How many judgments cite Allana Cold Storage Ltd. v. ITO?

26 judgments on BharatTax cite Allana Cold Storage Ltd. v. ITO (287 ITR 1), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Allana Cold Storage Ltd. v. ITO come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 148, Section 143(2), Section 142(1), Section 68.

Allana Cold Storage Ltd. v. ITO

287 ITR 1High Court2006#4489 most cited

What is Allana Cold Storage Ltd. v. ITO authority for?

Issuing a notice under section 143(2) simultaneously with the furnishing of reasons for reopening is not compliant with the law. The Assessing Officer must dispose of the assessee's objections against a reassessment notice before proceeding.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Allana Cold Storage Ltd. v. ITO · 287 ITR 1 · Section 143(2) · Section 148 · reopening of assessment · notice under section 148 · reassessment proceedings · objections against notice · concurrent notice · Bombay High Court

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 148 Section 143(2)Section 142(1)Section 68 Section 10(38)Section 11

Issues it is cited on

reason to believe reopening of assessment accommodation entry notice under section 148 reassessment proceedings section 148 section 147 section 143(2)section 13 section 143 section 143(3)india

Judgments citing Allana Cold Storage Ltd. v. ITO

Income Tax Officer, Ward 16(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Kailash Mulchand Kothari, Mumbai

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is allowed, and the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2727/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 10(38)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘E’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Income Tax Officer, Vs. Kailash Mulchand Ward 16(2)(1), Kothari Mumbai A-2005, Cosmic Height, Bhakti Park Wadala East Mumbai- 400 024 PAN/GIR No.AADPK9073C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) CO No.133/Mum/2025 (Arising out of ITA No.2727/Mum/2025) (Assessment Year :2015-16) Kailash Mulchand Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Kothari 16(2)(1), A-2005, Cosmic Mumbai Height, Bhakti Park Wadala East Mumbai- 400 024 PAN/GIR No.AADPK9073C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Prakash Jhu…

Aysha Siddiqui, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3), Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 329/NAG/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur03 Apr 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 50C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER SMC MATTER ITA no.329/Nag./2022 (Assessment Year : 2014–15) Aysha Siddiqui Opp. Gupta Kiran ……………. Appellant Bhandara Road, Bhagwaghar Chowk Nagpur 440 018 PAN – CRXPS4003F v/s Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–4(3), Nagpur Assessee by : Shri Abhay Agrawal Revenue by : Shri Abhay Y. Marathe Date of Hearing – 01/04/2025 Date of Order – 03/04/2025 O R D E R Captioned appeal by the assessee is emanating from the impugned order dated 10/08/2022, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals),…

Amit Khatri, Sonipat vs. ITO, Ward 1, Sonipat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as

ITA 2430/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2430/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 बनाम Amit Khatri Income Tax Officer Ward No.30, Garhi Bhraman, Vs. Ward-1, Sonipat, Haryana. Sonipat, Haryana. Pan No. Bdspk3438G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 147Section 148Section 151

…of M/s Sabh Infrastructure Ltd. vs ACIT 398 ITR 198 (Del) and M/s Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. vs. CIT and Anr 308 ITR 38 (Del.) and also decision of Hon’ble Bombay High I.T.A. No. 2430/Del/2023 Court in the case of M/s Allana Cold Storage Ltd vs ITO 287 ITR 1 (Bom) . Further reliance is also placed in the decisions cited hereunder: • PCIT v Jagat Talkies Distributors [2017] 85 taxmann.com 189(Delhi); • PCIT v V. Ramaiah [2019] 103 taxmann.com 201 (Kar) approved in 103 taxmann.com 202(SC); • CIT vs M/s Trend Electronics [2015]61 taxmann.com 308( Bom); • CIT v Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (340 ITR 66) (Bom)…

Amita Multitrade Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4 (3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with above direction

ITA 279/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm Amita Multitrade Private Limited Dcit Central Circle 4(3) Room No. 1921, 19Th Floor, 401/A, Pearl Arcade, Opp K Jewellers, Air India Building, Vs. Dawood Baug Lane, Nariman Point, Off Jp Road, Andheri West, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400058 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaica1012D Assessee By : Shri Ashok Bansa & Shri Ajay Daga, Ars : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing: 18.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2024

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Bansa &

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…) of the Act simultaneously with the furnishing of reasons recorded is not in accordance with the decision of the Apex Court in the case of GKN Driveshaft [259 ITR 19(SC)] as held by the jurisdictional high court in the case of Allana Cold Storage Co. vs. ITO 287 ITR 1 (Bom.); in the case of Asian Paints Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (2008) 290 ITR 90 (Bom); and in the case of Bayer Material Science (P) Ltd. 382 ITR 333 (Bom.). Amita Multitrade Pvt. Ltd.; A.Y. 2010-11 2.iii. Moreover, the Id. CIT(A) did not appreciate that the AO made the addition on a ground other than the ground on which the reasons were recorded rendering…

Pooja Hardware Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT - 13 (1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3712/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Vipul Joshi &For Respondent: Mr. H.M. Bhatt, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 35Section 35(1)(i)Section 35(1)(ii)

…nt and matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. In the case of Allana the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. In the case of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. In the case of Cold Storage Ltd. v. ITO [2006] 287 ITR 1 (Bombay), the Cold Storage Ltd. v. ITO [2006] 287 ITR 1 (Bombay), Cold Storage Ltd. v. ITO [2006] 287 ITR 1 (Bombay), M/s Pooja Hardware Pvt. Ltd. 12 M/s Pooja Hardware Pvt. Ltd. Assessing Officer did not dispose off the objection Assessing Officer did not dispose off the objections of the assessee against reassessment notice, t ent notice, thus t…

Rajesh Kumar Khandelwal, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 14/JPR/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: None (Written Submission)For Respondent: Shri Manoj Mehar (CIT) a

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

…by the AO. It was mandatory for the AO to decide objections and the exercise of discretion on the objections would in any case not validate the notice under s. 147/148. (iii) ALLANA COLD STORAGE LTD. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER & ORS. (HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY) (2006) 287 ITR 1 (Born) Reassessment—Validity of reassessment—Objections by assessee vis-a-vis order of AO—The first respondent did not decide the objections separately which he is duty-bound to decide—Not only that in the first three writ petitions a common order has been passed on the objections as well as for the Rajesh Kumar Khandealwal vs. ITO reassessment—In…

Krishna Build Home Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(2), Jaipur

ITA 143/JPR/2021[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Mar 2022AY 2011-2012

Bench: The Learned Ao, The Reassessment Proceeding Is Illegal, Bad In Law, Without Jurisdiction & Is Based On Wrong Facts & On Change Of Opinion & In Gross Violation Of Proviso To S. 147 Of The It Act, Which Says No Action Can Be Taken M/S. Krishna Build Home Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA)For Respondent: Ms Runi Pal (Addl. CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 23Section 23(5)Section 24

…TO 259 ITR 19 (SC). The ld. A/R further relied on the following decisions: - (i) Pushpak Bullion Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT 371 ITR 81 (Guj) (ii) General Motors India P. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2013) 354 ITR 244 (Guj) (iii) Allana Cold Storage Ltd. Vs. ITO and others (2006) 287 ITR 1 (Bombay) (iv) Hon’ble ITAT Jaipur in the case of M/s Girraj Prasad Gilara HUF Vs ITO ward 6(5) Jaipur (ITA No 354/JP/2019 order dated 06/10/2020 Therefore in view of the above cited decision of jurisdictional ITAT in the case of M/s Girraj Prasad Gilara HUF wherein several decisions including decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN…

Krishna Build Home Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax (Holding Charge of ITO Ward 4(2)), Jaipur

ITA 142/JPR/2021[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Mar 2022AY 2010-2011

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA)For Respondent: Ms Runi Pal (Addl. CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 23Section 23(5)Section 24

Khandesh Builders Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 268/PUN/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Mar 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.268/Pun/2015 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Khandesh Builders Ltd., 7, Shivaji Nagar, Jalgaon – 425 001. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan: Aaack 8222 H बनाम / V/S. The Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax, ……""यथ" / Respondent Circle-1, Jalgaon.

For Appellant: Shri Sunil GanooFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg & Shri S.P. Walimbe

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 2(22)(e)Section 234B

…s.148 in view of the decision of Hon. Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts V/s. CIT reported in (2003) 259 ITR 19. And in view of decision of jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of Allana Cold Storage Ltd. V/s. ITO & others reported in (2006) 287 ITR 1. 3) In the facts, circumstances & position of law learned CIT Appeals-II, Nashik erred in not annulling the re-assessment order being based on mere change of opinion on the same set of evidence on record. 4) In the facts, circumstances & position of law learned CIT Appeal-II, Nashik erred in not annulling the re-assessment order. 5) In the facts, c…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-6(2)(1), Bangalore vs. Sri C Gangadhara Murthy, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for assessment years 2009-2010, 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2399/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.V.Chandrasekhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148

…iction based on such Reasons Recorded. 8. It is seen from the following judicial pronouncements, relied upon by the appellant, that it is perforce necessary for an AO to pass a separate order meeting objections raised:- (i) Allana Cold Storage Ltd vs ITO &Ors 287 ITR 1 (Bombay High Court); (ii) Asian Paints Ltd vs Dy.CIT 296 ITR 96 (Bombay High Court); (iii) IOT infrastructure & Engg services vs ACIT 329 ITR 547 (Bombay High Court); (iv) KSS Petron Pvt Ltd vs ACIT in ITA No. 224 of 2014 (Bombay High Court); 4 ITA Nos.2397-2399/Bang/2018 Sri C Gangadhara Murthy. 9. It is seen from the above orders that the decisi…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-6(2)(1), Bangalore vs. Sri C Gangadhara Murthy, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for assessment years 2009-2010, 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2398/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.V.Chandrasekhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-6(2)(1), Bangalore vs. Sri C Gangadhara Murthy, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for assessment years 2009-2010, 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2397/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.V.Chandrasekhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148

Karan Khurana, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 48(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1783/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr. D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 151

…s. ITO 259 ITR 19, judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of M/s Sabh Infrastructure Ltd. vs. ACIT 398 ITR 198, M/s Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. vs. CIT 308 ITR 38 and judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of M/s Allana Cold Storage Ltd. Vs. ITO 287 ITR 1. The Ld. CIT(A) required the AO to give comments on this ground and AO in the remand report dated 28.11.2018 (PB 40) dealt with the above objection on the premises that the assessee had attended the assessment proceedings on various dates but has not mentioned anything that he was not provided copy of the reason and hence the AO remained under th…

Shri Girraj Prasad Gilara HUF, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6-5, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 354/JPR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Oct 2020AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA)For Respondent: Ms Chanchal Meena (Addl. CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 147

…on Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT 371 ITR 81 (Guj) (ii) General Motors India P. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2013) 354 ITR 244 (Guj) (iii) G N Mohan Raju Vs. ITO (2015) 167 TTJ (Bang) 236. (iv) Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Allana Cold Storage Ltd. Vs. ITO and others (2006) 287 ITR 1 has quashed the assessment where the Assessing Officer did not follow the procedure of considering the objections. (v) A Division Bench of this Court in Arvind Mills Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Wealth Tax (No.2), (2004) 270 ITR 469 after considering the decision of this Court in Garden Finance Ltd. v. ACIT, (2004) 268 ITR 48 (Guj.) held in th…

M/S. Shree Balkishan Agarwal Glass Industries Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 5798/DEL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2005-06 Shree Balkishan Agarwal Glass Vs Dcit, Industries Ltd., Circle-8(1), C/O Sarvam & Associates, New Delhi. 403, Klj Tower North, B-5, Netaji Subhash Place, District Centre, Pitampura, Delhi. Pan: Aabcs2870C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suresh Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.08.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.09.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…ssessment proceedings. For the above proposition, he relied on the following decisions:- i) GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v ITO (259 ITR 19) (SC) ii) Sabh Infrastructure vs ACIT in W.P.(c) 1357/2016 Dated: 25.09.2017 (Del) iii) Allana Cold Storage Ltd. v ITO (287 ITR 1) (Bom.) iv) CIT vs M/s Trend Electronics in ITA No. 1867 of 2013 dated 16.09.2015 (Bom) v) CIT v Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. 340 ITR 66 (Bom) vi) Inderjeet Singh Sachdeva vs. DCIT in ITA No.6611/Del/2013 vii) Ujagar Holdings Pvt Ltd vs ITO in ITA No.2205/Del/2015 viii) Sh. Balwant Rai Wadhwa Vs ITO in ITA 4806/Del/2010 ix) M/s. Kothari Metals Vs. ITO…

DCIT (Ltu), New Delhi vs. M/S. Gail (India) Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal filed by the ld AO on the limited issue that order passed by the ld AO is barred by limitation. Ground No. 1 is dismissed

ITA 6079/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jul 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit(Ltu), Vs. M/S. Gail (India) Ltd, Circle-1, 16, Bhikaji Cama Place, Nbcc Plaza Pusp Vihar, Rk Puram, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 263

…nt1 43. Ganga Saran & Sons (P) Ltd, 130 ITR 1. 11 (SC) 44. Birla VXL, 217 ITR 1 (Gujrat) 45. Multiscreen Media (P) Ltd. 324 ITR 54 (Bombay) 46. Garden Finance Limited, 268 ITR 48(Guj) 47. Kamlesh Sharma, 287 ITR 337 (Del) 48. Allana Cold Storage Ltd.. Vs. ITO 287 ITR 1 (Bom) 49. Asian Paints Limited, 296 ITR 90 (Bom) 50. Keshav Shares and Stocks Ltd, 326 ITR 553(Del) 51. Vishwanath Engineers, 354 ITR211(Guj) 52. Aroni Commercials Ltd, 362 ITR 403 (Bom) 53. Torrent Power SEC Ltd, 45 Taxman.com 443(Guj) 54. Lakhmani Mewal Das. 103 ITR 437.448(SC) 55. Arjun Singh, 246 ITR 363, 405(MP) 56. Seth Brothers. 251 ITR 270…

Asst. Comm. of Income Tax - 11(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tpl Plastech Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 6206/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6206/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Acit-11-(3)(1) M/S. Tpl Plastech Ltd. बनाम/ Room No.204, 2Nd Floor 10-11, Shivali Indl. Estate Aaykar Bhavan Andheri(E) Vs. M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai -400 072. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaact-1968-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Rakesh Joshi – Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Mayura Pratap-Ld.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 02/12/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 07/01/2020 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Mayura Pratap-Ld.DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

…rendered in GKN Driveshafts India Ltd. V/s DCIT (259 ITR 19) and also the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in Asian Paints Ltd. V/s DCIT (296 ITR 96), IOT Infrastructure & Engg. Services Ltd. V/s ACIT (329 ITR 547) & Allana Cold Storage V/s ITO (287 ITR 1). 3.2 The assessee also pleaded that there was no tangible material before Ld. AO so as to form a belief that certain income escaped 5 M/s.TPL Plastech Limited Assessment Year :2011-12 assessment rather the belief was formed merely after going through the existing records and there was a bald assertion that there was failure on the part of the ass…

DCIT, CC-2(3), Mumbai vs. Bidhichand K Bansal, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 4971/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R C Sharma & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year : 2012-13 Dy Cit Central Circle 2(3), Shri Bidhichand K Bansal, Mumbai 109, Reti Bunder, Darukhana, Vs. Mumbai 400 010 Pan Aaepb8990N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Krishan Singh DehiyuFor Respondent: Shri Ketan L Vajani

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 53A

…file of AO for dealing 4 Bidhichand K Bansal with objections raised by assessee and thereafter assessment order has to be passed by AO. a. IOT Infrastructure and Engineering Sevices Ltd. vs ACIT (2010) 329 ITR 547 (Bom) b. Allana Cold Storage vs ITO (2006) 287 ITR 1 (Bom) Since CIT(A) has no power to set aside the matter, it cannot be restored to file of AO . But as has coterminous powers as that of AO and appellant has raised the objections for issue u/s 148 in ground No. 1 of appeal and same having been disposed off on meri, this raised by appellant does not survive and is accordingly dismissed. 10. The thi…

Saraf Export, Churu vs. ACIT, Jhunjhunu

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 32/JPR/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Ojha (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri Prithvi Raj Meena (Addl.CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 80I

…ther the assessment can be annulled on the ground that the Assessing Officer has not disposed of the objection in the manner he was expected to do. The Hon’ble Bombay High court in the case of Allan Cold Storage Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer and Others [2006] 287 ITR 1 (Bom), considering the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of G.K.N. Driveshaft’s (India) Ltd. vs. ITO (Supra) under the identical facts has held as under:- “8. Having noted this scenario, in our view the proper course will be to interfere with the assessment order passed in all four matters by the concerned officer. We are aware that wh…

Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore vs. Shri. M.R. Seetharama (Indl), Bangalore

In the result, the revenue’s appeal and C

ITA 1220/BANG/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Oct 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Biju, JCIT (DR) (ITAT)-3, Bengaluru

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…n but to deal with the objection of the assessee along with the assessment proceedings in a combined assessment order. He has relied upon the following decisions : i. Keshav Shares & Stocks Ltd. Vs. ITO 326 ITR 553 (Delhi) ii. Allana Cold Storage Ltd. Vs. ITO 287 ITR 1 (Bom). iii. ACIT Vs. Mukut Mahal Banquet Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.226/Del/2012 Dt.23.11.2012. iv. Hajee Hameed Vs. DCIT in ITA Nos.511 to 576/Bang/2009 dt.28.09.2011 Thus the ld. DR has submitted that the proper course for the CIT (Appeals) on this issue was to direct the Assessing Officer to decide the objections of the assessee by separate speaking or…