CIT v. Dhariwal Sales Enterprises

221 ITR 240Reported decision1996#20014 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2017.

Judgments citing CIT v. Dhariwal Sales Enterprises

PROVIDENT INV. & INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 5 of the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1003/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiprovident Inv & Industries P Ltd, Vs. Ito, Ward-14(2), 4Th Floor, Ito, A-49, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi Cr Building, New Delhi Pan:Aabcj4816P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Venugopal Nair, CAFor Respondent: Sh. FR Meena, Sr. DR
Section 142Section 144Section 69

…Provident Inv & Industries Private Limited V ITO ITA No 1003/Del/2015 A Y 2008-09 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S.SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Provident Inv & Industries P Ltd, Vs. ITO, Ward-14(2), 4th Floor, ITO, A-49, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi CR Building, New Delhi PAN:AABCJ4816P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sh. Venugopal Nair, CA Revenue by: Sh. FR Meena, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 11/04/2017 Date of pronouncement 17/05/2017 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. The assessee has p…

PR.COMMISSINOR OF INCOME TAX vs. JINDAL DYECHEM INDUSTRIES PVT.LTD.

ITA/668/2016HC Delhi05 May 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 142Section 143Section 153Section 260ASection 2C

…of the audit report dated 7th July 2006 to the Department, i.e., the period between 7th July 2006 and 17th July 2006 should stand excluded. Mr. Chaudhary referred to the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in CIT v. Dhariwal Sales Enterprises (1996) 221 ITR 240. He also referred to the decision of this Court in VLS Finance Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2016) 68 Taxman.com 368 (SC). It is pointed out that under Section 153 (1) of the Act, the period of limitation for making an order of assessment to be extended during which the said proceeding stands excluded for the purpose of computing th…

The Commissioner of Income TAx-IV vs. Sajjan Kumar Mann

ITTA/668/2016HC Telangana05 Dec 2016

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

Section 142Section 143Section 153Section 260ASection 2C

…of the audit report dated 7th July 2006 to the Department, i.e., the period between 7th July 2006 and 17th July 2006 should stand excluded. Mr. Chaudhary referred to the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in CIT v. Dhariwal Sales Enterprises (1996) 221 ITR 240. He also referred to the decision of this Court in VLS Finance Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2016) 68 Taxman.com 368 (SC). It is pointed out that under Section 153 (1) of the Act, the period of limitation for making an order of assessment to be extended during which the said proceeding stands excluded for the purpose of computing th…

VLS FINACNE LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER F INCOME TAX

C.A. No.-002667-002667 - 2007Supreme Court28 Apr 2016
Section 132Section 132ASection 142Section 158B

…al audit would mean that no special audit was needed and, therefore, it was not open to the respondent to wait for special audit, may not be a valid argument to the issue that is being dealt with. The assessing officer had, after going through 4 (1996) 221 ITR 240 Civil Appeal No. 2 667 of 2007 Page 15 of 21 Page 16 JUDGMENT the matter, formed an opinion that there was a need for special audit and the report of special audit was necessary for carrying out the assessment. Once such an opinion was formed, naturally, the assessing officer would not proceed with the assessment till the time the special…

CIT v. Dhariwal Sales Enterprises (221 ITR 240) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax