Amity Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

272 ITR 75High Court2005#9133 most cited
12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2025.

Judgments citing Amity Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

SMT. SHAKUNTLA DEVI,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1227/CHANDI/1996[01/04/1985 to 17/07/1995]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Feb 2025
For Appellant: Shri M.R. Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 158B

…he decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Manish Maheswari vs ACIT (2007) 289 ITR 341(SC), CIT vs Calcutta Knitwears (Supra), Tapan Kumar Dutta vs CIT (2018) 404 ITR 28 (SC), decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Amity Hotels Pvt Ltd, 272 ITR 75 (Del), decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in case of Subhas Chandra Bhaniranka vs ACIT (2010) 320 ITR 349 (Cal). It was accordingly submitted that the satisfaction so recorded for exercise of jurisdiction under section 158BD does not satisfy the test so laid down by the Courts from time to time and therefore on this ground as well, the order…

ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SML ISUZU LTD., CHANDIGARH

ITA 644/CHANDI/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate and Ms. Somya Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253Section 3

…71] 79 ITR 603 (SC) - CIT vs. Batra Bhatta Company: 174 Taxman 444 (Del.)-SLP dismissed in 320 ITR 24 PCIT v. Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited: ITA No.689 of 2016 (Del.) - Shipra Srivastava vs. ACIT: 184 Taxman 210 (Del.) - Amity Hotels Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 272 ITR 75 (Del) - CIT vs. Vineeta Jain and CIT vs. Atul Jain 299 ITR 383 (Del) - CIT vs. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd 325 ITR 285 (Del) - Bhor Industries Ltd. vs. ACIT: 267 ITR 161 (Bom) - Hindutan Lever Ltd. vs. R. B. Wadkar, ACIT: 268 ITR 332 (Bom) - - BhogwatiSahakariSakharKarkhana Ltd. vs. DCIT: 269 ITR 186 (Bom) Ajanta Pharma Ltd. vs. ACIT: 267 ITR 200 (Bom)…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SUNWAY REALTECH PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Department dismissed and Cross Objection of the Assessee allowed

ITA 6818/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampat, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 153C

…, Sinhgad Technical Education Society [2017] 397 ITR 344 (SC). He has also relied upon Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs., Radhey Shyam Bansal [2011] 337 ITR 217 (Del.) and Amity Hotels Pvt. Ltd., vs. CIT [2005] 272 ITR 75 (Del.). 8. On the other hand, Ld. D.R. relied upon the Orders of the authorities below. 9. We have considered the rival submissions. Since addition on merit have already been deleted and confirmed by us, therefore, this issue is left with academic discussion only. However, briefly, we may point-out that in this case satisfaction note have been r…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PROMINENT REALTECH PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Department dismissed and Cross Objection of the Assessee allowed

ITA 6817/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampat, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 153C

…, Sinhgad Technical Education Society [2017] 397 ITR 344 (SC). He has also relied upon Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs., Radhey Shyam Bansal [2011] 337 ITR 217 (Del.) and Amity Hotels Pvt. Ltd., vs. CIT [2005] 272 ITR 75 (Del.). 8. On the other hand, Ld. D.R. relied upon the Orders of the authorities below. 9. We have considered the rival submissions. Since addition on merit have already been deleted and confirmed by us, therefore, this issue is left with academic discussion only. However, briefly, we may point-out that in this case satisfaction note have been r…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ROHIT KEDAR NATH GUPTA

ITA/707/2008HC Delhi31 Aug 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 132Section 260A

…essee. It was pointed out that if there is no recorded satisfaction, the Assessing Officer did not have the jurisdiction to make an assessment under Section 158BD. Reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in Amity Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT, (2005) 272 ITR 75 wherein it was held that the satisfaction has to be recorded by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over the person who was searched, before issuing any notice under Section 158BD of the Act. According to the assessee if no satisfaction was found recorded, the entire assessment proceedings made under Section 158BD would be without juris…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ASHA KEDAR NATH GUPTA

ITA/948/2008HC Delhi31 Aug 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 132Section 260A

…essee. It was pointed out that if there is no recorded satisfaction, the Assessing Officer did not have the jurisdiction to make an assessment under Section 158BD. Reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in Amity Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT, (2005) 272 ITR 75 wherein it was held that the satisfaction has to be recorded by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over the person who was searched, before issuing any notice under Section 158BD of the Act. According to the assessee if no satisfaction was found recorded, the entire assessment proceedings made under Section 158BD would be without juris…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. NITIN KEDAR NATH GUPTA

ITA/706/2008HC Delhi31 Aug 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 132Section 260A

…essee. It was pointed out that if there is no recorded satisfaction, the Assessing Officer did not have the jurisdiction to make an assessment under Section 158BD. Reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in Amity Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT, (2005) 272 ITR 75 wherein it was held that the satisfaction has to be recorded by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over the person who was searched, before issuing any notice under Section 158BD of the Act. According to the assessee if no satisfaction was found recorded, the entire assessment proceedings made under Section 158BD would be without juris…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI vs. MANI KAKKAR

ITA/892/2008HC Delhi31 Aug 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 132Section 260A

…essee. It was pointed out that if there is no recorded satisfaction, the Assessing Officer did not have the jurisdiction to make an assessment under Section 158BD. Reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in Amity Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT, (2005) 272 ITR 75 wherein it was held that the satisfaction has to be recorded by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over the person who was searched, before issuing any notice under Section 158BD of the Act. According to the assessee if no satisfaction was found recorded, the entire assessment proceedings made under Section 158BD would be without juris…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. KEDAR NATH GUPTA

ITA-713/2008HC Delhi31 Aug 2012
Section 132Section 260A

…essee. It was pointed out that if there is no recorded satisfaction, the Assessing Officer did not have the jurisdiction to make an assessment under Section 158BD. Reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in Amity Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT, (2005) 272 ITR 75 wherein it was held that the satisfaction has to be recorded by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over the person who was searched, before issuing any notice under Section 158BD of the Act. According to the assessee if no satisfaction was found recorded, the entire assessment proceedings made under Section 158BD would be without juris…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITA/713/2008HC Delhi31 Aug 2012
Section 132Section 260A

…essee. It was pointed out that if there is no recorded satisfaction, the Assessing Officer did not have the jurisdiction to make an assessment under Section 158BD. Reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in Amity Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT, (2005) 272 ITR 75 wherein it was held that the satisfaction has to be recorded by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over the person who was searched, before issuing any notice under Section 158BD of the Act. According to the assessee if no satisfaction was found recorded, the entire assessment proceedings made under Section 158BD would be without juris…

C.I.T vs. DAWN VIEW FARMS PVT LTD

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/1187/2008HC Delhi16 Oct 2008

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

For Appellant: Ms Prem Lata BansalFor Respondent: Mr Amit Dayal
Section 132Section 158BSection 260A

…he Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) concluded that, manifestly, there was no satisfaction note as was required to be recorded by the Assessing Officer of Yadav & Co. Referring to the decisions of this Court in the case of Amity Hotels Pvt Ltd vs CIT: 272 ITR 75, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) held that the block assessment proceedings in respect of ITA No. 1187 of 2008 Page 6 of 13 the assessee were not in conformity with the mandatory requirements of Section 158 BD. 8. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) concluded as under:- “I have carefully considered the facts…

C.I.T vs. DAWN VIEW FARMS PVT LTD

The appeal is dismissed

ITA - 1187 / 2008HC Delhi16 Oct 2008
For Appellant: Ms Prem Lata BansalFor Respondent: Mr Amit Dayal
Section 132Section 158BSection 260A

…he Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) concluded that, manifestly, there was no satisfaction note as was required to be recorded by the Assessing Officer of Yadav & Co. Referring to the decisions of this Court in the case of Amity Hotels Pvt Ltd vs CIT: 272 ITR 75, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) held that the block assessment proceedings in respect of 2008:DHC:2845-DB ITA No. 1187 of 2008 Page 6 of 13 the assessee were not in conformity with the mandatory requirements of Section 158 BD. 8. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) concluded as under:- “I have carefully cons…