What is Amal Kumar Ghosh v. Asstt. CIT authority for?

The selection of cases for scrutiny must be completed within the time prescribed by CBDT instructions. The department is bound by its own standards and cannot act with discrimination or selectively apply them.

How many judgments cite Amal Kumar Ghosh v. Asstt. CIT?

39 judgments on BharatTax cite Amal Kumar Ghosh v. Asstt. CIT (361 ITR 458), spanning 2016 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Amal Kumar Ghosh v. Asstt. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(2), Section 124(3), Section 250, Section 10(15)(iv)(h), Section 10(34), Section 10(38).

Amal Kumar Ghosh v. Asstt. CIT (361 ITR 458)

M/S. Hotel Centre Point, Shillong vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Shillong

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 189/GTY/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati31 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 119Section 144Section 147Section 156

…n 143(2). While giving its finding, the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh placed reliance on the decisions in the case of UCO Bank (supra) and Nayana P. Dedhia (supra). 13.5 Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Calcutta in the case of Amal Kumar Ghosh [2014] 361 ITR 458 (Cal) dealt with the issue relating to CBDT circular which according to the Department cannot defeat the provisions of law. While giving its observations and finding on the issue, the Hon’ble Court referred to the decision of Hon’ble Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of Sunita Finlease Ltd (supra), which are as under: 7. We have considered the…

M/S. Hotel Centre Point, Shillong vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Shillong

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 188/GTY/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati31 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 119Section 144Section 147Section 156

…n 143(2). While giving its finding, the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh placed reliance on the decisions in the case of UCO Bank (supra) and Nayana P. Dedhia (supra). 13.5 Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Calcutta in the case of Amal Kumar Ghosh [2014] 361 ITR 458 (Cal) dealt with the issue relating to CBDT circular which according to the Department cannot defeat the provisions of law. While giving its observations and finding on the issue, the Hon’ble Court referred to the decision of Hon’ble Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of Sunita Finlease Ltd (supra), which are as under: 7. We have considered the…

M/S. Hotel Centre Point, Shillong vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Shillong

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 187/GTY/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati31 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 119Section 144Section 147Section 156

…n 143(2). While giving its finding, the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh placed reliance on the decisions in the case of UCO Bank (supra) and Nayana P. Dedhia (supra). 13.5 Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Calcutta in the case of Amal Kumar Ghosh [2014] 361 ITR 458 (Cal) dealt with the issue relating to CBDT circular which according to the Department cannot defeat the provisions of law. While giving its observations and finding on the issue, the Hon’ble Court referred to the decision of Hon’ble Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of Sunita Finlease Ltd (supra), which are as under: 7. We have considered the…

M/S Tata Medical Centre Trust, Kolkata vs. CIT(Exemption), Kolkaa

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 287/KOL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 263

…n 143(2). While giving its finding, the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh placed reliance on the decisions in the case of UCO Bank (supra) and Nayana P. Dedhia (supra). 13.5 Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Calcutta in the case of Amal Kumar Ghosh [2014] 361 ITR 458 (Cal) dealt with the issue relating to CBDT circular which according to the Department cannot defeat the provisions of law. While giving its observations and finding on the issue, the Hon’ble Court referred to the decision of Hon’ble Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of Sunita Finlease Ltd (supra), which are as under: 7. We have considered the…

Costal Energy (P) Ltd, Howrah vs. ITO, Ward-15(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 348/KOL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.348/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Costal Energy (P) Ltd......................................................………...…..…Appellant Ganesh Complex, Nh-6 Bombay Road, Raghudevpur, Howrah- 711322. [Pan: Aaccc7578A] Vs. Ito, Ward-15(1), Kolkata..................................................…....…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 24, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 23, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 24.02.2020 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-5, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Pcit’] Agitating The Action Of The Pcit In Passing The Impugned Order U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Exercising His Revision Jurisdiction. 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 147Section 263

…n 143(2). While giving its finding, the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh placed reliance on the decisions in the case of UCO Bank (supra) and Nayana P. Dedhia (supra). 13.5 Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Calcutta in the case of Amal Kumar Ghosh [2014] 361 ITR 458 (Cal) dealt with the issue relating to CBDT circular which according to the Department cannot defeat the provisions of law. While giving its observations and finding on the issue, the Hon’ble Court referred to the decision of Hon’ble Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of Sunita Finlease Ltd (supra), which are as under: 7. We have considered the…

A.C.I.T., Circle-40, Kolkata vs. M/S Sukhdham Infrastructures LLP, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 148/KOL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…ies. We also note that the Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax has accorded the approval in a mere mechanical manner which is in clear violation of the CBDT InstructionsNo.20/2015. 6.5 The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Amal Kumar Ghosh reported in 361 ITR 458 (Cal.) discussed the purpose behind the CBDT Circulars. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court are as under: “…..Mrs. Gutgutia, learned Advocate submitted that the circulars are not meant for the purpose of permitting the unscrupulous assessees from evading tax. Even assuming, that to be so, it cannot be said thatthe departm…

Sukhdham Infrastructures LLP, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-40(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2611/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…ies. We also note that the Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax has accorded the approval in a mere mechanical manner which is in clear violation of the CBDT InstructionsNo.20/2015. 6.5 The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Amal Kumar Ghosh reported in 361 ITR 458 (Cal.) discussed the purpose behind the CBDT Circulars. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court are as under: “…..Mrs. Gutgutia, learned Advocate submitted that the circulars are not meant for the purpose of permitting the unscrupulous assessees from evading tax. Even assuming, that to be so, it cannot be said thatthe departm…

Shri H.K. Suresh, Bengaluru vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 625/BANG/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Pai, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Vandana Ramachandan, CIT(TP1)(DR)(ITAT)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…urt of Chhattisgarh placed reliance on the decisions in the case of UCO Bank (supra) and Nayana P. Dedhia (supra). 13.5 Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Calcutta in the case of Amal Kumar Ghosh v. Asstt. CIT [2014] 45 taxmann.com 482/225 Taxman 229 (Mag.)/361 ITR 458 dealt with the issue relating to CBDT circular which according to the Department cannot defeat the provisions of law. While giving its observations and finding on the issue, the Hon'ble Court referred to the decision of Hon'ble Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of Sunita Finlease Ltd. (supra), which are as under: 7. We have considered the rival…

Rcc Institute of Technology, Kolkata vs. CIT(Exemptions), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 108/KOL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.108/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Rcc Institute Of Technology..…………………................................……Appellant C.I.T Cambus(Old), Cannel South Road, Beliaghata, Kolkata-700015. [Pan: Aaaar4012N] Vs. Cit(Exemption), Kolkata............…...................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 28, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 29, 2022 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.03.2021 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Exemption), Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(Exemption’)] Exercising His Revision Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Has Contested The Validity Of The Revision Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(Exemption) U/S 263 Of The Act Not Only On Merits But Also, Inter Alia, On The Ground That The Aforesaid Order Was Null & Void As No Document Identification Number (Din) Has Been Mentioned In The Body Of The Impugned Order Which Was In Violation Of Circular No.19 Of 2019 Of Cbdt. Since The Aforesaid Legal Issue Will Be Determinative Of The Very Validity Of The Impugned Revision Order Passed

Section 119Section 263

…n 143(2). While giving its finding, the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh placed reliance on the decisions in the case of UCO Bank (supra) and Nayana P. Dedhia (supra). 13.5 Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Calcutta in the case of Amal Kumar Ghosh [2014] 361 ITR 458 (Cal) dealt with the issue relating to CBDT circular which according to the Department cannot defeat the provisions of law. While giving its observations and finding on the issue, the Hon’ble Court referred to the decision of Hon’ble Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of Sunita Finlease Ltd (supra), which are as under: 7. We have considered the…

Shri Mahesh Kumar Sureka, Howrah vs. PCIT-13, Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 106/KOL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.106/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Mahesh Kumar Sureka..…………………................................……Appellant 6/2/1, Ashutosh Mukherjee Lane, Howrah-711106. [Pan: Alcps8735K] Vs. Pcit-13, Kolkata......................…...................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 28, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 29, 2022 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.01.2021 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-13, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Pcit’] Exercising His Revision Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Has Contested The Validity Of The Revision Order Passed By The Ld. Pcit U/S 263 Of The Act Not Only On Merits But Also, Inter Alia, On The Ground That The Aforesaid Order Was Null & Void As No Document Identification Number (Din) Has Been Mentioned In The Body Of The Impugned Order Which Was In Violation Of Circular No.19 Of 2019 Of Cbdt. Since The Aforesaid Legal Issue Will Be Determinative Of The Very Validity Of The Impugned Revision Order

Section 119Section 263

…n 143(2). While giving its finding, the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh placed reliance on the decisions in the case of UCO Bank (supra) and Nayana P. Dedhia (supra). 13.5 Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Calcutta in the case of Amal Kumar Ghosh [2014] 361 ITR 458 (Cal) dealt with the issue relating to CBDT circular which according to the Department cannot defeat the provisions of law. While giving its observations and finding on the issue, the Hon’ble Court referred to the decision of Hon’ble Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of Sunita Finlease Ltd (supra), which are as under: 7. We have considered the…

Smt. Sunita Agarwal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-43(6), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 432/KOL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.432/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Smt. Sunita Agarwal………………………………................................……Appellant C/O Rajesh Mohan & Associates, Unit No.18, 5Th Floor, Bagati House, 34, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, Kolkata-700013. [Pan: Adcpa9325P] Vs. Ito, Ward-43(6), Kolkata............…...................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Amal Sudhir Kamat, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 29, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 22, 2022 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.06.2020 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-15, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Pcit’) Exercising His Revision Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Has Contested The Validity Of The Revision Order Passed By The Ld. Pcit U/S 263 Of The Act Not Only On Merits But Also, Inter Alia, On The Ground That The Aforesaid Order Was Null & Void As No Document Identification Number (Din) Has Been Mentioned In The Body Of The Impugned Order Which Was In Violation Of Circular No.19 Of

Section 119Section 263

…n 143(2). While giving its finding, the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh placed reliance on the decisions in the case of UCO Bank (supra) and Nayana P. Dedhia (supra). 13.5 Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Calcutta in the case of Amal Kumar Ghosh [2014] 361 ITR 458 (Cal) dealt with the issue relating to CBDT circular which according to the Department cannot defeat the provisions of law. While giving its observations and finding on the issue, the Hon’ble Court referred to the decision of Hon’ble Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of Sunita Finlease Ltd (supra), which are as under: 7. We have considered the…

Intrado Ec India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. DCIT-Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 239/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT)

Section 143(3)Section 153Section 2CSection 40Section 92C

…he decisions in the case of UCO Bank (supra) and Nayana P. Dedhia (supra). 13.5 Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Calcutta in the case of Amal Kumar Ghosh v. Asstt. CIT [2014] 45 taxmann.com 482/225 Taxman IT(TP)A No.239/Bang/2021 Page 9 of 23 229 (Mag.)/361 ITR 458 dealt with the issue relating to CBDT circular which according to the Department cannot defeat the provisions of law. While giving its observations and finding on the issue, the Hon'ble Court referred to the decision of Hon'ble Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of Sunita Finlease Ltd. (supra), which are as under: 7. We have considered the rival…

Dilip Kothari, Bengaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bangalore

In the result, all three appeals are partly allowed

ITA 405/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 132Section 153CSection 263

…urt of Chhattisgarh placed reliance on the decisions in the case of UCO Bank (supra) and Nayana P. Dedhia (supra). 13.5 Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Calcutta in the case of Amal Kumar Ghosh v. Asstt. CIT [2014] 45 taxmann.com 482/225 Taxman 229 (Mag.)/361 ITR 458 dealt with the issue relating to CBDT circular which according to the Department cannot defeat the provisions of law. While giving its observations and finding on the issue, the Hon'ble Court ITA Nos.403 to 405/Bang/2022 Page 14 of 16 referred to the decision of Hon'ble Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of Sunita Finlease Ltd. (supra), which…

Dilip Kothari, Bengaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bangalore

In the result, all three appeals are partly allowed

ITA 404/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 132Section 153CSection 263

…urt of Chhattisgarh placed reliance on the decisions in the case of UCO Bank (supra) and Nayana P. Dedhia (supra). 13.5 Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Calcutta in the case of Amal Kumar Ghosh v. Asstt. CIT [2014] 45 taxmann.com 482/225 Taxman 229 (Mag.)/361 ITR 458 dealt with the issue relating to CBDT circular which according to the Department cannot defeat the provisions of law. While giving its observations and finding on the issue, the Hon'ble Court ITA Nos.403 to 405/Bang/2022 Page 14 of 16 referred to the decision of Hon'ble Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of Sunita Finlease Ltd. (supra), which…

Dilip Kothari, Bengaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bangalore

In the result, all three appeals are partly allowed

ITA 403/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 132Section 153CSection 263

…urt of Chhattisgarh placed reliance on the decisions in the case of UCO Bank (supra) and Nayana P. Dedhia (supra). 13.5 Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Calcutta in the case of Amal Kumar Ghosh v. Asstt. CIT [2014] 45 taxmann.com 482/225 Taxman 229 (Mag.)/361 ITR 458 dealt with the issue relating to CBDT circular which according to the Department cannot defeat the provisions of law. While giving its observations and finding on the issue, the Hon'ble Court ITA Nos.403 to 405/Bang/2022 Page 14 of 16 referred to the decision of Hon'ble Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of Sunita Finlease Ltd. (supra), which…

Tata Medical Centre Trust, Kolkata vs. CIT(Exemptions), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 238/KOL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17 Tata Medical Centre Trust Commissioner Of Income- Plot No. Dh 7 Dh 8, 14 Tax, (Exemption), Major Arterial Road (Ew) Vs. Kolkata. Action Area I, West Bengal-700156 (Pan: Aabtt2222Q) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Akshay Ringasia, CA & Tarak Nath JaiswalFor Respondent: Shri Deb Kr. Sonowal, CIT, DR

Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 263

…2016-17 While giving its finding, the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh placed reliance on the decisions in the case of UCO Bank (supra) and Nayana P. Dedhia (supra). 13.5 Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Calcutta in the case of Amal Kumar Ghosh [2014] 361 ITR 458 (Cal) dealt with the issue relating to CBDT circular which according to the Department cannot defeat the provisions of law. While giving its observations and finding on the issue, the Hon’ble Court referred to the decision of Hon’ble Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of Sunita Finlease Ltd (supra), which are as under: 7. We have considered the…

Hazelnut Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-3(1)(4), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed on jurisdictional issue

ITA 1730/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri Manjunatha G, Am आयकर अपील िं./ Ita No. 1730/Mum/2019 (ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2015-16) Hazelnut Constructions Pvt. The Income Tax Officer Ltd. Ward 3(1)(4) बनाम/ 514, Dalamal Towers, 211, Fpj Mumbai Vs. Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai (अपीलाथी / Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aabch6233N अपीलाथी की ओर े/ Appellant By : Shri Chetan Karia, Ar प्रत्यथी की ओर े/ Respondent By : Shri Akhtar Ansari, Dr ुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17.06.2020 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 17.06.2020 आदेश / O R D E R महावीर स िंह, उपाध्यक्ष / Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: This Appeal Of Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)]-8, Mumbai, [In Short Cit(A)], In Ita No. Cit(A)-8/It-153/2017-18 Dated 19.02.2019. The Assessment Was Framed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1)(4), Mumbai (In Short Acit/Ito/ Ao) For The A.Y. 2015-16 Vide Order Dated 30.11.2017 Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’). 2. The First Issue Raised By Assessee In Its Appeal Is As Regards To The Assumption Of Jurisdiction By The Assessing Hazelnut Constructions Pvt. Ltd.; Ay; 2015-16 Officer For “Complete Scrutiny” Whereas The Case Was Selected For “Limited Scrutiny” Under Cass For The Assessment Year 2015-16. For This, Assessee Has Raised The Following Ground No.1: -

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Karia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Akhtar Ansari, DR

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “SMC-II” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC-II” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री महावीर स िंह, उपाध्यक्ष एविं श्री मिंजूनाथ जी, लेखा दस्य के मक्ष । BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP AND SRI MANJUNATHA G, AM आयकर अपील िं./ ITA No. 1730/Mum/2019 (ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2015-16) Hazelnut Constructions Pvt. The Income Tax Officer Ltd. Ward 3(1)(4) बनाम/ 514, Dalamal Towers, 211, FPJ Mumbai Vs. Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai (अपीलाथी / Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) स्थायी लेखा िं./PAN No. AABCH6233N अपीलाथी की ओर े/ Appellant by : Shri Chetan Karia, AR प्रत्यथी की ओर े/ Responden…

Dev Milk Foods Pvt Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Special Range-3, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 6767/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishidev Milk Foods Pvt. Ltd. Add. Cit, C/O Kapil Goel Advocate, Special Range -3 F-26/124, Sector-7, Vs. New Delhi. Rohini, Delhi-110085. Pan –Aaccd 2586M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 131Section 143(3)

…We also note that the Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax has accorded the approval in a mere mechanical manner which is in clear violation of the CBDT Instructions No.20/2015. 6.5 The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Amal Kumar Ghosh reported in 361 ITR 458 (Cal.) discussed the purpose behind the CBDT Circulars. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court are as under: “…..Mrs. Gutgutia, learned Advocate submitted that the circulars are not meant for the purpose of permitting the unscrupulous assessees from evading tax. Even assuming, that to be so, it cannot be said that the depa…

Badal Krishna Saha, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-53(4), Kolkata

In the result the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 672/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Dec 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M.Jagtap, Am & Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm ]

For Appellant: Shri K.M.Roy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Md.Ghayas Uddin, JCIT.Sr.DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 37

…ld that the CBDT instructions for selection of case for scrutiny have to be followed in letter and spirit by the AO. The ld. Counsel for the assessee also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Amal Kr. Ghosh vs ACIT 361 ITR 458(Cal) wherein the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court upheld the order of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal held that selection of case for compulsory scrutiny assessment was contrary to the CBDT’s instruction and such an action was not valid and the assessment was held to be not valid in law. Keeping in mind of the facts and circumstances of the case and…

Amal Kumar Ghosh v. Asstt. CIT

What is Amal Kumar Ghosh v. Asstt. CIT authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Amal Kumar Ghosh v. Asstt. CIT

M/S. Hotel Centre Point, Shillong vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Shillong

M/S. Hotel Centre Point, Shillong vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Shillong

M/S. Hotel Centre Point, Shillong vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Shillong

M/S Tata Medical Centre Trust, Kolkata vs. CIT(Exemption), Kolkaa

Costal Energy (P) Ltd, Howrah vs. ITO, Ward-15(1), Kolkata

A.C.I.T., Circle-40, Kolkata vs. M/S Sukhdham Infrastructures LLP, Kolkata

Sukhdham Infrastructures LLP, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-40(2), Kolkata

Shri H.K. Suresh, Bengaluru vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bengaluru

Rcc Institute of Technology, Kolkata vs. CIT(Exemptions), Kolkata

Shri Mahesh Kumar Sureka, Howrah vs. PCIT-13, Kolkata

Smt. Sunita Agarwal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-43(6), Kolkata

Intrado Ec India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. DCIT-Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

Dilip Kothari, Bengaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bangalore

Dilip Kothari, Bengaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bangalore

Dilip Kothari, Bengaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bangalore

Tata Medical Centre Trust, Kolkata vs. CIT(Exemptions), Kolkata

Hazelnut Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-3(1)(4), Mumbai

Dev Milk Foods Pvt Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Special Range-3, New Delhi

Badal Krishna Saha, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-53(4), Kolkata