CIT v. Sri Durga Enterprises

44 Taxmann.com 442High Court2014#3843 most cited

What is CIT v. Sri Durga Enterprises authority for?

A notice issued under section 148 is valid if the assessee treats it as valid, responds to it in letter and spirit, and participates in the proceedings, given the application of section 292B.

31

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2023.

Also referred to as

CIT v Sri Durga Enterprises · section 292B · section 148 · validity of notice · assessee response · letter and spirit · participation in proceedings · income tax act

Also reported as

44 Taxmann 442

Judgments citing CIT v. Sri Durga Enterprises

MOHAMMED MUJEEB SIKANDER,MANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE (1), MANGALORE

ITA 1119/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri T.M. Shivakumar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, D.R
Section 1Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153C(1)(a)Section 68Section 69B

…ITA Nos.1117 to 1119/Bang/2022 Mohammed Mujeeb Sikander, Mangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1117 to 1119/Bang/2022 Assessment Years: 2016-17 to 2018-19 Mohammed Mujeeb Sikander 306, 3rd Floor, B.M.K. Commercial Centre DCIT Highland, Falnir Vs. Central Circle-1 Mangalore 575 002 Mangalore PAN NO : AELPS6817A APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri T.M. Shivakumar, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, D.R. Date of Hearing : 16.08.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 30.10.2023 O…

MOHAMMED MUJEEB SIKANDER,MANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE (1), MANGALORE

ITA 1117/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri T.M. Shivakumar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, D.R
Section 1Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153C(1)(a)Section 68Section 69B

…ITA Nos.1117 to 1119/Bang/2022 Mohammed Mujeeb Sikander, Mangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1117 to 1119/Bang/2022 Assessment Years: 2016-17 to 2018-19 Mohammed Mujeeb Sikander 306, 3rd Floor, B.M.K. Commercial Centre DCIT Highland, Falnir Vs. Central Circle-1 Mangalore 575 002 Mangalore PAN NO : AELPS6817A APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri T.M. Shivakumar, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, D.R. Date of Hearing : 16.08.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 30.10.2023 O…

HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the assessee appeal is allowed

ITA 123/HYD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Laliet Kumarvs. Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Hyundai Motor India Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Circle Hyderabad. 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan Aabcjh7867C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri H. Srinivasulu, Adv. Respondent By : Shri Yvst Sai, Cit-Dr. Date Of Hearing : 27.07.2022. Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2022. O R D E R Per Shri Inturi Rama Rao, A.M. : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Hyderabad Dt.05.12.2019 For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

For Appellant: Shri H. Srinivasulu, AdvFor Respondent: Shri YVST Sai, CIT-DR
Section 143Section 144CSection 144C(15)Section 271(1)(c)Section 292BSection 92CSection 92E

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD ‘B’ BENCH, HYDERABAD. BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Vs. Dy. Commissioner of M/s. Hyundai Motor India Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Circle Hyderabad. 2(2), Hyderabad. PAN AABCJH7867C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri H. Srinivasulu, Adv. Respondent By : Shri YVST Sai, CIT-DR. Date of Hearing : 27.07.2022. Date of Pronouncement : 29.07.2022. O R D E R Per Shri Inturi Rama Rao, A.M. : This is an appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appea…

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HUBBALI vs. M/S N. B. HIREMATH, HUBBALI

In the result, all these appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 113/PAN/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji31 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 111/Pan/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10

Section 250Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

…the assessment order and at no stage of penalty proceedings before the Assessing Officer raised the issue of non-ticking of relevant column in penalty show cause notice as held by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Sri Durga Enterprises (2014) 44 Taxmann 442?” 3. The sole issue raised by the ld. Counsel for the assessee in all these appeals is the preliminary objection challenging the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) on the ground that the notice issued initiating the penalty proceedings being defective, the penalty imposed in pursuance of such defective notice is not sustainable in law. He has plac…

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HUBBALI vs. M/S N. B. HIREMATH, HUBBALI

In the result, all these appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 112/PAN/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji31 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 111/Pan/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10

Section 250Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

…the assessment order and at no stage of penalty proceedings before the Assessing Officer raised the issue of non-ticking of relevant column in penalty show cause notice as held by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Sri Durga Enterprises (2014) 44 Taxmann 442?” 3. The sole issue raised by the ld. Counsel for the assessee in all these appeals is the preliminary objection challenging the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) on the ground that the notice issued initiating the penalty proceedings being defective, the penalty imposed in pursuance of such defective notice is not sustainable in law. He has plac…

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HUBBALI vs. M/S N. B. HIREMATH, HUBBALI

In the result, all these appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 111/PAN/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji31 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 111/Pan/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10

Section 250Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

…the assessment order and at no stage of penalty proceedings before the Assessing Officer raised the issue of non-ticking of relevant column in penalty show cause notice as held by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Sri Durga Enterprises (2014) 44 Taxmann 442?” 3. The sole issue raised by the ld. Counsel for the assessee in all these appeals is the preliminary objection challenging the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) on the ground that the notice issued initiating the penalty proceedings being defective, the penalty imposed in pursuance of such defective notice is not sustainable in law. He has plac…

KASIMALI M SAYYED ,GADAG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 , GADAG

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

ITA 1950/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.R.Chandrasekhar , AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Swapna Das, JCIT-DR
Section 129Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “B” , BANGALORE Before Shri Chandra Poojari, AM & Smt.Beena Pillai, JM ITA No.1950/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 Sri.Kasimali M.Sayyad The Income Tax Officer C/o. A Raghavendra Rao & Vs. Ward – 1, Gadag. Associates, Vakil Chawl GADAG – 582 101 PAN : AONPS4913H. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.R.Chandrasekhar , Advocate Respondent by : Smt.Swapna Das, JCIT-DR Date of Date of Hearing : 28.01.2020 Pronouncement : 18.02.2020 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari, AM : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the penalty order of the CIT(A) pas…

THE ITO, KOLLAM vs. SRI.A.SHIHABUDEEN, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 568/COCH/2019[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Feb 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Mrithunjaya Sharma, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Sri.S.Rajagopal, CA
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN “SMC” BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Chandra Poojari, AM ITA No.564/Coch/2019 : Asst.Year 2000-2001 ITA No.565/Coch/2019 : Asst.Year 2001-2002 ITA No.566/Coch/2019 : Asst.Year 2002-2003 ITA No.567/Coch/2019 : Asst.Year 2003-2004 ITA No.568/Coch/2019 : Asst.Year 2004-2005 The Income Tax Officer Sri.A.Shihabudeen, Ward 3 Vs. Fozy Shopping Complex Kollam. Kadakkal Kollam – 691 536 PAN : AGSPP7003N. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Mrithunjaya Sharma, Sr.DR Respondent by : Sri.S.Rajagopal, CA Date of Pronouncement : 10.02.2020 Date of Hearing : 10.02.2020 O R D…

THE ITO, KOLLAM vs. SRI.A.SHIHABUDEEN, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 567/COCH/2019[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Feb 2020AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Mrithunjaya Sharma, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Sri.S.Rajagopal, CA
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN “SMC” BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Chandra Poojari, AM ITA No.564/Coch/2019 : Asst.Year 2000-2001 ITA No.565/Coch/2019 : Asst.Year 2001-2002 ITA No.566/Coch/2019 : Asst.Year 2002-2003 ITA No.567/Coch/2019 : Asst.Year 2003-2004 ITA No.568/Coch/2019 : Asst.Year 2004-2005 The Income Tax Officer Sri.A.Shihabudeen, Ward 3 Vs. Fozy Shopping Complex Kollam. Kadakkal Kollam – 691 536 PAN : AGSPP7003N. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Mrithunjaya Sharma, Sr.DR Respondent by : Sri.S.Rajagopal, CA Date of Pronouncement : 10.02.2020 Date of Hearing : 10.02.2020 O R D…

THE ITO, KOLLAM vs. SRI.A.SHIHABUDEEN, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 566/COCH/2019[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Feb 2020AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Mrithunjaya Sharma, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Sri.S.Rajagopal, CA
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN “SMC” BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Chandra Poojari, AM ITA No.564/Coch/2019 : Asst.Year 2000-2001 ITA No.565/Coch/2019 : Asst.Year 2001-2002 ITA No.566/Coch/2019 : Asst.Year 2002-2003 ITA No.567/Coch/2019 : Asst.Year 2003-2004 ITA No.568/Coch/2019 : Asst.Year 2004-2005 The Income Tax Officer Sri.A.Shihabudeen, Ward 3 Vs. Fozy Shopping Complex Kollam. Kadakkal Kollam – 691 536 PAN : AGSPP7003N. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Mrithunjaya Sharma, Sr.DR Respondent by : Sri.S.Rajagopal, CA Date of Pronouncement : 10.02.2020 Date of Hearing : 10.02.2020 O R D…

THE ITO, KOLLAM vs. SRI.A.SHIHABUDEEN, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 565/COCH/2019[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Feb 2020AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Mrithunjaya Sharma, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Sri.S.Rajagopal, CA
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN “SMC” BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Chandra Poojari, AM ITA No.564/Coch/2019 : Asst.Year 2000-2001 ITA No.565/Coch/2019 : Asst.Year 2001-2002 ITA No.566/Coch/2019 : Asst.Year 2002-2003 ITA No.567/Coch/2019 : Asst.Year 2003-2004 ITA No.568/Coch/2019 : Asst.Year 2004-2005 The Income Tax Officer Sri.A.Shihabudeen, Ward 3 Vs. Fozy Shopping Complex Kollam. Kadakkal Kollam – 691 536 PAN : AGSPP7003N. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Mrithunjaya Sharma, Sr.DR Respondent by : Sri.S.Rajagopal, CA Date of Pronouncement : 10.02.2020 Date of Hearing : 10.02.2020 O R D…

THE ITO, KOLLAM vs. SRI.A.SHIHABUDEEN, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 564/COCH/2019[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Feb 2020AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Mrithunjaya Sharma, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Sri.S.Rajagopal, CA
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN “SMC” BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Chandra Poojari, AM ITA No.564/Coch/2019 : Asst.Year 2000-2001 ITA No.565/Coch/2019 : Asst.Year 2001-2002 ITA No.566/Coch/2019 : Asst.Year 2002-2003 ITA No.567/Coch/2019 : Asst.Year 2003-2004 ITA No.568/Coch/2019 : Asst.Year 2004-2005 The Income Tax Officer Sri.A.Shihabudeen, Ward 3 Vs. Fozy Shopping Complex Kollam. Kadakkal Kollam – 691 536 PAN : AGSPP7003N. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Mrithunjaya Sharma, Sr.DR Respondent by : Sri.S.Rajagopal, CA Date of Pronouncement : 10.02.2020 Date of Hearing : 10.02.2020 O R D…

MUTHUKUMARAN RANGARAJAN,CHIDAMBARAM vs. ITO WARD 3, CUDDALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1842/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1841 & 1842/Chny/2019. "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2013-14. Muthukumaran Rangarajan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 149-A, Bharathidasan Ward 3, Street, Cuddalore. Kanagasabai Nagar, Chidambaram 608 001. [Pan Aabpr 6319Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘B ’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी इंटूर" रामा राव, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" [BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1841 & 1842/CHNY/2019. "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment years : 2013-14 & 2013-14. Muthukumaran Rangarajan, Vs. The Income Tax officer, 149-A, Bharathidasan Ward 3, Street, Cuddalore. Kanagasabai Nagar, Chidambaram 608 001. [PAN AABPR 6319Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Shri. N.V. Balaji, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appe…

MUTHUKUMARAN RANGARAJAN,CHIDAMBARAM vs. ITO WARD 3, CUDDALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1841/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1841 & 1842/Chny/2019. "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2013-14. Muthukumaran Rangarajan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 149-A, Bharathidasan Ward 3, Street, Cuddalore. Kanagasabai Nagar, Chidambaram 608 001. [Pan Aabpr 6319Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘B ’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी इंटूर" रामा राव, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" [BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1841 & 1842/CHNY/2019. "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment years : 2013-14 & 2013-14. Muthukumaran Rangarajan, Vs. The Income Tax officer, 149-A, Bharathidasan Ward 3, Street, Cuddalore. Kanagasabai Nagar, Chidambaram 608 001. [PAN AABPR 6319Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Shri. N.V. Balaji, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appe…

M/S. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.(HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1162/DEL/2011[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2019AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kumar
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41

…Section 292B of the Act, if the tax payer responded to it in letter and spirit and understood the purport and purpose of the said notice. This aspect was held categorically by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of ClT Vs Sri Durga Enterprises (2014) 44 Taxmann.com 442 (Kar), while dealing with the validity on notice u/s 148 rws 292B of the Act, held that where the assessee received the notice as valid and responded to it in letter and spirit and participated in the proceedings and in the light of the Housing and Urban Development Corporation Ltd. vs. DCIT provisions of Section 292B, notice issued u/s 14…

M/S. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.(HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1161/DEL/2011[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2019AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kumar
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41

…Section 292B of the Act, if the tax payer responded to it in letter and spirit and understood the purport and purpose of the said notice. This aspect was held categorically by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of ClT Vs Sri Durga Enterprises (2014) 44 Taxmann.com 442 (Kar), while dealing with the validity on notice u/s 148 rws 292B of the Act, held that where the assessee received the notice as valid and responded to it in letter and spirit and participated in the proceedings and in the light of the Housing and Urban Development Corporation Ltd. vs. DCIT provisions of Section 292B, notice issued u/s 14…

M/S. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.(HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1160/DEL/2011[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2019AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kumar
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41

…Section 292B of the Act, if the tax payer responded to it in letter and spirit and understood the purport and purpose of the said notice. This aspect was held categorically by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of ClT Vs Sri Durga Enterprises (2014) 44 Taxmann.com 442 (Kar), while dealing with the validity on notice u/s 148 rws 292B of the Act, held that where the assessee received the notice as valid and responded to it in letter and spirit and participated in the proceedings and in the light of the Housing and Urban Development Corporation Ltd. vs. DCIT provisions of Section 292B, notice issued u/s 14…

HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 5234/DEL/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2019AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kumar
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41

…Section 292B of the Act, if the tax payer responded to it in letter and spirit and understood the purport and purpose of the said notice. This aspect was held categorically by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of ClT Vs Sri Durga Enterprises (2014) 44 Taxmann.com 442 (Kar), while dealing with the validity on notice u/s 148 rws 292B of the Act, held that where the assessee received the notice as valid and responded to it in letter and spirit and participated in the proceedings and in the light of the Housing and Urban Development Corporation Ltd. vs. DCIT provisions of Section 292B, notice issued u/s 14…

S.SATHYANARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 756/CHNY/2015[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Aug 2019AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao]

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 271

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘ए’’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी इंटूर" रामा राव, लेखा सद"य के सम" [BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.754, 755 & 756/CHNY/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment years : 2000-01, 2001-02 & 2007-08. S. Sathyanarayanan, The Assistant Commissioner of Vs. Old No.19, New No.45, Income Tax, Giriappa Road, Central Circle I(5) (i/c) T. Nagar, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 017. [PAN ABCPS 0844B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर स…

S.SATHYANARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 755/CHNY/2015[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Aug 2019AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao]

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 271

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘ए’’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी इंटूर" रामा राव, लेखा सद"य के सम" [BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.754, 755 & 756/CHNY/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment years : 2000-01, 2001-02 & 2007-08. S. Sathyanarayanan, The Assistant Commissioner of Vs. Old No.19, New No.45, Income Tax, Giriappa Road, Central Circle I(5) (i/c) T. Nagar, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 017. [PAN ABCPS 0844B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर स…

Showing 1–20 of 31 · Page 1 of 2

CIT v. Sri Durga Enterprises (44 Taxmann.com 442) — Cited in 31 Judgments | BharatTax