CIT v Blue Star Ltd., (2018)162 DTR 302/ 301 CTR 38(Bom); Nandalal Tejmal Kothari v. Inspecting ACIT

230 ITR 943Supreme Court of India1998#15433 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

Judgments citing CIT v Blue Star Ltd., (2018)162 DTR 302/ 301 CTR 38(Bom); Nandalal Tejmal Kothari v. Inspecting ACIT

RAGHUNANDAN BHOMIA,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal grounds

ITA 5724/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS. PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

…. vis D.C.LT. (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC). For passing an order under section 147 recording of reasons u/s 148 and communication thereof to party concern is mandatory. Gujarat Fluorochemicals Ltd Vs. DCTT (2008) 15 DTR (Guj), Nandlal Tejmal Kothari Vs. ACIT (1998) 230 ITR 943 (SC) (P-44 45) Where Assessee ask for reasons for reassessment and the same was not furnished to the Assessee before completion of assessment, such reassessment is held invalid and it could not be upheld. Moreover, Special Leave Petition filed by revenue against the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Fomento Resorts and Hotels L…

AMIT KHATRI,SONIPAT vs. ITO, WARD 1, SONIPAT

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

ITA 2430/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2430/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 बनाम Amit Khatri Income Tax Officer Ward No.30, Garhi Bhraman, Vs. Ward-1, Sonipat, Haryana. Sonipat, Haryana. Pan No. Bdspk3438G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 147Section 148Section 151

…y 16, 2007; • KSS Petron Private Ltd vs. ACIT ITA No.224 of 2014 Dated 03.10.2016 (Bom); • CIT vs. IDBI Ltd ITA No.494 of 2014 Dated 19.09.2016 (Bom); • CIT v. Blue Star Ltd. (2018) 162 DTR 302 / 301 CTR 38 (Bom) (HC); • Nandlal Tejmal Kothari Vs. ACIT (1998) 230 ITR 943 (SC); • Inderjeet Singh Sachdeva vs. DCIT [2017] 49 ITR(T) 1 (Delhi) (Trib); • Ujagar Holdings Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO 51 ITR(T) 343 (Delhi) (Trib); • Sh. Balwant Rai Wadhwa Vs ITO in ITA 4806/Del/2010 dated 14.01.2011; I.T.A. No. 2430/Del/2023 • Sahkari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd ACIT 370 ITR 107 (Guj) approved in SLP (C) No.008189/2016 (SC) dt: 18.03.20…

ANAND ENGINEERING PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3,, TIRCHY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly

ITA 1915/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Rahul Chaudharyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1915/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S. Anand Engineering Products Vs The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pvt.Ltd. Circle-3 12/18, Abirami Flats, Ground Floor, Trichy. Ramakrishna Street, T.Nagar Chennai-600 017. Pan:Aafca 1512R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mrs.R.Uma Maheswari, JCITFor Respondent: 30.05.2022
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 36(1)(iii)

…is fact was highlighted and prayed for quashing the assessment redone. Appellant relied on the following judicial pronouncements in support of its claim: CIT v Blue Star Ltd., (2018)162 DTR 302/ 301 CTR 38(Bom); Nandalal Tejmal Kothari v Inspecting ACIT (1998)230 ITR 943 (SC). 3. Surprisingly these submissions were not considered by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in his order. 4. The Learned Joint Commissioner of Income Tax had brushed aside the materials submitted by the Appellant in support of the halted project and produced the ledger copies of the Building WIP and the copies of the Balance sheet a…

SHRI SACHIN JAIN,RISHIKESH vs. ITO, RISHIKESH

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 4840/DEL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2005-06 Sachin Jain, Vs. Ito, S/O Shri Chaman Lal Jain, Ward-1(4)(2), Near Jain Mandir, Shanti Nagar, Rishikesh. Rishikesh. Pan: Adhpj2085N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Tiwari & Shri Shobhit Tiwari,, Advocates Revenue By : Shri D.S. Rawat, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.11.2018 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 1St January, 2016 Of The Cit(A), Dehradun, Relating To Assessment Year 2005-06. 2. This Is The Second Round Of Litigation Before The Tribunal. This Appeal Was Earlier Dismissed By The Tribunal Vide Order Dated 29Th December, 2016 For Non- Prosecution. Subsequently, The Tribunal, Vide Order Dated 9Th March, 2018, Recalled Its Earlier Order. Hence, This Is A Recalled Matter. 3. There Is A Delay Of 152 Days In Filing Of This Appeal Before The Tribunal By The Assessee. The Assessee Has Filed A Condonation Petition Along With An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For Delay In Filing Of The Appeal. After Considering The Submissions Made Therein & On A Perusal Of The Record, The Delay In Filing Of The Appeal Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Tiwari &For Respondent: Shri D.S. Rawat, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148Section 153(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : SMC : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2005-06 Sachin Jain, Vs. ITO, S/o Shri Chaman Lal Jain, Ward-1(4)(2), Near Jain Mandir, Shanti Nagar, Rishikesh. Rishikesh. PAN: ADHPJ2085N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Rohit Tiwari & Shri Shobhit Tiwari,, Advocates Revenue by : Shri D.S. Rawat, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 11.10.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 20.11.2018 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 1st January, 2016 of the CIT(A), Dehradun, relating to Assessment Year…

GLOBSYN TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 179/KOL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.179/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Globsyn Technologies Ltd. Vs. I.T.O, Ward-2(3), Kolkata Xi-11 & 12, Block-Ep & Gp, Sector-V, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069. Kolkata – 700 091. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaacg 3401 C (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G. Hangshing, CIT(DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…an order under section 147 of the Act, recording of reasons u/s. 148 of the Act and communication thereof to party concerned is mandatory, for that we rely on the judgment of Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case ofNandlalTejmal Kothari v. Inspecting ACIT (1998) 230 ITR 943 (SC),wherein it was held as follows: “The controversy raised in this appeal is covered by the judgment of this Court in C. B. Gautam vs. Union of India (1992) 108 CTR (SC) 304 r/w (1993) 110 CTR (SC) 179 : (1993) 199 ITR 530 (SC) : TC 3PS.87, wherein it was held that : "31. The recording of reasons which lead to the passing of the order is basic…

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAVRICK SWEET AND FOODS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the revenue is decided on ground No

ITA 2942/DEL/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiito, Mavrick Sweet & Foods Ltd, Vs. Ward-6(3), M/S. D. Ostwal & Associates, New Delhi Ca, 303-304, Dakha Chambers, 2008, Hs Nalwa Street No. 38, Karol Bagh, New Delhi Pan:Aaacg4663N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Otwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 14Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ssing an order under section 147 recording of reasons u/s. 148 and communication thereof to party concern is mandatory as held by honourable courts in Gujarat Fluorochemicals Ltd v. DCIT (2008) 15 DTR (Guj.) 1, Nandlal Tejmal Kothari v. Inspecting ACIT (1998) 230 ITR 943 (SC). However if assessee does not ask for s. 147 reasons and object to reopening, ITAT cannot remand to AO and give assessee another opportunity as held by honourable Delhi high court in CIT v. Safetag International India Pvt. Ltd. In the case of CIT v. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (2012) 340 ITR 66 (Bom.) the Tribunal following the judgment of Bom…

CIT v Blue Star Ltd., (2018)162 DTR 302/ 301 CTR 38(Bom); Nandalal Tejmal Kothari v. Inspecting ACIT (230 ITR 943) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax