CIT v. S.G. Sambandam& Co.

242 ITR 708Reported decision2000#11346 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 350,364 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2018.

Judgments citing CIT v. S.G. Sambandam& Co.

Chaparala Babu Rao, Rep. of S. Sailaja Naidu, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer (International Taxation), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 182/VIZ/2018[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Nov 2018AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.175/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) Chaparala Babu Rao Vs. Dy.Director Of Income Tax 7-17-1, Main Road (It&Tp) Kirlampudi Layout Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Adcpc4435G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.180-182/Viz/2018 (धििाारणिर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) Chaparala Babu Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep.Assessee Of (International Taxation) (I) Sri K.Vemlata Rao Visakhapatnam (Ii) Sri G.Hari Prasad (Iii) Smt.S.Sailaja Naidu D.No.10-50-19, 4Th Floor “Soudamani” Siripuram Visakhapatnam (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) राजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Suman Malik, Dr निर्ााररती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri C.V.S.Murthy, Ar सुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2018 28.11.2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement :

For Appellant: Shri C.V.S.Murthy, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik, DR
Section 148Section 234ASection 234B

…issue of notice under section 148 of the Act to the agent after the expiry of two years from the end of the relevant assessment year is prohibition by the statute. The same ratio was followed in the following two cases (i) CIT v. S.G. Sambandam & Co., (2000) 242 ITR 708, 718 (Mad); (ii) Ingram Micro India Ltd. v. Deputy CIT (2012) 347 ITR 221 (Bom)." 14. Respectfully following the ratio laid down in the above cases, we hold that the re-assessment proceedings in this ease are also barred by limitation and therefore void ab initio. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.S.Gadgil Vs. Lal&Company (supra)held tha…

Chaparala Babu Rao, Rep. Sri G. Hari Prasad, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer (International Taxation), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 181/VIZ/2018[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Nov 2018AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.175/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) Chaparala Babu Rao Vs. Dy.Director Of Income Tax 7-17-1, Main Road (It&Tp) Kirlampudi Layout Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Adcpc4435G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.180-182/Viz/2018 (धििाारणिर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) Chaparala Babu Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep.Assessee Of (International Taxation) (I) Sri K.Vemlata Rao Visakhapatnam (Ii) Sri G.Hari Prasad (Iii) Smt.S.Sailaja Naidu D.No.10-50-19, 4Th Floor “Soudamani” Siripuram Visakhapatnam (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) राजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Suman Malik, Dr निर्ााररती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri C.V.S.Murthy, Ar सुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2018 28.11.2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement :

For Appellant: Shri C.V.S.Murthy, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik, DR
Section 148Section 234ASection 234B

…issue of notice under section 148 of the Act to the agent after the expiry of two years from the end of the relevant assessment year is prohibition by the statute. The same ratio was followed in the following two cases (i) CIT v. S.G. Sambandam & Co., (2000) 242 ITR 708, 718 (Mad); (ii) Ingram Micro India Ltd. v. Deputy CIT (2012) 347 ITR 221 (Bom)." 14. Respectfully following the ratio laid down in the above cases, we hold that the re-assessment proceedings in this ease are also barred by limitation and therefore void ab initio. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.S.Gadgil Vs. Lal&Company (supra)held tha…

Chaparala Babu Rao, Rep. of K. Vemlata Rao, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer (International Taxation), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 180/VIZ/2018[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Nov 2018AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.175/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) Chaparala Babu Rao Vs. Dy.Director Of Income Tax 7-17-1, Main Road (It&Tp) Kirlampudi Layout Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Adcpc4435G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.180-182/Viz/2018 (धििाारणिर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) Chaparala Babu Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep.Assessee Of (International Taxation) (I) Sri K.Vemlata Rao Visakhapatnam (Ii) Sri G.Hari Prasad (Iii) Smt.S.Sailaja Naidu D.No.10-50-19, 4Th Floor “Soudamani” Siripuram Visakhapatnam (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) राजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Suman Malik, Dr निर्ााररती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri C.V.S.Murthy, Ar सुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2018 28.11.2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement :

For Appellant: Shri C.V.S.Murthy, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik, DR
Section 148Section 234ASection 234B

…issue of notice under section 148 of the Act to the agent after the expiry of two years from the end of the relevant assessment year is prohibition by the statute. The same ratio was followed in the following two cases (i) CIT v. S.G. Sambandam & Co., (2000) 242 ITR 708, 718 (Mad); (ii) Ingram Micro India Ltd. v. Deputy CIT (2012) 347 ITR 221 (Bom)." 14. Respectfully following the ratio laid down in the above cases, we hold that the re-assessment proceedings in this ease are also barred by limitation and therefore void ab initio. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.S.Gadgil Vs. Lal&Company (supra)held tha…

R.Smitha Sharma Represented by Dr.P.Venugopal, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, (International Taxation), Visakhapatanam

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 74/VIZ/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam06 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.69/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Pratima Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.70/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Gautam Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.71/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Ujvala Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 147Section 148Section 234A

…e issue of notice under section 148 of the Act to the agent after the expiry of two years from the end of the relevant assessment year is prohibition by the statute. The same ratio was followed in the following two cases (i) CIT v. S.G. Sambandam& Co., (2000) 242 ITR 708, 718 (Mad); (ii) Ingram Micro India Ltd. v. Deputy CIT (2012) 347 ITR 221 (Born)." 14. Respectfully following the ratio laid down in the above cases, we hold that the re-assessment proceedings in this ease are also barred by limitation and therefore void ab initio. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.S.Gadgil Vs. Lal & Company (supra)held…

R.Mani Kumar Represented by Dr.P.Venugopal, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, (International Taxation), Visakhapatnam

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 73/VIZ/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam06 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.69/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Pratima Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.70/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Gautam Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.71/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Ujvala Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 147Section 148Section 234A

…e issue of notice under section 148 of the Act to the agent after the expiry of two years from the end of the relevant assessment year is prohibition by the statute. The same ratio was followed in the following two cases (i) CIT v. S.G. Sambandam& Co., (2000) 242 ITR 708, 718 (Mad); (ii) Ingram Micro India Ltd. v. Deputy CIT (2012) 347 ITR 221 (Born)." 14. Respectfully following the ratio laid down in the above cases, we hold that the re-assessment proceedings in this ease are also barred by limitation and therefore void ab initio. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.S.Gadgil Vs. Lal & Company (supra)held…

Lalitha D.V.Rao Represented by Dr.P.Venugopal, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, (International Taxation), Visakhapatnam

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 72/VIZ/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam06 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.69/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Pratima Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.70/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Gautam Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.71/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Ujvala Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 147Section 148Section 234A

…e issue of notice under section 148 of the Act to the agent after the expiry of two years from the end of the relevant assessment year is prohibition by the statute. The same ratio was followed in the following two cases (i) CIT v. S.G. Sambandam& Co., (2000) 242 ITR 708, 718 (Mad); (ii) Ingram Micro India Ltd. v. Deputy CIT (2012) 347 ITR 221 (Born)." 14. Respectfully following the ratio laid down in the above cases, we hold that the re-assessment proceedings in this ease are also barred by limitation and therefore void ab initio. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.S.Gadgil Vs. Lal & Company (supra)held…

V.Ujavala Rao Represented by Dr.P.Venugopal, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, (International Taxation), Visakhapatnam

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 71/VIZ/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam06 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.69/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Pratima Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.70/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Gautam Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.71/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Ujvala Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 147Section 148Section 234A

…e issue of notice under section 148 of the Act to the agent after the expiry of two years from the end of the relevant assessment year is prohibition by the statute. The same ratio was followed in the following two cases (i) CIT v. S.G. Sambandam& Co., (2000) 242 ITR 708, 718 (Mad); (ii) Ingram Micro India Ltd. v. Deputy CIT (2012) 347 ITR 221 (Born)." 14. Respectfully following the ratio laid down in the above cases, we hold that the re-assessment proceedings in this ease are also barred by limitation and therefore void ab initio. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.S.Gadgil Vs. Lal & Company (supra)held…

V.Gautam Rao Represented by Dr.P.Venugopal, Visakhpatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, (International Taxation), Visakhapatnam

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 70/VIZ/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam06 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.69/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Pratima Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.70/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Gautam Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.71/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Ujvala Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 147Section 148Section 234A

…e issue of notice under section 148 of the Act to the agent after the expiry of two years from the end of the relevant assessment year is prohibition by the statute. The same ratio was followed in the following two cases (i) CIT v. S.G. Sambandam& Co., (2000) 242 ITR 708, 718 (Mad); (ii) Ingram Micro India Ltd. v. Deputy CIT (2012) 347 ITR 221 (Born)." 14. Respectfully following the ratio laid down in the above cases, we hold that the re-assessment proceedings in this ease are also barred by limitation and therefore void ab initio. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.S.Gadgil Vs. Lal & Company (supra)held…

V.Pratima Rao, Represented by Dr. P.Venugopal, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, (International Taxation), Visakhapatnam

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 69/VIZ/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam06 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.69/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Pratima Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.70/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Gautam Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.71/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Ujvala Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 147Section 148Section 234A

…e issue of notice under section 148 of the Act to the agent after the expiry of two years from the end of the relevant assessment year is prohibition by the statute. The same ratio was followed in the following two cases (i) CIT v. S.G. Sambandam& Co., (2000) 242 ITR 708, 718 (Mad); (ii) Ingram Micro India Ltd. v. Deputy CIT (2012) 347 ITR 221 (Born)." 14. Respectfully following the ratio laid down in the above cases, we hold that the re-assessment proceedings in this ease are also barred by limitation and therefore void ab initio. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.S.Gadgil Vs. Lal & Company (supra)held…