CIT v. Parmeshwar Bohra

267 ITR 698High Court2004#6043 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144B Section 147 Section 148 Section 153A Section 263

Issues it is cited on

revision u/s 263 malabar industrial amalgamation erroneous and prejudicial faceless assessment complete scrutiny non-application of mind section 263 section 26 final assessment order section 143(2)section 144b

Judgments citing CIT v. Parmeshwar Bohra

MADAN MOHAN RAO PUVVADA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 1152/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1152/Hyd/2024 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Madan Mohan Rao The Income Tax Puvvada, Hyderabad. Officer, Ward-5(1), Vs. Pin – 500 063. Hyderabad. Pan Agjpp4754H Telangana. Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 11.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 04.03.2026 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Sri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 263

…the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax is not justified in revising the order of the Assessing Officer. In support of this, the assessee relies on the following case laws: a) CIT vs. Mehrotra Brothers [2004] 270 ITR 157 (MP); b) CIT vs. Parameshwar Bohra [2004] 267 ITR 698 (Raj); c) Paul Mathews and Sons vs. CIT [2003] 263 ITR 101 (Ker) Since the property under consideration has been reported in the books and ITR by joint holder and Asst order passed by the Assessing officer in case of the assessee was not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, the proposed revision u/s 263 is requested to be dro…

LEADER ELECTRIC CO.,RAJKOT vs. THE PCIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

ITA 377/RJT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.376 & 377/Rjt/ 2024 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15& 2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Leader Electric Co. The Pcit – 1, Vs. Dindayal Industries Estates, Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Aji Vasahat, Opp. Gamara Hostel, Road, Rajkot - 360003 Rajkot – 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadfl6072C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: ShriD. M. Rindani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: ShriSanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT (DR)

Section 147Section 2Section 263

…taken in revision by the Commissioner u/s. 263 of the IT Act. 1. CIT v. Ratlam Coal Ash Co. (1988) 171 ITR 141 (MP) 2. Ashok Kumar Parasramka v. ACIT (1998) 65 ITD 1(Cal) 3. CIT v. Mahrortra Brothers (2004) 270 ITR 157 (MP) 4. CIT v. Parmeshwar Bohra (2004) 267 ITR 698 (Raj.) 5. Paul Mathews & Sons v. CIT (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker) 6. CIT v. Arvind Jewellers (2003) 259 ITR 502 (Guj.) 7. CIT v. Hastings Properties (2002) 253 ITR 124 (Cal) 8. CIT v. Goal (JP) (HUF) (2001) 247 ITR 555 (Cal) (e)Assessee submitted that explanation 2 to section 263 was inserted with effect from the date 01.06.2015, hence, same is not r…

LEADER ELECTRIC CO.,RAJKOT vs. THE PCIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

ITA 376/RJT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: ShriD. M. Rindani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: ShriSanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT (DR)

Section 147Section 2Section 263

…e taken in revision by the Commissioner u/s. 263 of the IT Act. 1. CIT v. Ratlam Coal Ash Co. (1988) 171 ITR 141 (MP) 2. Ashok Kumar Parasramka v. ACIT (1998) 65 ITD 1(Cal) 3. CIT v. Mahrortra Brothers (2004) 270 ITR 157 (MP) 4. CIT v. Parmeshwar Bohra (2004) 267 ITR 698 (Raj.) 5. Paul Mathews & Sons v. CIT (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker) 6. CIT v. Arvind Jewellers (2003) 259 ITR 502 (Guj.) 7. CIT v. Hastings Properties (2002) 253 ITR 124 (Cal) 8. CIT v. Goal (JP) (HUF) (2001) 247 ITR 555 (Cal) (e)Assessee submitted that explanation 2 to section 263 was inserted with effect from the date 01.06.2015, hence, same is not r…

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), PUNE vs. SURESH KUMAR LAKHOTIA , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is Partly Allowed

ITA 24/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.24/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2018-19 Vs Suresh Kumar Lakhotia, The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax(Osd), 3A/3B, Archies Court Pune. Shankersheth Road, Ghorpade Peth, Pune – 411042. Pune – 411042. Pan: Aazpl4337L Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By Shri Devdatta Mainkar – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Keshari – Dr Date Of Hearing 14/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27/09/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 09.11.2023 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Id. Cit(A) Erred In Accepting The Assessee'S Contention That The Additional Capital Introduced In Ay 2018- 19 Represents Accumulated Suresh Kumar Lakhotia [R]

Section 250Section 68o

…case before the Chennai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in Dy. CIT vs. V. V. D. Murali ITA No. 84/Mds/2015), the Hon'ble ITAT held that opening capital cannot be added u/s 68 or 69 of the Act. In the case of CIT vs. Parmeshwar Bohra [2004] 267 ITR 698, the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court held that opening capital cannot be added u/s 68 or 69 of the Act. Business income, Personal income, and Total income reported in ITR from AY 2006-07 to AY 2017-18 Business income Income from other Page no. of Paper Sr No ROI Year Total Income Exempt income Personal income Taxes paid heads Book A B C D E-C-D F G…

NEHA WADHWA,KOTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(1), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 950/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ld. Cit(A).

For Appellant: Sh. C M Birla, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Monisha Choudhary, Addl.CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 68

…t of this advances in the year under consideration since it was appearing balance-sheet as receivable. In support of this contention the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of our Hon’ble High Court in the case of CIT vs. Parmeshwar Bohra [2004] 267 ITR 698 (Raj.). 9. Per contra, the ld. DR heavily relied upon the order of lower authorities. The ld. DR strongly objected to the contentions raised she submitted that the assessee did not give any details as to pawning debtors 12 Neha Wadhwa vs. ITO outstanding. Even the assessee, while filing the appeal before ld. CIT(A) did not consider it fit t…

NARESH KUMAR BHARGAVA,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 221/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. Rohan SoganiFor Respondent: Sh. Anil Dhaka, CIT

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…onouncements: - 25 Naresh Kumar Bhargava vs. PCIT 7.3.i CIT v Ratlam Coal Ash Co (1988) 171 ITR 141 (MP) 7.3.ii Ashok Kumar Parasramka v ACIT (1998) 65 ITD 1 (Cal) 7.3.iii CIT v Mehrortra Brothers (2004) 270 ITR 157 (MP) 7.3.iv CIT v Parameshwar Bohra (2004) 267 ITR 698 (Raj) 7.3.v Paul Mathews & Sons v CIT (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker) 7.3.vi CIT v Arvind Jewellers (2003) 259 ITR 502 (Guj) 7.3.vii CIT v Hastings Properties (2002) 253 ITR 124 (Cal) 7.3.viii CIT v Goal (JP) (HUF) (2001) 247 ITR 555 (Cal) 7.3.ix CIT v Amalgamations Ltd. (1999) 238 ITR 963 (Mad) 7.3.x CIT v Macneill Magore Ltd. (1998) 232 ITR 945 (Cal)…

NARAYAN CHANDRA JANA,PURBA MEDINIPUR vs. ITO, WARD - 27(3), HALDIA, HALDIA

In the result, the appeal of assessee allowed

ITA 1310/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 133Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 68Section 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, KOLKATA [Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member] I.T.A. No. 1310/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Narayan Chandra Jana Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-27(3), Haldia. Bhuban Kalua, Tamluk, Purba Medinipur, West Bengal, Pin-721627. (PAN: ADFPJ4085L) Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 28.06.2023 Date of Pronouncement 22.09.2023 For the Appellant Shri Siddarth Agarwal, Advocate For the Respondent Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR ORDER Per Shri Rajesh Kumar, AM This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the orde…

CAREER POINT LIMITED,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 242/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik (CIT)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…. Reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements: 1. CIT v Ratlam Coal Ash Co (1988) 171 ITR 141 (MP) 2. Ashok Kumar Parasramka v ACIT (1998) 65 ITD 1 (Cal) 3. CIT v Mehrortra Brothers (2004) 270 ITR 157 (MP) 4. CIT v Parameshwar Bohra (2004) 267 ITR 698 (Raj) . 5. Paul Mathews & Sons v CIT (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker) 6. CIT v Arvind Jewellers (2003) 259 ITR 502 (Guj) 7. CIT v Hastings Properties (2002) 253 ITR 124 (Cal) 8. CIT v Goal (JP) (HUF) (2001) 247 ITR 555 (Cal) 1.17 From the facts on record (PB 22-27), it is crystal that the order was passed by AO after full enquiries and therefore, th…

NIMITA SONI PROP. SWARANLATA TRADERS,BIKANER vs. PCIT-1, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 41/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur21 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: The Hearing.”

Section 143(3)Section 263

…is placed on the following decisions : 1. CIT v. Valliammal (D) 230 ITR 695 (Mad); 2. CIT v. Ratlam Coal Ash Co., 171 ITR 141 (MP); 3. Ashok Kumar Parasramka v. ACIT, 65 ITD 1 (Cal); 4. CIT v. Mehrotra Brothers, 270 ITR 157 (MP); 5. CIT v. Parameshwar Bohra, 267 ITR 698 (Raj.); 6. Paul Mathews and Sons v. CIT, 263 ITR 101 (Ker.); 7. CIT v. Arvind Jewellers, 259 ITR 502 (Guj); 8. CIT v. Hastings Properties, 253 ITR 124 (Cal); 9. CIT v. Goal (J.P.) (HUF), 247 ITR 555 (Col); 10. CIT v. Amalgamations Ltd., 238 ITR 963 (Mad); 11. ClT v. Macneill Magore Ltd., 232 ITR 945 (Col.) (b) Simply because the Commissioner of I…

PRATAP TECHNOCRATS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 225/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (C.A.) &For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik (CIT) a

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80J

…s placed on the following judicial pronouncements: 4.8.i CIT v Ratlam Coal Ash Co (1988) 171 ITR 141 (MP) 4.8.ii Ashok Kumar Parasramka v ACIT (1998) 65 ITD 1 (Cal) 4.8.iii CIT v Mehrortra Brothers (2004) 270 ITR 157 (MP) 4.8.iv CIT v Parameshwar Bohra (2004) 267 ITR 698 (Raj) 4.8.v Paul Mathews & Sons v CIT (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker) 4.8.vi CIT v Arvind Jewellers (2003) 259 ITR 502 (Guj) 4.8.vii CIT v Hastings Properties (2002) 253 ITR 124 (Cal) 4.8.viii CIT v Goal (JP) (HUF) (2001) 247 ITR 555 (Cal) 4.8.ix CIT v Amalgamations Ltd. (1999) 238 ITR 963 (Mad) 4.8.x CIT v MacneillMagore Ltd. (1998) 232 ITR 945 (Cal)…

KGK HOMES,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as indicated

ITA 223/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CA &For Respondent: Shri James Kurian, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 263

…eous. Reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements: 1. CIT v Ratlam Coal Ash Co (1988) 171 ITR 141 (MP) 2. Ashok Kumar Parasramka v ACIT (1998) 65 ITD 1 (Cal) 3. CIT v Mehrortra Brothers (2004) 270 ITR 157 (MP) 4. CIT v Parameshwar Bohra (2004) 267 ITR 698 (Raj) 5. Paul Mathews & Sons v CIT (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker) 6. CIT v Arvind Jewellers (2003) 259 ITR 502 (Guj) 7. CIT v Hastings Properties (2002) 253 ITR 124 (Cal) 8. CIT v Goal (JP) (HUF) (2001) 247 ITR 555 (Cal) 9. CIT v Amalgamations Ltd. (1999) 238 ITR 963 (Mad) 10. CIT v Macneill Magore Ltd. (1998) 232 ITR 945 (Cal) 7. Where the NFAC has ex…

ACIT CC-18 vs. NEENA HARDEEP SINGH,

Accordingly, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1421/DEL/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2023AY 2004-2005

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaacit, Vs. Mrs. Neena Hardeep Singh Central Circle-18, L-5, Hauz Khas Enclave, Room No. 327, 3Rd Floor New Delhi Ara Centre, E-2, Pan : Aarps4684B Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

…Hardeep Nihal Singh : ITA No. 1422/Del/2008 (Del. Trib.) 2. Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE : 52 GST 355(SC) 3. Kishanchad Chellaram v. CIT : 125 ITR 713 (SC) 4. CIT vs. Usha Stud Agriculture Farms Ltd. : 301 ITR 384 (Del.) 5. CIT vs. Parmeshwar Bohra : 267 ITR 698 (Raj.) 6. PCIT v. Jugal Kishore Mahendra Biyani : Tax Appeal No. 1000 of 2018 (Guj.) 7. ACIT v. Kishan Lal Jewels (P) Ltd. : ITA No. 229/Del/2011 (Del.Trib.) 8. CIT v. Fancy International : [2008] 166 Taxman 183 (Del.) 9.CIT v. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises (P.) Ltd. : [2015] 372 ITR 619 (Bom) 10. Diagnostics v. CIT : [201] 334 ITR 111(Cal.) 11.…

NARESH KUMAR,BHIWANI vs. ITO, WARD-2, BHIWANI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 9028/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.9028/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 बनाम Naresh Kumar Ito H.No. 22638, Ward No. 5, Vs. Ward 2, Vill., Main Chowk Tosham, Bhiwani, Haryana. Bhiwani, Haryana. Pan No. Aenpk5376E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

…I.T.A.No.9028/Del/2019 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.9028/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 बनाम Naresh Kumar ITO H.No. 22638, Ward No. 5, Vs. Ward 2, Vill., Main Chowk Tosham, Bhiwani, Haryana. Bhiwani, Haryana. PAN No. AENPK5376E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Subhash Chander Jindal, Adv. िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee by Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue by सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date of hearing: 31.10.2022 23.01.2023 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement on आदेश /O R D E R This appeal is filed by t…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER vs. MUKESH KUMAR SOMANI , KISHANGARH

In the result appeals of the revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 336/JPR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Dec 2022AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri C. M Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Shailendra Sharma (CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 69

…n against opening capital balance cannot be made u/s 69 of the Act. (x) As regards the addition made by the AO on account of opening capital, the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Parmeshwar Bohra 184 CTR Raj 388, 2004 267 ITR 698 Raj on 3 February, CO Nos. 23 & 25/JP/2022 DCIT vs. Alok Malpani 2003 has held that it is a case of unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Act and the appropriate previous year for inclusion is the relevant financial year, therefore, the opening capital cannot be added as an unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Act for the asst…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER vs. ALOK MALPANI, KISHANGARH

In the result appeals of the revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 334/JPR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Dec 2022AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri C. M Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Shailendra Sharma (CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 69

MUKESH KUMAR SARAOGI,CHURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 186/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Shivangi Samdhani, CA &For Respondent: Sh. P. R. Meena (CIT)

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…eous. Reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements: 1. CIT v Ratlam Coal Ash Co (1988) 171 ITR 141 (MP) 2. Ashok Kumar Parasramka v ACIT (1998) 65 ITD 1 (Cal) 3. CIT v Mehrortra Brothers (2004) 270 ITR 157 (MP) 4. CIT v ParameshwarBohra (2004) 267 ITR 698 (Raj) 5. Paul Mathews & Sons v CIT (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker) 6. CIT v Arvind Jewellers (2003) 259 ITR 502 (Guj) 7. CIT v Hastings Properties (2002) 253 ITR 124 (Cal) 8. CIT v Goal (JP) (HUF) (2001) 247 ITR 555 (Cal) 9. CIT v Amalgamations Ltd. (1999) 238 ITR 963 (Mad) 10. CIT v MacneillMagore Ltd. (1998) 232 ITR 945 (Cal) 1. Without prejudice to a…

SHRI KALYAN BUILDMART PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 126/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani (CA) &For Respondent: Sh. Prathviraj Meena (CIT)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 6(3)(ii)

…. Reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i. CIT v Ratlam Coal Ash Co (1988) 171 ITR 141 (MP) ii. Ashok Kumar Parasramka v ACIT (1998) 65 ITD 1 (Cal) iii. CIT v Mehrortra Brothers (2004) 270 ITR 157 (MP) iv. CIT v Parameshwar Bohra (2004) 267 ITR 698 (Raj) v. Paul Mathews & Sons v CIT (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker) vi. CIT v Arvind Jewellers (2003) 259 ITR 502 (Guj) vii. CIT v Hastings Properties (2002) 253 ITR 124 (Cal) viii. CIT v Goal (JP) (HUF) (2001) 247 ITR 555 (Cal) ix. CIT v Amalgamations Ltd. (1999) 238 ITR 963 (Mad) x. CIT v Macneill Magore Ltd. (1998) 232 ITR 945 (Cal) 14. Where the Asse…

ULTRATECH CEMENT LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL - 1, MUMBAI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2999/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhita No. 3000/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ita No. 3001/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Sonde &For Respondent: Ms. S. Padmaja, D.R

Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263Section 263(2)Section 80I

…ikas Polymer (2010) 194 Taxman 57, (vi) Hari Iron Trading Co. Vs. CIT (2003) 131 Taxman 531, (vii)Idea Cellular Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2008) 301 ITR 407 and various other decisions as under: • CIT vs. Mehrotra Brothers (270 ITR 157) (MP) • CIT vs. Parameshwar Bohra (267 ITR 698) (Raj) • CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers (259 ITR 502) (Guj) • CIT vs. J.P Goal (HUE) (247 ITR 555) (Cal) • CIT vs. Macneill Magore Limited (232 ITR 945) (Cal) • CIT vs. Amalgamations Limited (238 ITR 963) (Mad) • Lark Chemicals Ltd. vs. CIT[2011] (16 taxmann.com 13) (Mum) • Ashok Kumar Parasramka vs. ACIT (65 lTD 1) (Kol) Finally, the ld. A.R contended…

M/S FAZAL FROZEN FOODS PVT. LTD.,,MEERUT vs. CIT, MEERUT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2837/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nandita Kanchan, CIT DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 263Section 36

…ibe the nature and level of enquiries, if the AO has already considered them and taken a possible view. Reliance in this regard is place on : CIT Vs Arvind Jewellers 259 ITR 502 (Gujrat) Paul Mathews And Sons Vs CIT 263 ITR 101 (Ker) CIT Vs Parmeshwar Bohra 267 ITR 698 (Raj) CIT Vs Mehrotra Brothers 270 ITR 157 (MP) Ashok Kumar Parasramka VS ACIT 65 ITD 1 ( Cal) The Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Hari Iron Trading Co Vs CIT 263 ITR 437 observed that an assessee has no control over the way an assessment order is drafted. It was observed that generally, the issues which are accepted by the As…