CIT v. Uttam Chand Nahar

295 ITR 403High Court2007#2938 most cited

What is CIT v. Uttam Chand Nahar authority for?

Proceedings under section 147 can be initiated if the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. The satisfaction required for initiating reassessment proceedings under section 147 must be that of the Assessing Officer himself, based on recorded reasons, and any satisfaction required under section 151 must be endorsed on the Assessing Officer's reasons.

40

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Uttam Chand Nahar · 295 ITR 403 · Section 147 · Section 148 · Section 151 · reassessment proceedings · Assessing Officer satisfaction · reasons to believe · income escaping assessment

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)(ii)Section 38(2)

Judgments citing CIT v. Uttam Chand Nahar

RAM RATAN JANGIR,AMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -7(2), JAIPUR

In the result ground no. 1 raised by the

ITA 550/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Anoop Bhatiya, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…objected to claim of the assessee and that was not considered the change of opinion. She also relied upon the decision of Calcutta high court in the case of PCIT Vs. ITC Ltd., and decision of Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Uttam Chand Nahar [ 295 ITR 403 (Rajasthan) ] wherein it was held that failure on the part of the assessee to disclose sufficiency of material would lead to proceeding u/s. 148. 9. In the rejoinder to the reliance of the various decision the ld. AR of the assessee filed a distinguishing note to that decision relied with the facts of the case of the assessee and the same is repr…

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. SHRI VIMAL CHAND SURANA(HUF), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 62/JPR/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2023AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) &For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 139Section 143Section 147Section 150(2)Section 153CSection 2Section 250Section 69

…nt. In fact there is a categorical conclusion in the assessment order that the primary onus to explain the contents of the loose papers was that of Shri Madan Mohan Gupta. 5) The Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of CIT v. Uttam Chand Nahar [2007] 295 ITR 403 (Rajasthan) observed that “the initial satisfaction about the escapement of income, which requires initiation of proceedings under section 147, must be of the Assessing Officer himself”. If the conditions under section 151(1) or (2) require the satisfaction of the Deputy Commissioner or the Chief Commissioner or the Commissioner, as the case ma…

MUKESH KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. I.T.O. WARD 1(2), JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 321/JPR/2021[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Jul 2022AY 2010-2011
For Appellant: Shri G.M. Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 151Section 271E

…ere not handed over to him; assessee could not be treated as owner of the property sold while computing gains in his hands. 2.6 On the other hand, the ld.DR supported the order of the AO and relied on following case laws. (1) CIT vs Uttam Chand Nahar (2007) 295 ITR 403 (Raj) (2) Abhishek Jain vs ITO, Ward 55(1), Delhi 94 Taxmann.com 355 (Delhi) 2.7 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. From the records, it is noted that the assessee filed his return of income on 26-06-2010 declaring total income at Rs.1,58,540/- having jurisdiction over the case whereas action u/s 147 of…

SHRI SATYAVEER SINGH,BHARATPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WADR-1, BHARATPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 975/JPR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 975/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2010-11 Satyaveer Singh, Cuke I.T.O., S/O- Sh. Roop Singh, Vill-Barso, Vs. Ward-1, Bharatpur (Raj)-321001. Bharatpur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Cmbps 4345 H Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Ashish Sharma (Adv.) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Jcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 15/09/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 13/10/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Alwar Dated 28/03/2019 For The A.Y. 2010-11 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. That The Notice Issued U/S 147 Is Per Se Illegal, Arbitrary & Ab-Initio Void & Invalid & Therefore Deserve To Be Quashed & Annulled. 2. That The Assessment Order Dated 26/12/2017 Is Per Se Illegal & Invalid. 3. That The A.O. & Cit(A), Alwar Has Grossly Erred In Treating The Amount Of Rs. 12,22,000/- As Unexplained Money & Making An Addition Of Rs. 12,22,000/- U/S 69A..”

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Sharma (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 69A

…quashed. Whereas on the contrary, the ld. DR has supported the orders passed by the revenue authorities and also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the 7 ITA 975/JP/2019_ Satyaveer Singh Vs ITO case of CIT Vs Uttam Chand Nagar (2007), 295 ITR 403 (Raj) and submitted that due compliance of Section 151 of the Act was made by the CCIT and CIT has recorded his satisfaction and such satisfaction was on the basis of reasons recorded by the A.O. and not de hors it. It was further submitted that the satisfaction independent of reasons recorded by the A.O. is not envisaged as per provisions of Sec…

JAP INFRACON PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO 12 (3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 8038/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singhaayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 8038/Mum/2019 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2010-11) Jap Infracon Pvt. Ltd. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(3)(1) B-102, Twinkle Apt, New Link Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Road, Lokhandwala Complex, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400 053 .. (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aaacp3809P अऩीराथी की ओय े / Appellant By : S/Shri R C Jain & Ajay Daga प्रत्मथी की ओय े / Respondent By : Smt. Smita Verma, Dr स नवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 29.09.2021 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 29.09.2021 Aadosa / O R D E R भहावीय स िंह, उऩाध्मक्ष के द्वाया / Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Arising Out Of Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)]-21, Mumbai [In Short Cit(A)], In Appeal No. Cit(A)-21/It-873/Ito-12(3)(1)/2017-18 Vide Dated 24.09.2019. The Assessment Was Framed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward 12(3)(1), Mumbai (In Short Ito/ Ao) For The A.Y. 2010-11 Vide Order Dated 31.12.2016 Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter „The Act‟). 2. The First Issue In This Appeal Of Assessee Is Against The Order Of Cit(A) Upholding The Validity Of Assessment Of 2 Jap Infracon Pvt. Ltd.; Ay 10-11 Jurisdiction Under Section 147 Of The Act. For This Assessee Has Raised The Following Two Grounds:-

For Appellant: S/Shri R C Jain & Ajay DagaFor Respondent: Smt. Smita Verma, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “SMC” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री भहावीय स िंह, उऩाध्मक्ष के भक्ष । BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 8038/Mum/2019 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2010-11) Jap Infracon Pvt. ltd. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(3)(1) B-102, Twinkle Apt, New Link Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Road, Lokhandwala Complex, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400 053 .. (ApIlaaqaI- / Appellant) (p`%yaqaaI- / Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./PAN No. AAACP3809P अऩीराथी की ओय े / Appellant by : S/Shri R C Jain & Ajay Daga प्रत्मथी की ओय े / Respondent by : Sm…

SHRI SATYA NARAYAN BAIRWA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), JAIPUR

In the result, both these appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 869/JPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 867 & 869/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Years :2008-09 & 2009-10 Cuke Shri Satya Narayan Bairwa, I.T.O., Vs. 97/77, Shipra Path, Ward-2(4), Mansarovar, Jaipur (Raj). Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Ahppb 0077 J Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shravan Kumar Gupta (Adv.) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 20/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order

For Appellant: Shri Shravan Kumar Gupta (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)
Section 147Section 151Section 234ASection 69A

…d legal position in this case no interest can be charged u/s 234B and liable to be deleted. 18. On the other hand, the ld. DR has vehemently supported the orders of the authorities below and also relied upon decisions in the case of CIT Vs Uttam Chand Nahar 295 ITR 403 (Raj) and ITO Vs Mahadeo Lal Tulsian, 110 ITR 786 (Kol). 19. We have considered the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. From perusal of the record, we observed that the A.O. has reopened the case of the assessee for escaping the income of Rs.1,15,00,500/- on account of cash deposit in his bank…

SHRI SATYA NARAYAN BAIRWA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), JAIPUR

In the result, both these appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 867/JPR/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 867 & 869/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Years :2008-09 & 2009-10 Cuke Shri Satya Narayan Bairwa, I.T.O., Vs. 97/77, Shipra Path, Ward-2(4), Mansarovar, Jaipur (Raj). Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Ahppb 0077 J Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shravan Kumar Gupta (Adv.) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 20/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order

For Appellant: Shri Shravan Kumar Gupta (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)
Section 147Section 151Section 234ASection 69A

…d legal position in this case no interest can be charged u/s 234B and liable to be deleted. 18. On the other hand, the ld. DR has vehemently supported the orders of the authorities below and also relied upon decisions in the case of CIT Vs Uttam Chand Nahar 295 ITR 403 (Raj) and ITO Vs Mahadeo Lal Tulsian, 110 ITR 786 (Kol). 19. We have considered the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. From perusal of the record, we observed that the A.O. has reopened the case of the assessee for escaping the income of Rs.1,15,00,500/- on account of cash deposit in his bank…

SHRI DHOLUMAL ALIAS DHOLAN DAS KHATWANI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3-2, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed partly

ITA 533/JPR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 533/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2010-11 Shri Dholumal Alias Dholan Das Cuke I.T.O., Vs. Khatwani, Ward-3(2), 129, Bani Park, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Adrpk 6555 C Appellant Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri K.L. Moolchandani (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Jcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 22/06/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 30/06/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-I, Jaipur Dated 07/03/2019 For The A.Y. 2010-11. The Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are As Under: “1(A) On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Authorities Below Have Erred In Holding The View That The Statutory Notice U/S 147/148 Of The Act Issued In 'Incorrect' Name Is A Valid Notice. The Statutory Notice Issued In Incorrect Name Is Patently An Invalid Notice As Per Provisions Of Law & The Same Deserves To Be Quashed. 1(B) On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Authorities Below Have Factually & Legally Erred In Turning Down The Various Objections Of The Appellant Regarding Initiation Of The Re-Assessment Proceedings U/S 147/148 Of The Act Without Appreciating The Facts Of The Case In Right Perspective & Also Without Addressing The Points At Issue. Thus The Findings Of The Authorities Below In This Regard Are Not Well Reasoned, The Same Deserve To Be Quashed Summarily.

For Appellant: Shri K.L. Moolchandani (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)
Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 269SSection 271DSection 3

…ouncements: (i) Hindusthan Tobacco company Vs CIT, West Bengal-IV (2012) 27 taxmann.com 155 (Cal.) (ii) Rajat Bansal Vs CIT (2011) 11 taxmann.com 357 (P&H) (iii) Arunkumar J. Muchhala Vs CIT (2017) 85 taxmann.com 306 (Bom) (iv) CIT Vs Uttam Chand Nahar (2007) 295 ITR 403 (Raj) (v) ACIT Vs Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. (2007) 161 Taxman 316 (SC) (vi) Raymond Woolen Mills Ltd. Vs ITO (1999) 236 ITR 34 (SC) 11. We have heard the ld. Counsels of both the parties and have perused the material placed on record. We have also deliberated upon the decisions cited in the orders passed by the authorities below as we…

SWAMI KESHWANAND SHIKSHAN SANSTHAN,SIKAR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), WARD-2, JAIPUR

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 310/JPR/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 309 & 310/Jp/2020 Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Swami Keshwanand Sikshan Cuke I.T.O. (Exemption), Vs. Sansthan, Ward-2, N.H.11, Bhadhadhar, Sikar-332315 Jaipur (Rajasthan). (Raj) Pan No.: Aafts 2816 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shafi Mohammed (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Jcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 15/03/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 13/04/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. Both These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Jaipur Dated 17/09/2020 & 10/09/2020 For The A.Y. 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Shafi Mohammed (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)
Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…2(3) (2018) 94 taxmann.com 84 (SC) 3. Thakorbhai Maganbhai Patel Vs ITO (2017) 78 taxmann.com 201 (SC) 4. Mathur Marketing (P) Ltd. Vs CIT (2019) 108 taxmann.com 118) (SC). 5. ITO Vs Mahadeo lal Tulsian 110 ITR 786 (Cal) 6. CIT Vs Uttam Chand Nahar (2007) 295 ITR 403 (Raj) 8. We have heard the ld. Counsels of both the parties and have perused the material placed on record. We have also deliberated upon the decisions cited in the orders passed by the authorities below as well as cited before us and we have also gone through the orders passed by the revenue authorities. As per facts of the present case, the ass…

SWAMI KESHWANAND SHIKSHAN SANSTHAN,SIKAR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), WARD-2, JAIPUR

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 309/JPR/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Apr 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 309 & 310/Jp/2020 Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Swami Keshwanand Sikshan Cuke I.T.O. (Exemption), Vs. Sansthan, Ward-2, N.H.11, Bhadhadhar, Sikar-332315 Jaipur (Rajasthan). (Raj) Pan No.: Aafts 2816 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shafi Mohammed (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Jcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 15/03/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 13/04/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. Both These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Jaipur Dated 17/09/2020 & 10/09/2020 For The A.Y. 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Shafi Mohammed (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)
Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…2(3) (2018) 94 taxmann.com 84 (SC) 3. Thakorbhai Maganbhai Patel Vs ITO (2017) 78 taxmann.com 201 (SC) 4. Mathur Marketing (P) Ltd. Vs CIT (2019) 108 taxmann.com 118) (SC). 5. ITO Vs Mahadeo lal Tulsian 110 ITR 786 (Cal) 6. CIT Vs Uttam Chand Nahar (2007) 295 ITR 403 (Raj) 8. We have heard the ld. Counsels of both the parties and have perused the material placed on record. We have also deliberated upon the decisions cited in the orders passed by the authorities below as well as cited before us and we have also gone through the orders passed by the revenue authorities. As per facts of the present case, the ass…

ITO 13(3)(3), MUMBAI vs. VULVAN TRADERS P. LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 4137/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Years: 2008-09 Income Tax Officer-13(3)(3), M/S Vulvan Traders, 805, Room No.227,02Nd Floor, A Wingh, Corporate Avenue, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Sonawala Raod, Vs. M. K. Road, Goregaon East, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400063 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aaacv1603K Assessment Years: 2008-09 M/S Vulvan Traders, 805, Income Tax Officer-13(3)(3), A Wingh, Corporate Room No.227,02Nd Floor, बनाम/ Avenue, Sonawala Raod, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Goregaon East, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400063 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aaacv1603K

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…lieve that the income had escaped assessment was wrong and contrary to facts. The assessee had not maintained any books of account. Therefore, the reopening of assessments was held to be valid and within time. In the case of CIT v. Uttam Chand Nahar, (2007) 295 ITR 403 (Raj), the notice requiring the assessee to file the return within 30 days was in accordance with section 148 as it must be deemed to be in force with effect from 1-4-1989, and in force as on the date notice was issued. There was no violation of section 148 in respect of the specified period within which the return is to be submitted. The reasses…

ACIT NON CORP CIRCLE 1 (1) FORMERLY KNOWN AS BUSINESS CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S DEOLITE HASKINS & SELLS, CHENNAI

ITA 2580/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mr.AR.V.Sreenivasan,JCIT,D.RFor Respondent: Mr.S.P.Chidambaram,Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘ A’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, उपा"य" एवं ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद"य BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2578,2579 & 2580/Chny/2017 And C.O. Nos.47,48 & 49/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment years : 2010-11, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Asst. Commissioner of Vs. M/s.Deloittee Haskins & Income Tax, Sells, Non-corporate Circle-1(1), ASV Ramana Towers, (formerly Business Circle-I) 52,Venkatnarayana Road, Chennai. T.Nagar,Chennai 600 017. [PAN AACFD 3771 D ] (अ…

ACIT NON CORP CIRCLE 1 (1) FORMERLY KNOWN AS BUSINESS CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S DEOLITE HASKINS & SELLS, CHENNAI

ITA 2579/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mr.AR.V.Sreenivasan,JCIT,D.RFor Respondent: Mr.S.P.Chidambaram,Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘ A’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, उपा"य" एवं ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद"य BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2578,2579 & 2580/Chny/2017 And C.O. Nos.47,48 & 49/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment years : 2010-11, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Asst. Commissioner of Vs. M/s.Deloittee Haskins & Income Tax, Sells, Non-corporate Circle-1(1), ASV Ramana Towers, (formerly Business Circle-I) 52,Venkatnarayana Road, Chennai. T.Nagar,Chennai 600 017. [PAN AACFD 3771 D ] (अ…

ACIT NON CORP CIRCLE 1 (1) FORMERLY KNOWN AS BUSINESS CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S DEOLITE HASKINS & SELLS, CHENNAI

ITA 2578/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mr.AR.V.Sreenivasan,JCIT,D.RFor Respondent: Mr.S.P.Chidambaram,Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘ A’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, उपा"य" एवं ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद"य BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2578,2579 & 2580/Chny/2017 And C.O. Nos.47,48 & 49/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment years : 2010-11, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Asst. Commissioner of Vs. M/s.Deloittee Haskins & Income Tax, Sells, Non-corporate Circle-1(1), ASV Ramana Towers, (formerly Business Circle-I) 52,Venkatnarayana Road, Chennai. T.Nagar,Chennai 600 017. [PAN AACFD 3771 D ] (अ…

SOLO HARDWARE P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 5(3)(2), MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1486/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 115JSection 139Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…lieve that the income had escaped assessment was wrong and contrary to facts. The assessee had not maintained any books of account. Therefore, the reopening of assessments was held to be valid and within time. In the case of CIT v. Uttam Chand Nahar, (2007) 295 ITR 403 (Raj), the notice requiring the assessee to file the return within 30 days was in accordance with section 148 as it must be deemed to be in force with effect from 1-4-1989, and in force as on the date notice was issued. There was no violation of section 148 in respect of the specified period within which the return is to be M/s Solo Hardware Pv…

SNEHALATA AHNAND RANE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 3(3), KALYAN

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1787/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

…lieve that the income had escaped assessment was wrong and contrary to facts. The assessee had not maintained any books of account. Therefore, the reopening of assessments was held to be valid and within time. In the case of CIT v. Uttam Chand Nahar, (2007) 295 ITR 403 (Raj), the notice requiring the assessee to file the return within 30 days was in accordance with section 148 as it must be deemed to be in force with effect from 1-4-1989, and in force as on the date notice was issued. There was no violation of section 148 in respect of the specified period within which the return is to be submitted. The reasse…

SNEHALATA AHNAND RANE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 3(3), KALYAN

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1786/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

…lieve that the income had escaped assessment was wrong and contrary to facts. The assessee had not maintained any books of account. Therefore, the reopening of assessments was held to be valid and within time. In the case of CIT v. Uttam Chand Nahar, (2007) 295 ITR 403 (Raj), the notice requiring the assessee to file the return within 30 days was in accordance with section 148 as it must be deemed to be in force with effect from 1-4-1989, and in force as on the date notice was issued. There was no violation of section 148 in respect of the specified period within which the return is to be submitted. The reasse…

SNEHALATA AHNAND RANE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 3(3), KALYAN

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1785/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

…lieve that the income had escaped assessment was wrong and contrary to facts. The assessee had not maintained any books of account. Therefore, the reopening of assessments was held to be valid and within time. In the case of CIT v. Uttam Chand Nahar, (2007) 295 ITR 403 (Raj), the notice requiring the assessee to file the return within 30 days was in accordance with section 148 as it must be deemed to be in force with effect from 1-4-1989, and in force as on the date notice was issued. There was no violation of section 148 in respect of the specified period within which the return is to be submitted. The reasse…

SHRI DINESHKUMAR C. DOSHI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 19(1)(4), MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1730/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148

…eve that the income had escaped assessment was wrong and contrary to facts. The assessee had not maintained any books of account. Therefore, the reopening of assessments was held to be valid and within time. In the case of CIT v. Uttam Chand Nahar, (2007) 295 ITR 403 (Raj), the notice requiring Dinesh S. Jain the assessee to file the return within 30 days was in accordance with section 148 as it must be deemed to be in force with effect from 1-4-1989, and in force as on the date notice was issued. There was no violation of section 148 in respect of the specified period within which the return is to be submi…

ITO 6(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. JAYDEEP PROFILES P.LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 3236/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, बनाम/ Bhavan, M.K.Road, Darukhana, Reay Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai 400 086 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B Assessment Year: 2009-10 Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar बनाम/ Darukhana, Reay Road, Bhavan, M.K.Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 086 Mumbai 400 020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B 2 & 2698/Mum/2016

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148

…nt was wrong and contrary to 24 & 2698/Mum/2016 Jaydeep Profiles P.Ltd facts. The assessee had not maintained any books of account. Therefore, the reopening of assessments was held to be valid and within time. In the case of CIT v. Uttam Chand Nahar, (2007) 295 ITR 403 (Raj), the notice requiring the assessee to file the return within 30 days was in accordance with section 148 as it must be deemed to be in force with effect from 1-4-1989, and in force as on the date notice was issued. There was no violation of section 148 in respect of the specified period within which the return is to be submitted. The reasse…

Showing 1–20 of 40 · Page 1 of 2

CIT v. Uttam Chand Nahar (295 ITR 403) — Cited in 40 Judgments | BharatTax