Apollo Hospitals Enterprises Ltd. v. ACIT

287 ITR 25High Court2006#17524 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 346,713 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2022.

Judgments citing Apollo Hospitals Enterprises Ltd. v. ACIT

P & C Construction P. Ltd., Erode vs. ACIT, Erode

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 3243/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3242 & 3243/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09 M/S.P & C Constructions (P) Ltd., V. The Asst. Commissioner Of No.140, P & C Towers, Income Tax, Perundurai Road, Range-I, Erode-638 011. Erode [Pan: Aabcp 2483 L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.B.Parthasarathy, Adv. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms.M.S.Deeptha, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.05.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2022

For Respondent: Ms.M.S.Deeptha, JCIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 194Section 40a

…n of the appellant that Hon'ble Courts clearly held that audit objection would not constitute a reason for reopening. (Honb'le Apex Court in case of INDIAN AND EASTERN NEWS PAPER and Hon'ble Madras High Court in Apollo Hospitals Enterprises v ACIT, citation - 287 ITR 25 Mad). 7. That the Ld. First Appellate Authority erred in not considering the contention of the appellant that when the a.os. objected the audit query, then a.o. who have not passed scrutiny order and/or faced audit party could not be validly put to sanctify the report and such assessment is one without jurisdiction. This point is covered by the d…

P & C Construction P. Ltd., Erode vs. ACIT, Erode

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 3242/CHNY/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3242 & 3243/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09 M/S.P & C Constructions (P) Ltd., V. The Asst. Commissioner Of No.140, P & C Towers, Income Tax, Perundurai Road, Range-I, Erode-638 011. Erode [Pan: Aabcp 2483 L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.B.Parthasarathy, Adv. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms.M.S.Deeptha, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.05.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2022

For Respondent: Ms.M.S.Deeptha, JCIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 194Section 40a

…n of the appellant that Hon'ble Courts clearly held that audit objection would not constitute a reason for reopening. (Honb'le Apex Court in case of INDIAN AND EASTERN NEWS PAPER and Hon'ble Madras High Court in Apollo Hospitals Enterprises v ACIT, citation - 287 ITR 25 Mad). 7. That the Ld. First Appellate Authority erred in not considering the contention of the appellant that when the a.os. objected the audit query, then a.o. who have not passed scrutiny order and/or faced audit party could not be validly put to sanctify the report and such assessment is one without jurisdiction. This point is covered by the d…

The Income Tax Officer, Srinagar vs. Sh. Suhail Ahmed Bhat, Prop. M/S Shifa Traders, Rangparistan, Srinagar

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

ITA 136/ASR/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar23 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita No.136(Asr)/2015 Assessment Year:2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. Charan Dass (Ld. DR)For Respondent: Sh. Joginder Singh (Ld.CA)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 68

…the assessment, review would take place. The Apex court concluded that mere change in opinion cannot per se be reason to reopen. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Apollo Hospitals Enterprises Ltd Vs ACIT (2006) 287 ITR 25 (Mad) in which the court held that AO cannot reopen the assessment by mere change of opinion or by drawing a different inference from the same facts as were earlier available. Admittedly, there is no change of law and no fresh material had come on record. It is a case of mere change of opinion and hence absence of jurisdiction of the AO to initiat…

Ambuja Cement India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

ITA 2600/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2600/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2005-06)

For Appellant: Shri. Soumen Adak &For Respondent: Shri Satish Chandra Rajore
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 234B

…med an opinion would be contrary and opposed to normal human conduct. 3.21] Simitar view has also been expressed in the following cases:- - India Steamship Co. Ltd -vs.- JCIT and others (2005) 275 ITR 155 (Cal) - Appolo Hospital Enterprises -vs. -ACIT (2006) 287 ITR 25 (Mad) - Garden Silk Mills Pvt Ltd, -vs.- DCIT(1999) 237 ITR 663.675 (Gui) - Ballarpur Paper and Straw Board Mills Ltd. (1975) 101 ITR 55 (Cal) 3.22] In the case of ICICI Bank Ltd, -vs.- DCIT & Ors. (2004) 268 ITR 203 (Bom) wherein it was held that concluded assessments can be reopened beyond a period of four years from the end of the relevant asse…

K.R.Jayaram, Chennai vs. ACIT, Coimbatore

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

ITA 1698/CHNY/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Oct 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Mr.Arjunraj, C.A ""For Respondent: Mr.K.Ravi, JCIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 50C

…8. Further, ld.A.R relied on the following judgments. i) Dishman Pharmaceuticals And Chemicals Ltd. Vs. DCIT in [2012] 346 ITR 245 (Guj) ii) CIT Vs. Ashley Services Ltd. in [2014] 369 ITR 209 (Mad) iii) Apollo Hospitals Enterprises Ltd. Vs. ACIT in [2006] 287 ITR 25 (Mad) iv) Debashis Moulik Vs. ACIT in [2015] 370 ITR 660 (Cal) v) Bapalal And Co. EXPORTS Vs. JCIT(OSD) in [2007] 289 ITR 37 (Mad) ITA No.1698/Mds./16 :- 8 -: vi) INCOME TAX OFFICER Vs. Shri Haresh Chand Agarwal, HUF in ITA No.282/Agra/2013 vide order dated 20.12.2013 wherein held that:- 5. We have considered rival submissions and material…

Apollo Hospitals Enterprises Ltd. v. ACIT (287 ITR 25) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax