CIT v. Smt. Meena Devi Mansighka

303 ITR 351High Court2008#20422 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2023.

Judgments citing CIT v. Smt. Meena Devi Mansighka

DCIT(Ltu) - 1, Mumbai vs. Acc Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3176/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 55A

…to give effect to DVO's report is not sustainable in law for which reliance was placed on decision of ACIT v. Dhariya Construction Co. [(2010) 328 ITR 515 (SC)], Kamala Ojha v. ITO [(2017) 397 ITR 197 (Chattisgarh HC)] and CIT v. Meena Devi Mansinghka [(2008) 303 ITR 351 (Rajasthan HC)]. The Ld AR has further stated that Prior to 1-7-2012, reference u/s. 55A is invalid if value of asset as per registered valuer appointed by assessee was more than its FMV in the opinion of Assessing Officer for which reliance was mainly placed on following decisions: (i) CIT v. Puja Prints [2014] 360 ITR 697 (Bombay) (ii) Relevan…

Acc Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT(Ltu) - 1, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3136/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 55A

…to give effect to DVO's report is not sustainable in law for which reliance was placed on decision of ACIT v. Dhariya Construction Co. [(2010) 328 ITR 515 (SC)], Kamala Ojha v. ITO [(2017) 397 ITR 197 (Chattisgarh HC)] and CIT v. Meena Devi Mansinghka [(2008) 303 ITR 351 (Rajasthan HC)]. The Ld AR has further stated that Prior to 1-7-2012, reference u/s. 55A is invalid if value of asset as per registered valuer appointed by assessee was more than its FMV in the opinion of Assessing Officer for which reliance was mainly placed on following decisions: (i) CIT v. Puja Prints [2014] 360 ITR 697 (Bombay) (ii) Relevan…

Acc Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT(Ltu) - 1, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3135/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 55A

…to give effect to DVO's report is not sustainable in law for which reliance was placed on decision of ACIT v. Dhariya Construction Co. [(2010) 328 ITR 515 (SC)], Kamala Ojha v. ITO [(2017) 397 ITR 197 (Chattisgarh HC)] and CIT v. Meena Devi Mansinghka [(2008) 303 ITR 351 (Rajasthan HC)]. The Ld AR has further stated that Prior to 1-7-2012, reference u/s. 55A is invalid if value of asset as per registered valuer appointed by assessee was more than its FMV in the opinion of Assessing Officer for which reliance was mainly placed on following decisions: (i) CIT v. Puja Prints [2014] 360 ITR 697 (Bombay) (ii) Relevan…

Mamta Dinesh, Bulandshahr vs. DCIT, Circle- 3(1), Bulandshahr

In the result, appeal of Assessee is allowed

ITA 1709/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: Shri Deepesh Garg, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69

…uld not be any reopening and if same was permitted, it would amount to a clear case of change of opinion.” 4.4. Learned Counsel for the Assessee also relied upon Judgment of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Meena Devi Mansighka (2008) 303 ITR 351 (Raj.) in which it was held as under : “Mere DVO's report cannot constitute reason to believe that income has escaped assessment for the purpose of initiating reassessment and, therefore, Tribunal was justified in holding that the reassessment proceedings initiated on the basis of DVO's report were invalid ab initio, more so when it 7 ITA.No.1709…

CIT v. Smt. Meena Devi Mansighka (303 ITR 351) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax