ACIT v. Dhariya Construction Co.

397 ITR 197High Court2017#17831 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2023.

Judgments citing ACIT v. Dhariya Construction Co.

DCIT(Ltu) - 1, Mumbai vs. Acc Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3176/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 55A

…& Haryana). The Ld.AR has further stated that reassessment proceedings to give effect to DVO's report is not sustainable in law for which reliance was placed on decision of ACIT v. Dhariya Construction Co. [(2010) 328 ITR 515 (SC)], Kamala Ojha v. ITO [(2017) 397 ITR 197 (Chattisgarh HC)] and CIT v. Meena Devi Mansinghka [(2008) 303 ITR 351 (Rajasthan HC)]. The Ld AR has further stated that Prior to 1-7-2012, reference u/s. 55A is invalid if value of asset as per registered valuer appointed by assessee was more than its FMV in the opinion of Assessing Officer for which reliance was mainly placed on following deci…

Acc Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT(Ltu) - 1, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3136/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 55A

…& Haryana). The Ld.AR has further stated that reassessment proceedings to give effect to DVO's report is not sustainable in law for which reliance was placed on decision of ACIT v. Dhariya Construction Co. [(2010) 328 ITR 515 (SC)], Kamala Ojha v. ITO [(2017) 397 ITR 197 (Chattisgarh HC)] and CIT v. Meena Devi Mansinghka [(2008) 303 ITR 351 (Rajasthan HC)]. The Ld AR has further stated that Prior to 1-7-2012, reference u/s. 55A is invalid if value of asset as per registered valuer appointed by assessee was more than its FMV in the opinion of Assessing Officer for which reliance was mainly placed on following deci…

Acc Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT(Ltu) - 1, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3135/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 55A

…& Haryana). The Ld.AR has further stated that reassessment proceedings to give effect to DVO's report is not sustainable in law for which reliance was placed on decision of ACIT v. Dhariya Construction Co. [(2010) 328 ITR 515 (SC)], Kamala Ojha v. ITO [(2017) 397 ITR 197 (Chattisgarh HC)] and CIT v. Meena Devi Mansinghka [(2008) 303 ITR 351 (Rajasthan HC)]. The Ld AR has further stated that Prior to 1-7-2012, reference u/s. 55A is invalid if value of asset as per registered valuer appointed by assessee was more than its FMV in the opinion of Assessing Officer for which reliance was mainly placed on following deci…

Soumya Ranjan Mohanty, Bhubaneswar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2), Bhubaneswar

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 421/CTK/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack31 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini

For Appellant: Shri K.K.Bal/S.D.Nayak, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…order. In case of the assessee this has not been done by the AO and, therefore, the order of AO is not tenable in law and, hence, should be quashed. 7. He relied on the decision of Hon’ble Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of Smt. Kamala Ojha Vs. ITO & Ors, 397 ITR 197, where the Hon’ble High Court held that the order disposing of the preliminary objection to the reopening of the assessment is not in accordance with law and secondly the order finally passed making reassessment is also contrary to law. 8. He further relied on the decision of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Asha Jain, ITA No.3519/Del./…

Soumya Ranjan Mohanty, Bhubaneswar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2), Bhubaneswar

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 420/CTK/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack31 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini

For Appellant: Shri K.K.Bal/S.D.Nayak, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…order. In case of the assessee this has not been done by the AO and, therefore, the order of AO is not tenable in law and, hence, should be quashed. 7. He relied on the decision of Hon’ble Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of Smt. Kamala Ojha Vs. ITO & Ors, 397 ITR 197, where the Hon’ble High Court held that the order disposing of the preliminary objection to the reopening of the assessment is not in accordance with law and secondly the order finally passed making reassessment is also contrary to law. 8. He further relied on the decision of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Asha Jain, ITA No.3519/Del./…

ACIT v. Dhariya Construction Co. (397 ITR 197) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax