ACIT v. ICICI Security Primary Dealership Ltd.

326 ITR 347High Court2010#12670 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2021.

Judgments citing ACIT v. ICICI Security Primary Dealership Ltd.

M/S. THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE APEX BANK LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

Accordingly, Ground No.3 raised by revenue for assessment years 2011-12 stands dismissed

ITA 1761/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT)For Respondent: Shri. S. Ramasubramanyan, CA
Section 147

…s v. ACIT 283 ITR 169 (Bom)  Sri Sakthi Textiles Ltd v. JCIT 340 ITR 144 (Mad)  DIL Ltd v. ACIT 343 ITR 296 (Bom)  Sitara Diamond Pvt Ltd v. DCIT 345 ITR 91 (Bom)  ACIT v. ICICI Security Primary Dealership Ltd 348 ITR 299  CIT v. Ramakrishna Hegde [2010] 326 ITR 347 (Kar.)  CIT v. Standard Chartered Finance Ltd. [2012] 207 Taxman 136 (Kar.)  Parixit Industries (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT [2013] 352 1TR 349 (Gujarat) On the contrary, Ld.CIT.DR supported the order passed by the Ld.AO and submitted that information came to the knowledge of Ld.AO subsequently, would also form part of reason to believe of income having e…

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE - 5, BANGALORE vs. M/S. THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE APEX BANK LIMITED, BANGALORE

Accordingly, Ground No.3 raised by revenue for assessment years 2011-12 stands dismissed

ITA 1327/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT)For Respondent: Shri. S. Ramasubramanyan, CA
Section 147

…s v. ACIT 283 ITR 169 (Bom)  Sri Sakthi Textiles Ltd v. JCIT 340 ITR 144 (Mad)  DIL Ltd v. ACIT 343 ITR 296 (Bom)  Sitara Diamond Pvt Ltd v. DCIT 345 ITR 91 (Bom)  ACIT v. ICICI Security Primary Dealership Ltd 348 ITR 299  CIT v. Ramakrishna Hegde [2010] 326 ITR 347 (Kar.)  CIT v. Standard Chartered Finance Ltd. [2012] 207 Taxman 136 (Kar.)  Parixit Industries (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT [2013] 352 1TR 349 (Gujarat) On the contrary, Ld.CIT.DR supported the order passed by the Ld.AO and submitted that information came to the knowledge of Ld.AO subsequently, would also form part of reason to believe of income having e…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE APEX BANK LTD , BANGALORE

Accordingly, Ground No.3 raised by revenue for assessment years 2011-12 stands dismissed

ITA 2160/BANG/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT)For Respondent: Shri. S. Ramasubramanyan, CA
Section 147

…s v. ACIT 283 ITR 169 (Bom)  Sri Sakthi Textiles Ltd v. JCIT 340 ITR 144 (Mad)  DIL Ltd v. ACIT 343 ITR 296 (Bom)  Sitara Diamond Pvt Ltd v. DCIT 345 ITR 91 (Bom)  ACIT v. ICICI Security Primary Dealership Ltd 348 ITR 299  CIT v. Ramakrishna Hegde [2010] 326 ITR 347 (Kar.)  CIT v. Standard Chartered Finance Ltd. [2012] 207 Taxman 136 (Kar.)  Parixit Industries (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT [2013] 352 1TR 349 (Gujarat) On the contrary, Ld.CIT.DR supported the order passed by the Ld.AO and submitted that information came to the knowledge of Ld.AO subsequently, would also form part of reason to believe of income having e…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE APEX BANK LTD , BANGALORE

Accordingly, Ground No.3 raised by revenue for assessment years 2011-12 stands dismissed

ITA 2150/BANG/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT)For Respondent: Shri. S. Ramasubramanyan, CA
Section 147

…s v. ACIT 283 ITR 169 (Bom)  Sri Sakthi Textiles Ltd v. JCIT 340 ITR 144 (Mad)  DIL Ltd v. ACIT 343 ITR 296 (Bom)  Sitara Diamond Pvt Ltd v. DCIT 345 ITR 91 (Bom)  ACIT v. ICICI Security Primary Dealership Ltd 348 ITR 299  CIT v. Ramakrishna Hegde [2010] 326 ITR 347 (Kar.)  CIT v. Standard Chartered Finance Ltd. [2012] 207 Taxman 136 (Kar.)  Parixit Industries (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT [2013] 352 1TR 349 (Gujarat) On the contrary, Ld.CIT.DR supported the order passed by the Ld.AO and submitted that information came to the knowledge of Ld.AO subsequently, would also form part of reason to believe of income having e…

KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE APEX BANK LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

Accordingly, Ground No.3 raised by revenue for assessment years 2011-12 stands dismissed

ITA 2082/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT)For Respondent: Shri. S. Ramasubramanyan, CA
Section 147

…s v. ACIT 283 ITR 169 (Bom)  Sri Sakthi Textiles Ltd v. JCIT 340 ITR 144 (Mad)  DIL Ltd v. ACIT 343 ITR 296 (Bom)  Sitara Diamond Pvt Ltd v. DCIT 345 ITR 91 (Bom)  ACIT v. ICICI Security Primary Dealership Ltd 348 ITR 299  CIT v. Ramakrishna Hegde [2010] 326 ITR 347 (Kar.)  CIT v. Standard Chartered Finance Ltd. [2012] 207 Taxman 136 (Kar.)  Parixit Industries (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT [2013] 352 1TR 349 (Gujarat) On the contrary, Ld.CIT.DR supported the order passed by the Ld.AO and submitted that information came to the knowledge of Ld.AO subsequently, would also form part of reason to believe of income having e…

M/S NXP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 847/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…is invalid Techspan India Pvt Ltd v ITO (2006) 283 ITR 212 (Delhi 7. High Court) CIT vs Kelvinator of India Ltd (2010) 320 ITR 561 (Supreme 8. Court) Legato System (India) Pvt Ltd vs DCIT (2010) (187 Taxman 9. 294) (Delhi High Court) CIT Vs Ramakrishna Hegde (326 ITR 347) (2010) (Karnataka 10. High Court) Reassessment based on audit objection is void ab initio Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society vs CIT (119 ITR 996) (Supreme 11. Court) Raj Ratna Metal Industries Ltd vs ACIT (SLP No. 7140 of 2014) (Gujarat 12. High Court) Commissioner of Income Tax -12 vs DRM Enterprises [2015] 55 13. Taxmann 181 (Bombay High Cou…

M/S. AKSHAYA SOUHARDA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE LIMITED,CHIKKABALLAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 1, CHIKKABALLAPUR

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

ITA 2574/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Mar 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Sri.Sandeep, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Council for DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

…Hence, it is clear that the material for formation of belief has not come from external source. On this ground also, the reassessment is bad in law. To support his case, the learned AR relied on the following judgments:- (i) CIT v. Ramakrishna Hedge [(2010) 326 ITR 347 (Kar.)] (ii) CIT v. Stndard Chartered Finance Ltd. [(2012) 207 Taxman 136 (Kar.) (Mag.)] / [(2012) 21 Taxman.com 495 (Kar.)] (iii) Parixit Industries (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT [(2013) 352 ITR 349 (Guj.)] (iv) H.K.Buildcon Ltd. v. ITO [(2011) 339 ITR 535 (Guj.)] (v) Lahneyer Holdings GmbH v. DCIT [376 ITR 70 (Del.)] 7 M/s.Akshaya Souharda Credit Co-op L…

THE SRI KANNIKAPARAMESHWARI CO-OP BANK LIMITED,DAVANGERE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, DAVANGERE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1364/BANG/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Sept 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri A.K.Garodia, Accounant Member

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, CAFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80PSection 80P(2)

…refore, not valid. In support of this contention, he placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements a) Sheo Nath Singh Vs Appellate Asst. Commissioner of IT 82 ITR 147(SC) b) CIT Vs Orient Crafts Ltd., 354 ITR 536(Del.) c) CIT Vs Ramakrishna Hegde 326 ITR 347(Kar.) 4. The ld. DR of the revenue supported the orders of the authorities below. 5. I have considered the rivals submissions. First, I reproduce the reasons recorded by the AO for re-opening which are available on page- 189 of the paper book. 3 ITA No.1364(Bang)2016 F.No.AADTS3885J/ITO/W-3/DVG/09-10 The Office Of the ITO, Ward-3, CR Build…

ACIT v. ICICI Security Primary Dealership Ltd. (326 ITR 347) — Cited in 8 Judgments | BharatTax