Beena Rahul Mishra v. CIT

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ULTRATECH CEMENT LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

…own order or change of\nopinion and cannot be considered as mistake apparent from record.\nHence the order passed under section 154 of the Act is bad in law. In this\ncase, reliance was also placed on various case laws i.e.Beena Rahul\nMishra vs CIT & others (185 ITR 361), T.S. Balram ITO v. Volkart\nBrothers & Others (82 ITR 50) (SC),Khatau Junkar Ltd. vs K.S.\nPathania [1992] 196 ITR 55 (Bom),Satish Kumar Aggarwal v. Deputy\nCommissioner of Income-tax [2012] 20 taxmann.com 172 (Delhi ITAT)\nand Additional CIT v. Chemical Limes (149 ITR 325) (Raj).Based on the\nabove decisions, it is stated that the proposed act…

IKG ASSOCIATES,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 23(1), MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are hereby

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3140/Mum/2015 & 3169/Mum/2015 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Ikg Associates Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम/ The Il & Fs Financial Income Tax Range 23(1) Vs. Centre Plot No.C-22, G (Erstwhile Assistant Block, Bandra-Kurla Commissioner Of Income Complex, Bandra (E), Tax 19(3)) Mumbai - 400051 Room No.122, 1St Floor, Matru Mandir, Grant Road, Mumbai - 400007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaai1978E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""थ" / Respondent)

…ready taken the view A.Y. 2008-09 u/s.154 of the Act by virtue of order dated 25.02.2011. It cannot be treated as mistake apparent on record where two views have been taken specifically in view of the law settled in Beena Rahul Mishra Vs. CIT [53 Taxman 163, 185 ITR 361] Bombay High Court and Rajasthan High Court in case of Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Chemical Limes decided on 16th April 1984. 7. Moreover, it has been specifically held by the Assessing Officer that the assessee was not liable to pay the advanced tax up to 15.12.2007 as the assessee did not earn any income, therefore, he was not liable t…

IKG ASSOCIATES,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 23(1), MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are hereby

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3140/Mum/2015 & 3169/Mum/2015 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Ikg Associates Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम/ The Il & Fs Financial Income Tax Range 23(1) Vs. Centre Plot No.C-22, G (Erstwhile Assistant Block, Bandra-Kurla Commissioner Of Income Complex, Bandra (E), Tax 19(3)) Mumbai - 400051 Room No.122, 1St Floor, Matru Mandir, Grant Road, Mumbai - 400007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaai1978E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""थ" / Respondent)

…ready taken the view A.Y. 2008-09 u/s.154 of the Act by virtue of order dated 25.02.2011. It cannot be treated as mistake apparent on record where two views have been taken specifically in view of the law settled in Beena Rahul Mishra Vs. CIT [53 Taxman 163, 185 ITR 361] Bombay High Court and Rajasthan High Court in case of Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Chemical Limes decided on 16th April 1984. 7. Moreover, it has been specifically held by the Assessing Officer that the assessee was not liable to pay the advanced tax up to 15.12.2007 as the assessee did not earn any income, therefore, he was not liable t…