How many judgments cite Cargo Clearing Agency v. Jt. CIT?

28 judgments on BharatTax cite Cargo Clearing Agency v. Jt. CIT (307 ITR 1), spanning 2016 to 2024.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Cargo Clearing Agency v. Jt. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 132, Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 148, Section 153C, Section 143(1).

Cargo Clearing Agency v. Jt. CIT

307 ITR 1High Court2008#4187 most cited

What is Cargo Clearing Agency v. Jt. CIT authority for?

When a conflict arises between the assessment procedures for block periods (erstwhile Section 158BC) and normal reassessment provisions (Sections 147/148), the block period provisions prevail.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Cargo Clearing Agency · JCIT · 307 ITR 1 · section 158BC · section 147 · section 148 · block period assessment · search cases · conflict of provisions · income escaping assessment

Sections most often in play

Section 132 Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 148 Section 153C Section 143(1)Section 145(3)Section 148(2)

Issues it is cited on

section 158bd block period income escaping assessment entry operator section 149 satisfaction note tangible material reason to believe section 151 escapement of income reopening of assessment cross objection

Judgments citing Cargo Clearing Agency v. Jt. CIT

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(2)(1), Bangalore vs. Shri Sachin Kamath, Bangalore

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals bearing ITA Nos

ITA 1780/BANG/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri S.Srinivasan, CAFor Respondent: Dr.Pradeep Kumar,P.V., Addl.CIT(DR)

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…. . . . . 14.5 The decisions cited on behalf of the assessee are clearly distinguishable and do not raise any conflict with position of law narrated above. The decision rendered by the Gujarat High Court in the case of Cargo Clearing Agency v. Jt. CIT [2008] 307 ITR 1 has been rendered under a different scheme for assessment of search cases i.e. with reference to block period regime. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court also echoes that in case of conflict between the operation of erstwhile Section 158BC of the Act (pertaining to erstwhile assessment procedure in the case of third person under old scheme) and Section…

Shri Shailesh S. Patel, Palanpur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Palanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3063/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3063/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13)

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Shah, A.R

Section 147Section 148Section 68

…be faulted. 14.5 The decisions cited on behalf of the assessee are clearly distinguishable and do not raise any conflict with position of law narrated above. The decision rendered by the Gujarat High Court in the case of Cargo Clearing Agency vs. JCIT [2008] 307 ITR 1 (Guj) has been rendered under a different scheme for assessment of search cases i.e. with reference to block period regime. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court also echoes that in case of conflict between the operation of erstwhile Section 158BC of the Act (pertaining to erstwhile assessment procedure in the case of third person under old scheme) and Se…

DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai vs. Pampac Machines P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3818/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Manish V.Shah and Ms. Niyanta MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop-DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153Section 153ASection 254(1)

…153A of the Act,that reassessment proceedings could not be initiated in 153A cases.He referred to pages 134-140 of the PB as well answers to questions 2 and 3 raised by the AO vide its letter dated 16.10. 2009.He relied upon the case of Cargo Clearing Agency (307 ITR 1) of Hon’ble Gurarat High Court and case of Calcutta Chromotype Pvt. Ltd.(97 ITR 55) of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court. With regard to the application filed by the assessee under rule 27 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 (Rules),the AR argued that there was no escapement of income,as held by the FAA. Alternatively,he argued that the assessee should be allowe…

Smt.Bhagya Nagaraj, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 95/BANG/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Oct 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Seshachala, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Addl.CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, BENGALURU BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.93 to 96/Bang/2017 (Assessment years: 2005-06 to 2008-09) Smt.Bhagya Nagaraj, No.6 & 7, 5th Cross, Chunchaghatta Main Road, New Bank Colony, Konanakunta, Bengaluru-560062. … Appellant PAN:ACDPN 3764 B Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle 2(2), Bengaluru. … Respondent Appellant by : Shri M.V.Seshachala, Sr. Advocate & Shri Arvind V.Chavan, Advocate. Respondent by : Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Addl.CIT(DR) Date of hearing : 19/09/2017 Date of…

Smt.Bhagya Nagaraj, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 94/BANG/2017[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Oct 2017AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Seshachala, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Addl.CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153C

Smt.Bhagya Nagaraj, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 93/BANG/2017[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Oct 2017AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Seshachala, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Addl.CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153C

Sh. Ravinder Singh Lohia, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1852/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh GuptaFor Respondent: Shri T. Vasanthan Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153C

…rtherance thereto under sec. 147 read with section 143(3) of the Act are void ab initio. The reassessment in question is accordingly quashed. The ground No.1 is accordingly allowed.” ACIT vs Arun Kapur 140 TTJ 249 (Amritsar) • Cargo Clearing Agency vs JCIT 307 ITR 1 (Guj.) • M/s Chopra Marketing (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT in ITA No. 10/Del/2012 • dated 28.12.2016 Schliecher India Ltd. vs. DCIT in ITA No. 6253/Del/2013 dated • 24.03.2017 6. The conclusion in the case of Rajat Shubra [supra] is that reassessment was initiated on the basis of incriminating material found in the search of a third party provisions of sec…

Sh. Rajat Shubra Chatterji, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 2430/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu Assessment Year: 2007-08 Rajat Shubra Chatterji, Vs. Acit, C-502, Npsc Housing Society, Circle 37(1), Sector-5, Dwarka, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aarpc5101F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Pc Yadav,Adv. Department By: Shri Rajesh Kumar Kedia, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 02 .03.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 20 :05.2016 Order Per I.C. Sudhir:The Assessee Has Questioned First Appellate Order On The Following Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri PC Yadav,AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Kedia, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 28Section 79A

…regard, he placed reliance on the following decisions to support his above contentions that no action under sec. 147 is permissible on the basis of material found in search: i) ACIT vs. Arun Kapur – 140 TTJ 249 (Amritsar); ii) Cargo Clearing Agency vs. JCIT – 307 ITR 1(Guj.); 7 6. The Learned Senior DR on the other hand tried to justify the action of the Assessing Officer in initiating reopening proceedings. He submitted that the Assessing Officer was in possession of specific information that sweat equity shares in the hands of the assessee was taxable under section 28(iv) of the Act. The Assessing Officer had…