Ador Technopack Ltd. v. Dr. Zakir Hussein, Deputy CIT

271 ITR 50High Court2004#20245 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 350,364 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2018.

Judgments citing Ador Technopack Ltd. v. Dr. Zakir Hussein, Deputy CIT

ITO, WD-2(1), Kolkata vs. Sri Sheila Sen, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 554/KOL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Sept 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara] I.T.A. No. 554/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Kolkata....…….............................................…………….…….……...Appellant P-7, Chowringhee Square 7Th Floor Room No.21 Kolkata – 700 069 Shri Sheila Sen.................................................…………………………….……………..……………………..…. Respondent (L/H Of Late Bimalendu Sen) 16, Convent Road Kolkata -14 [Pan : Alpp 5489 B] C.O. No. 28/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sheila Sen.................................................…………………………….……………..……………………....…. Appellant (L/H Of Late Bimalendu Sen) 16, Convent Road Kolkata -14 [Pan : Alpp 5489 B] Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Kolkata....…….............................................…………….…….……...Appellant P-7, Chowringhee Square 7Th Floor Room No.21 Kolkata – 700 069

Section 250Section 45(3)Section 50C

…ntly survives. During the pendency of the further proceedings, obviously the impugned notice could not have been issued. Mr. Sathe has relied upon a decision of this court in the case of Ador Technopack Ltd. v. Dr. Zakir Hussein, Deputy CIT reported in [2004] 271 ITR 50, to the effect that during the pendency of such proceedings the assessment could not be treated as final. In the circumstances, we allow the petition and quash and set aside the notice dated February 13, 2006. Accordingly, rule is made absolute as above. No order as to costs.” 6.2. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court, quashed the notice. Applying the p…

ITO, WD-2(1), Kolkata vs. Sri Nirmalendu Sen, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 23/KOL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Sept 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara] I.T.A. No. 554/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Kolkata....…….............................................…………….…….……...Appellant P-7, Chowringhee Square 7Th Floor Room No.21 Kolkata – 700 069 Shri Sheila Sen.................................................…………………………….……………..……………………..…. Respondent (L/H Of Late Bimalendu Sen) 16, Convent Road Kolkata -14 [Pan : Alpp 5489 B] C.O. No. 28/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sheila Sen.................................................…………………………….……………..……………………....…. Appellant (L/H Of Late Bimalendu Sen) 16, Convent Road Kolkata -14 [Pan : Alpp 5489 B] Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Kolkata....…….............................................…………….…….……...Appellant P-7, Chowringhee Square 7Th Floor Room No.21 Kolkata – 700 069

Section 250Section 45(3)Section 50C

…ntly survives. During the pendency of the further proceedings, obviously the impugned notice could not have been issued. Mr. Sathe has relied upon a decision of this court in the case of Ador Technopack Ltd. v. Dr. Zakir Hussein, Deputy CIT reported in [2004] 271 ITR 50, to the effect that during the pendency of such proceedings the assessment could not be treated as final. In the circumstances, we allow the petition and quash and set aside the notice dated February 13, 2006. Accordingly, rule is made absolute as above. No order as to costs.” 6.2. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court, quashed the notice. Applying the p…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Kakade Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Pune

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 854/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri HarikrishanFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar &
Section 131Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

…sions, the ld. AR placed reliance on the following decisions. i) Trustees of H.E.H the Nizam’s Supplement Family Trust Vs. CIT, reported as 242 ITR 381 (SC) ii) Ador Technopack Ltd. Vs. Dr.Zakir Hussein, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors., reported as 271 ITR 50 ( Bombay). 6.1 The ld. AR pointed that assessment order dated 28.03.2013 was passed in consequence of notice u/s. 148 of the Act. This fact is evident from the computation of total income wherein the Assessing Officer specifically mentioned “Income as per return of income filed on 10.01.2013: Rs.12,32,71,031/-”. The assessee had declared the s…

DCIT Cir 7(1), Mumbai vs. Sheth Financial Services P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 5406/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5406/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06) D.C.I.T. Cir. 7(1), M/S Sheth Financial बनाम/ Room No. 622, Services P. Ltd., V. Aayakar Bhavan, (Formerly Known As P L M.K. Road, Research & Development Churchgate, Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai -400020. Sadhna House, 3 Rd Floor,, 570 P.B. Marg, Behind Mahindra Tower, Worli, Mumbai – 400 018. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aabcp4312L .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Hiro Rai
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 32

…ure on the part of the assessee in making a true and fully disclosure during the course of original assessment proceedings . The assessee has rightly relied on the following decisions:- 1. ICICI Bank v. DCIT, 268 ITR 203(Bom) 2. Ador Technopack Ltd. v. DCIT, 271 ITR 50 (Bom) 3. Supreme Treves P. Ltd. v. DCIT, 323 ITR 323(Bom) 4. Betts India P. Ltd. v. DCIT, 235 Taxmann 77 (Bom) It was also observed that there was no escapement of income due to failure on the part of the assessee to truly and fully disclose all the material for framing of the original assessment , while during original assessment proceedings u/s…

Ador Technopack Ltd. v. Dr. Zakir Hussein, Deputy CIT (271 ITR 50) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax