82 ITR, 888 (SC) 2. Addl. C.I.T v. Prem Kumar Rastogi

147 ITR 379High Court#13477 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2023.

Judgments citing 82 ITR, 888 (SC) 2. Addl. C.I.T v. Prem Kumar Rastogi

SUBRATA PURKAIT,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 26(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 103/KOL/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 May 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 24Section 250

…s, prayed that the matter may be restored back to the file of ld. CIT(A). In support, reliance placed on the following: 1. C.I.T. vs. Ramendra Nath Ghosh - 82 ITR, 888 (SC) 2. Addl. C.I.T. vs. Prem Kumar Rastogi - 124 ITR, 381(AII) 3. C.I.T. vs. Girdharilal - 147 ITR 379 (Raj) 4. Johar Forest Works vs. C.I.T. - 1071.T.R., 409 (J&K) 4. On the other hand, ld. D/R though supported the order of both the lower authorities but did not oppose to the request of the assessee. 5. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. From perusal of the impugned order in the case of ITA Nos. 101 & 102/KO…

SUBRATA PURKAIT,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 26(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 102/KOL/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 May 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 24Section 250

…s, prayed that the matter may be restored back to the file of ld. CIT(A). In support, reliance placed on the following: 1. C.I.T. vs. Ramendra Nath Ghosh - 82 ITR, 888 (SC) 2. Addl. C.I.T. vs. Prem Kumar Rastogi - 124 ITR, 381(AII) 3. C.I.T. vs. Girdharilal - 147 ITR 379 (Raj) 4. Johar Forest Works vs. C.I.T. - 1071.T.R., 409 (J&K) 4. On the other hand, ld. D/R though supported the order of both the lower authorities but did not oppose to the request of the assessee. 5. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. From perusal of the impugned order in the case of ITA Nos. 101 & 102/KO…

SUBRATA PURKAIT,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 26(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 101/KOL/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 May 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 24Section 250

…s, prayed that the matter may be restored back to the file of ld. CIT(A). In support, reliance placed on the following: 1. C.I.T. vs. Ramendra Nath Ghosh - 82 ITR, 888 (SC) 2. Addl. C.I.T. vs. Prem Kumar Rastogi - 124 ITR, 381(AII) 3. C.I.T. vs. Girdharilal - 147 ITR 379 (Raj) 4. Johar Forest Works vs. C.I.T. - 1071.T.R., 409 (J&K) 4. On the other hand, ld. D/R though supported the order of both the lower authorities but did not oppose to the request of the assessee. 5. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. From perusal of the impugned order in the case of ITA Nos. 101 & 102/KO…

M/S FORTUNE METALIKS LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. PR.CIT(CENTRAL), LUDHIANA

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 82/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Mar 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR Khanna
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

…notice which proceeds on the footing that effective opportunity of being ITA 82 /CHD/2021 A.Y. 2016-17 Page 32 of 35 heard was denied to the assessee, we find the order passed deserves to be quashed. For this, reference may be made to CIT Vs Girdh ari Lal 147 ITR 379 (Raj). Reference may also be made to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sona Builders Vs Union of India 251 ITR 197 (S.C) which, no doubt was in the context of acquisition of immovable property , wherein the Appropriate Authority had not granted sufficient opportunity of being heard to the parties, the Court considering the statuto…

SH. ANIL KUMAR SINGHAL,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT, GHAZIABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2390/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishianita Rani, Vs. Pr. Cit, C/O. M/S. Rra Taxindia, Ghaziabad C-28, South Extension Part-I, New Delhi Pan: Azapr3313C (Appellant) (Respondent) Ankush Singhal, Vs. Pr. Cit, C/O. M/S. Rra Taxindia, Ghaziabad C-28, South Extension Part-I, New Delhi Pan: Azapr3313C (Appellant) (Respondent) Anil Kumar Singhal, Vs. Pr. Cit, C/O. M/S. Rra Taxindia, Ghaziabad C-28, South Extension Part-I, New Delhi Pan: Azapr3313C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Raman Chopra, CIT DR
Section 263Section 292B

…er of income tax suffers from the basic jurisdictional defect. He further relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in 86 taxmann.com 35 (Delhi) in Tulsi Tracom Private limited vs CIT and also the decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in 147 ITR 379 in CIT vs Girdhari Lal. Therefore, it is submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee has no notice has been served on the assessee before passing any order under section 263 of the income tax act. 5. The learned departmental representative vehemently contested the argument of the learned authorised representative and su…

SH. ANKUSH SINGHAL,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT, GHAZIABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2389/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishianita Rani, Vs. Pr. Cit, C/O. M/S. Rra Taxindia, Ghaziabad C-28, South Extension Part-I, New Delhi Pan: Azapr3313C (Appellant) (Respondent) Ankush Singhal, Vs. Pr. Cit, C/O. M/S. Rra Taxindia, Ghaziabad C-28, South Extension Part-I, New Delhi Pan: Azapr3313C (Appellant) (Respondent) Anil Kumar Singhal, Vs. Pr. Cit, C/O. M/S. Rra Taxindia, Ghaziabad C-28, South Extension Part-I, New Delhi Pan: Azapr3313C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Raman Chopra, CIT DR
Section 263Section 292B

…er of income tax suffers from the basic jurisdictional defect. He further relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in 86 taxmann.com 35 (Delhi) in Tulsi Tracom Private limited vs CIT and also the decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in 147 ITR 379 in CIT vs Girdhari Lal. Therefore, it is submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee has no notice has been served on the assessee before passing any order under section 263 of the income tax act. 5. The learned departmental representative vehemently contested the argument of the learned authorised representative and su…

SMT. ANITA RANI,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT, GHAZIABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2388/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishianita Rani, Vs. Pr. Cit, C/O. M/S. Rra Taxindia, Ghaziabad C-28, South Extension Part-I, New Delhi Pan: Azapr3313C (Appellant) (Respondent) Ankush Singhal, Vs. Pr. Cit, C/O. M/S. Rra Taxindia, Ghaziabad C-28, South Extension Part-I, New Delhi Pan: Azapr3313C (Appellant) (Respondent) Anil Kumar Singhal, Vs. Pr. Cit, C/O. M/S. Rra Taxindia, Ghaziabad C-28, South Extension Part-I, New Delhi Pan: Azapr3313C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Raman Chopra, CIT DR
Section 263Section 292B

…er of income tax suffers from the basic jurisdictional defect. He further relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in 86 taxmann.com 35 (Delhi) in Tulsi Tracom Private limited vs CIT and also the decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in 147 ITR 379 in CIT vs Girdhari Lal. Therefore, it is submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee has no notice has been served on the assessee before passing any order under section 263 of the income tax act. 5. The learned departmental representative vehemently contested the argument of the learned authorised representative and su…

82 ITR, 888 (SC) 2. Addl. C.I.T v. Prem Kumar Rastogi (147 ITR 379) — Cited in 7 Judgments | BharatTax