issue that order passed by the ld AO is barred by limitation. Ground No. 1 is dismissed

ITA 6079/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jul 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit(Ltu), Vs. M/S. Gail (India) Ltd, Circle-1, 16, Bhikaji Cama Place, Nbcc Plaza Pusp Vihar, Rk Puram, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 263

…omponents Ltd. 343 ITR 183 (Bom) 64. D.T. & T.D.C. Ltd, 3\232 CTR 260 (Del) 65. Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company, 308 ITR 38 (Del) 66. German Remedies Ltd. 287 ITR 494 (Bom) 67. Grindwell Norton , 267 ITR 673 (Bom) 68. Pe/co Lectronics & Electricals Ltd, 210 ITR 991 (Cal) 69. Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd. 216 ITR 317 (Guj) 70. Garden Silk Mills Ltd, 222 ITR 27 (Guj) 71. Veer Overseas Ltd, ITA No. 510 of 2009 (P & H) 72. Fenner India Ltd, 241 ITR 672 (Mad) 73. Dulli Chand Singhania, 269 ITR 182 (P&H) 74. Babu Lai Jug Raj & Co.. 289 ITR 115 (Raj) 75. Shri Tirath Ram Ahuja (HUF). 306 ITR…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Neetee Clothing (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 267/DEL/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Oct 2015AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate and Shri Somil Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. Dam Kanunjna, Senior DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)Section 150Section 80Section 80HSection 80I

…Rajinder Nath v. CIT [1979] 120 ITR 14 has also taken the same view. Same opinion was also expressed by Karnatka 11 ITA No267/Del./2013 High court in the case of consolidated Coffee Ltd - 155 ITR 729 & High Court of Calcutta in the case of Peico Electronics 210 ITR 991. So, therefore, the ld. AR wants us not to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT (A) and the same may be upheld. 9. We have heard both the sides on the issues and perused the material available on record and also gone through the orders relied upon. We find that there is no dispute in the instant appeal that no assessment u/s 143 (3) or u/…