ASSP & Co. v. CIT

172 ITR 274High Court1988#23210 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2020.

Judgments citing ASSP & Co. v. CIT

JOHNSON & JOHNSON LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT LARGE TAXPAYER UNIT, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 4912/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआअसं. 4912/मुं/2013 ("न.व.2004-05) Johnson & Johnson Private Limited (Earlier Known As Johnson & Johnson Limited) 501, Arena Space, Off Jvlr, Behind Majas Bus Depot, Jogeshwari (East) Mumbai 400 060 Pan: Aaacj0866E ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Large Taxpayer Unit, 29Th Floor, Centre No.1, World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai 400 005 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Shri Akhtar H. Ansari
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234B

…ings from first notice issued for reopening assessment are still pending, second notice issued u/s 147/148 of the Act for reopening is bad in law. To support his contentions the ld. AR placed reliance on the following decisions: 3 (1) A.S.S.P. & Co. vs. CIT 172 ITR 274 (Mad) (2) CIT vs. P. Krishnankutty Menon, 181 ITR 237 (Ker) 3.1. The second plank of argument against reopening of assessment by the ld. AR of the assesse is, that the second notice for reopening was issued beyond the period of four years. The assessee complied with the second notice. The assessee vide letter dated 19/04/2011 requested to provid…

DCIT, CIR-5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. COAL INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

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

ITA 638/KOL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 May 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 143(3)Section 148

…ce u/s. 148 of the Act dated 19.10.2011, the AO ought not to have issued the second notice of reopening u/s. 148 of the Act. For the aforesaid proposition of law he cited the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High court in A.S.S.P & Co. Vs. CIT reported in (1988)172 ITR 274 (Mad.) wherein a similar issue arose and the Hon’ble High court was pleased to hold that the second notice issued for reopening when the first notice for reopening pursuant to which the assessee had filed the return has not been disposed of then, the second notice of reopening could not have been issued by the AO and, therefore, it was found that…

SHRI.SURESH SOLANKI,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 380/BANG/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 May 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Sudheendra B.R., CAFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…provided under proviso to section 147. He has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in case of CIT Vs Ram Kishan Leela [2007] (295 ITR 525) as well as the decision of Hon’ble Madras Page 5 of 8 High Court in case of ASSP & Co Vs CIT[1988] (172 ITR 274) and submitted that the reassessment proceedings and reassessment order is bad in law as the notice u/s. 148 was issued twice and the reassessment proceedings consequent to first notice u/s. 148 was pending when second notice u/s. 148 was issued. Thus the ld. AR has contented that the reassessment is not sustainable in law and liable to be quest.…

ASSP & Co. v. CIT (172 ITR 274) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax