A.B. Parikh v. ITO (203 ITR 186)

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SAAMAG CONSTRUCTION LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as above

ITA 3738/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 132(1)Section 148Section 153ASection 69C

…under section 149 of the Act. Hence, the notice issued under section 148 of the Act was barred by limitation being invalid and void ab-initio. Reliance was placed on the decisions in the cases of Rural Electrification Corporation Ltd. 355 ITR 345, A.B. Parikh 203 ITR 186 (Guj), C.A. Gulanikar vs. Ramnaran Sons (P) Ltd. 119 ITR 83 (Bom.), Uttrakhand Van Vikas Nigam (2016) 66 taxmnann.com 87 (Uttrakhand), G, Viswanatham 172 ITR 401 and Gupta Traders (1982) 10 Taxman 199 (Alld.). 5.3 The Ld. Counsel, drawing our attention to the following part of the order of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Rural Electr…

SRI.PARAYARUKANDY VETTATH GANGADHARAN,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT CIRCLE-1(1), CALICUT

In the result, the instant appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 157/COCH/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Apr 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasparayarukandy Vettath Gangadharan Dy. Cit, Circle - 1(1) Kerala Transport Company (Decd., Calicut Vs. Represented By Lrs.) K.T.C. Building, Ymca Calicut 673001 [Pan: Adhpg8318B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar C., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 150(1)Section 153Section 2(22)(e)Section 268A

…least 7 Parayarukandy Vettath Gangadharan (Decd.) v. Dy. CIT ordinarily, i.e., that the firm, inasmuch as it is comprised of it’s partners for the time being, stands heard when a partner/s is heard. This distinguishes the decision in A.B. Parikh v. ITO [1993] 203 ITR 186 (Guj), relied upon before us. The law, it needs to be appreciated, is not a dead letter word, but an organic, living document, which is therefore to be read meaningfully and purposively. The entire exercise of interpretation is to give effect to the legislative intent; the statute being an edict of the Legislature [Britannia Industries Ltd. v. CI…

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

…, 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 authority to issue the notice under section 148 at any time without being curtailed by the time-limit prescribed under section 149, there must be satisfaction of the ingredients under Explanation 2 16 Shri Vimal Chand Surana HUF to section 153. The first ingredient is that…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR.-2,, SURAT vs. SHRI RAMESHBHAI RAGHAVBHAI BHADANI, SURAT

In the result, summarized and concise ground No

ITA 45/SRT/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./It(Ss)A Nos.25 &31/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Deputy Commissioner Of Rameshbhai Raghavbhai Bhadani, Prop. Of M/S Rangeela Fashion, 14, Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Room No. 505, 5Th Floor, Nirman Industrial Estate, A.K. Road, Fulpada, Surat Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Vs. Surat-395001. Deputy Commissioner Of Income- Rameshbai Raghavhai Bhadani Plot No.14-16, Nirman Tax, Central Circle-2, Room No.505, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Industrial Estate, A./K. Road, Surat-395008 Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adkpb 0556 F (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.45/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) Deputy Commissioner Of Shri Rameshbhai Raghavbhai Income-Tax, Circle-3, Room No. Bhadani, Prop. Of M/S Rangeela Vs. 505, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Fashion, 14, Nirman Industrial Majura Gate, Surat-395001. Estate, A.K. Road, Fulpada, Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adkpb 0556 F (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri H. P. Meena, CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 143(3)

…rakhand Van Vikas Nigam [66 taxmann.com 87 (Utt. HC)  Rural Electrification Corporation Ltd. Vs. CIT [34 taxmann.com 197 (Del. HC) IT(SS)A Nos.25, 31, 45, 26 & 30/SRT/2021 A.Ys.13-14 & 14-15 Rameshbhai R Bhadani & Jayeshkumar D Mistry  A.B. Parikh vs. ITO [203 ITR 186 (Guj HC)  Vijay Kumar Sarda vs. DCIT [40 taxmann.com 113 (Mum. Trib) 7. Further it is submitted that as stated above, the Revenue has not placed the order in the course of hearing of the present appeal in the case of Rameshbhai R. Bhadani and Jayeshbhai D. Mistry and so, they have not accepted the orders of the CIT(Appeals) more so, when the Rev…

THE JOINT LESSEES OF INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,,MUMBAI vs. ITO 20 (2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the assessee appeal is allowed

ITA 2797/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalethe Joint Lessees Of Vs. Ito – 20(2)(1), Industrial Estate, Piramal Chambers, 1St Floor, Estate Bldg Ii Floor,Lalbaug, Lalbaug Industrial Mumbai – 400012 Estate, Dr B.A. Road, Mumbai – 400012 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaaj7202Q Appellant .. Respondent Ito – 20(2)(1) Vs. The Joint Lessees Of Piramal Chambers, Industrial Estate, Ii Floor,Lalbaug, 1St Floor, Estate Bldg Mumbai – 400012 Lalbaug Industrial Estate, Dr B.A.Road, Mumbai – 400012 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaaj7202Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant /Respondent By Shri G.P Mehta.Ar : Respondent/Appellant By Shri T. Shankar.Dr : Date Of Hearing 11.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09.05.2022 आदेश / O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153Section 24(1)(a)Section 50C

…IT Vs Homi Mehta & Sons Pvt Ltd 137 ITR 213(Bom). 3. Rakesh Dutt Vs. ACIT & Ors, 311 ITR 247 (Bom). ITA No. 2797 & 3203/Mum/2016 The Joint Lessees of Industrial Estate, Mumbai. 4. Lotus Investment Ltd. V GYWagh ACIT &Ors,288 ITR 459(Bom). 5..AB Parikh V. ITO 203 ITR 186 (Guj.) 14. We considering the facts, information and interpretation on the provisions of law, find reasonableness in the submissions of the Ld.AR duly supported with judicial decisions and provisions of law and the discussions held in the above paragraphs on the facts with respect to issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act and the provisions of Sec. 1…

25FPS MEDIA PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO ,RANGE -6(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 3085/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2798/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2012-13) Ito, Range-6(3)(1) बिधम/ 25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd. Room No.524, 5Th Floor, 18Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower 400020. Parel, Mumbai-400013. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3085/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिधम/ 25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Range-6(3)(1) 18Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Room No.524, 5Th Floor, Vs. N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Parel, Mumbai-400013. 400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacz2076J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Percy Pardiwala & Madhur Aggarwal Revenue By: Shri Achal Sharma (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Jm): The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2012-13. Ita. No.2798/Mum/2018 2. The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai Relevant To The A.Y.2012-13. 3085/M/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 3. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala & MadhurFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37Section 56(1)

…e Authority cannot be 43 3085/M/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 subject matter of consideration while disposing of an appeal, in exercise of the powers vested in the first Appellate Authority under section 251 of the Income Tax Act. In the case of A.B. Parikh v. ITO [1993] 203 ITR 186 the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court had considered identical issue with regard to extension of time limit by virtue of provisions of section 150(1) of the Income Tax Act and in that regard the Court observed that in order to issue such directions, which would amount to enhancing the assessment of a third party, such person must have been put on notice…

ITO 6(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. 25 FPS MEDIA PVT. LTD. , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 2798/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2798/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2012-13) Ito, Range-6(3)(1) बिधम/ 25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd. Room No.524, 5Th Floor, 18Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower 400020. Parel, Mumbai-400013. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3085/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिधम/ 25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Range-6(3)(1) 18Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Room No.524, 5Th Floor, Vs. N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Parel, Mumbai-400013. 400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacz2076J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Percy Pardiwala & Madhur Aggarwal Revenue By: Shri Achal Sharma (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Jm): The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2012-13. Ita. No.2798/Mum/2018 2. The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai Relevant To The A.Y.2012-13. 3085/M/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 3. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala & MadhurFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37Section 56(1)

…e Authority cannot be 43 3085/M/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 subject matter of consideration while disposing of an appeal, in exercise of the powers vested in the first Appellate Authority under section 251 of the Income Tax Act. In the case of A.B. Parikh v. ITO [1993] 203 ITR 186 the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court had considered identical issue with regard to extension of time limit by virtue of provisions of section 150(1) of the Income Tax Act and in that regard the Court observed that in order to issue such directions, which would amount to enhancing the assessment of a third party, such person must have been put on notice…

A.B. Parikh v. ITO

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing A.B. Parikh v. ITO