Balaji Forgings (P) Ltd. v. PCIT

175 DTR 57High Court#19543 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2023 to 2024.

Issues it is cited on

section 44afsection 262trade creditorsinadequate enquiryrevision u/s 263section 263(1)non application of mindlack of enquirymalabar industrialsection 194asection 44asection 40a(3)

Judgments citing Balaji Forgings (P) Ltd. v. PCIT

M/S Din Dayal Pursotam Lal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

ITA 148/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

…ervices (P) Ltd., order dated 28.02.2007, passed in IT Appeal No. 170 of 2007, against which last order, the SLP filed by the Department has been dismissed vide order dated 15.01.2000 in SLP (Civil) [CC No. 13518/2007]. (ii) Sri Bala Forgings (P) Ltd. Vs PCIT 175 DTR 57 (Del) (Trib) is also to the same effect. (iii) Too, once the order passed u/s 147/143(3) of the Act is invalid, the consequential proceedings u/s 263 are also invalid, as held in ; i) 341 1TR 240 (Del) CIT v. Software Consultants ii) 49 ITR (T) 0406 (Mum) dated 24.6.2016 M/s Westlife Development Ltd v. Pr. CIT iii) ITA No. 2857/Del./2017 dated 10.…

M/S Din Dayal Pursotam Lal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

ITA 147/CHANDI/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

…ervices (P) Ltd., order dated 28.02.2007, passed in IT Appeal No. 170 of 2007, against which last order, the SLP filed by the Department has been dismissed vide order dated 15.01.2000 in SLP (Civil) [CC No. 13518/2007]. (ii) Sri Bala Forgings (P) Ltd. Vs PCIT 175 DTR 57 (Del) (Trib) is also to the same effect. (iii) Too, once the order passed u/s 147/143(3) of the Act is invalid, the consequential proceedings u/s 263 are also invalid, as held in ; i) 341 1TR 240 (Del) CIT v. Software Consultants ii) 49 ITR (T) 0406 (Mum) dated 24.6.2016 M/s Westlife Development Ltd v. Pr. CIT iii) ITA No. 2857/Del./2017 dated 10.…

M/S Din Dayal Pursotam Lal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

ITA 146/CHANDI/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

…ervices (P) Ltd., order dated 28.02.2007, passed in IT Appeal No. 170 of 2007, against which last order, the SLP filed by the Department has been dismissed vide order dated 15.01.2000 in SLP (Civil) [CC No. 13518/2007]. (ii) Sri Bala Forgings (P) Ltd. Vs PCIT 175 DTR 57 (Del) (Trib) is also to the same effect. (iii) Too, once the order passed u/s 147/143(3) of the Act is invalid, the consequential proceedings u/s 263 are also invalid, as held in ; i) 341 1TR 240 (Del) CIT v. Software Consultants ii) 49 ITR (T) 0406 (Mum) dated 24.6.2016 M/s Westlife Development Ltd v. Pr. CIT iii) ITA No. 2857/Del./2017 dated 10.…

Ashok Kumar Gupta, Faridabad vs. Pr. CIT, Faridabad

In the result, the grounds raised are sustained and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 369/DEL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2010-11 Ashok Kumar Gupta, Vs Pr. Cit, 200, Sec.-7A, Faridabad. Faridabad, Haryana. 121 001 Pan: Aalpg5795M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rakesh Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Zafarul Haque Tanweer, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2023 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Is Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 09.03.2020 Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Faridabad (Hereinafter Referred As Ld. Pcit) Arising Out Of The Order Dated 28.11.2017 Passed U/S. 147/148 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) By The Ito, Ward 1(1), Faridabad (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao). 2. At The Outset, It Was Pointed Out By Ld. Ar That An Application For Condonation Of Delay Of 324 Days Has Been Filed Supported With An Affidavit. On Hearing Upon The Same, It Comes Up That The Limitation For Filing The Appeal Was Upto 11.05.2020 & Due To Covid-19 Restrictions, In View Of The Directions Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No.03/2020, The Period Between 15.03.2020 & 28.02.2022 Has To Be Excluded For The Purpose Of Calculation Of Limitation & In The Light Of The Aforesaid, The Delay Is Condoned.

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Zafarul Haque Tanweer, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)

…g Officer and thus the first reassessment order stood merged with the second, thus, the said order cannot be revised under Section 263 of the Act since only the valid reassessment order can be revised. [Sri Balaji Forgings (P) Ltd. v. PCIT (2019) 197 TTJ 915: 175 DTR 57 (ITAT Delhi)] 16. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend , alter vary and / or withdraw any or all the above grounds of Appeal.” 10. After taking into consideration the facts of the matter and the submissions made, it comes up that consequent to the notice u/s 147/148 dated 28.11.2017 notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was first issued on 02.06.2017…

Balaji Forgings (P) Ltd. v. PCIT (175 DTR 57) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax