CIT v. Jindal Polyester & Steel Ltd.

365 ITR 225High Court#24678 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,356 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2021.

Judgments citing CIT v. Jindal Polyester & Steel Ltd.

Sampark Hotels (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 1438/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

For Appellant: Shri Satyen Sethi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Senior DR

Section 10Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 139Section 143Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)

…ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in case of ITO vs. Sitashri Trading & Finance Pvt. Ltd. (supra) decided the identical issue in favour of the assessee by following the decision rendered by Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in CIT vs. Jindal Polyester & Steel Ltd. 365 ITR 225 (All.) by returning following findings :- “9. The main thrust of DR's contention is that it was only when the assessee was cornered by issuing notice u/s. 143(2) dated 11.12.2013 that the assessee filed the revised computation of book profit. In this context, it is significant to note that the AO issued questionnaire which does not contain even…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sitashri Trading & Finance Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2295/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Tiwari, Sr.DR

Section 10Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 14Section 143(2)Section 14A

…do not find any infirmity in the impugned order of ld. CIT(A) which is based on plausible reasons and decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court (supra). Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jindal Polyester & Steel Ltd.,(2014) in ITA No. 73 OF 2001 , 365 ITR 225 (All.) held as under : “This court, while dealing with the penalty under section 271(1)(c), in A/eo Manali Hydro Power (P) Ltd. (supra) has held as follows (page 527) : "The Delhi High Court held that in respect of the company in question on the basis of normal provision income was assessed at 11 negative, i.e., on loss of Rs. 36,95,21,018. The…

Dhara Singh, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Ghaziabad

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 2213/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri T.S. Kapooray: 2012-13 Dhara Singh Ito, Ward 1(2), C/O Rupinder Kumar Vs. Ghaziabad Aggarwal, Uttar Pradesh Advocate, Ab-1A/22, Sector-51, Noida -201301 (Pan: Czjps0155A) (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv., ShFor Respondent: Sh. V.K. Jiwani, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234CSection 48Section 50CSection 54F

…dated 15.5.2008 and the aforesaid advance payment of Rs. 50 lacs duly find recorded in the sale deed. The jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Shimbu Mehra 236 Taxman 561 (All) following the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sanjeev Lal v. CIT 365 ITR 225 has held that the moment an agreement to sell is executed between the parties and part consideration is received, the transfer for the purpose of section 50C takes place and computation under section 48 will start accordingly and it was held therein as under: “14. In the light of the aforesaid provision, it is apparently clear that the moment an…