CIT v. Vijaybhai N. Chandrani

357 ITR 713Supreme Court of India2013#4857 most cited

What is CIT v. Vijaybhai N. Chandrani authority for?

An assessee waives the right to object to the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction if they participate in proceedings without challenging the notices issued.

24

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Vijaybhai N. Chandrani · objection to jurisdiction · assumption of jurisdiction · Assessing Officer · participation in proceedings · Safetag International Ltd · IBC Knowledge Park Pvt. Ltd

Also reported as

217 Taxmann 13835 Taxmann.com 580

Issues it is cited on

substantive assessmentclarificatory amendmentprotective assessmentsection 158bdsection 120section 153c(1)section 292csection 34loose paperssection 44adsection 158bsection 153a(1)

Judgments citing CIT v. Vijaybhai N. Chandrani

SHRI. KEMPAREDDY GOVINDRAJ,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGALURU

ITA 1022/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri. V. Chandrasekhar, ARFor Respondent: Shri. Sridhar E, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 131(1)Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250

…decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshaft Ltd in 259 ITR 19, the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Safetag International Ltd in 332 ITR 622 and the landmark judgement in the case of Shri Vijaybhai N Chandrani in 357 ITR 713 lays down a principle that the objection to assumption of jurisdiction shall first be placed before the Assessing Officer. Further the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v Safetag International P Ltd in 332 ITR 622 held that the assessee forfeits his right to object to the same in the event the objections are not placed before the Assess…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3),, BANGALORE vs. M/S CONC SHADE CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD , CHIKKAMANGALUR

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 301/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 153CSection 2Section 292C

…en the assessee has participated in the proceedings and had not challenged issue of notices as decided by Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Safetag International Pvt. Ltd. in 332 ITR 622 and Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shri Vijyabhai N Chandrani in 357 ITR 713. 2. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in relying on the case of Singhad Technical Society case as the decision does not restrain the AO from making addition only on the incriminating material and it only refers that seized material should pertain to third person and terms it a condition precedent to…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3) , BANGALORE vs. M/S CONC SHADE CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD , CHIKKAMANGALUR

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 300/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 153CSection 2Section 292C

…en the assessee has participated in the proceedings and had not challenged issue of notices as decided by Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Safetag International Pvt. Ltd. in 332 ITR 622 and Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shri Vijyabhai N Chandrani in 357 ITR 713. 2. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in relying on the case of Singhad Technical Society case as the decision does not restrain the AO from making addition only on the incriminating material and it only refers that seized material should pertain to third person and terms it a condition precedent to…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE , BANGALORE vs. M/S CONC SHADE CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD , CHIKKAMANGALUR

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 299/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 153CSection 2Section 292C

…en the assessee has participated in the proceedings and had not challenged issue of notices as decided by Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Safetag International Pvt. Ltd. in 332 ITR 622 and Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shri Vijyabhai N Chandrani in 357 ITR 713. 2. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in relying on the case of Singhad Technical Society case as the decision does not restrain the AO from making addition only on the incriminating material and it only refers that seized material should pertain to third person and terms it a condition precedent to…

KUSH KEDIA vs. A.C.I.T. 2(1), RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 106/BIL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Mar 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 105 & 106/Rpr/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2004-05 & 2005-06 Kush Kedia Kedia Bhawan, Mandi Road, Balodabazar.Dist. Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aklpk5127B .......अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur. (C.G.) ……""यथ" /Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT D.R
Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

…to whom notice is issued under Section 153C of the Act. It was fairly pointed out to us by Mr. Mistry, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent – assessee that the above decision was reversed by the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Vijaybhai N. Chandrani (2013) 357 ITR 713. However, we find that the Apex Court reversed the view of Gujarat High Court on the ground that efficacious alternative remedy was available to the petitioner to raise its objections before the authorities under the Act. Therefore, the Gujarat High Court should not have exercised its extra ordinary writ jurisdiction to entertain the petition. Ho…

KUSH KEDIA vs. A.C.I.T. 2(1), RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 105/BIL/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Mar 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 105 & 106/Rpr/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2004-05 & 2005-06 Kush Kedia Kedia Bhawan, Mandi Road, Balodabazar.Dist. Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aklpk5127B .......अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur. (C.G.) ……""यथ" /Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT D.R
Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

…to whom notice is issued under Section 153C of the Act. It was fairly pointed out to us by Mr. Mistry, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent – assessee that the above decision was reversed by the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Vijaybhai N. Chandrani (2013) 357 ITR 713. However, we find that the Apex Court reversed the view of Gujarat High Court on the ground that efficacious alternative remedy was available to the petitioner to raise its objections before the authorities under the Act. Therefore, the Gujarat High Court should not have exercised its extra ordinary writ jurisdiction to entertain the petition. Ho…

RIDDHI SIDDHI DEVELOPERS P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. D.C.I.T. CENT. CIR. - 6(4), MUMBAI

ITA 646/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri N.K. Pradhanita Nos.646-647/Mum/2018 (Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Riddhi Siddhi Developers P. Ltd Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, 45, Maker Chambers-Iii, Central Circle – 6(4), Room No. 1925, Vs. 223 Nariman Point, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Mumbai – 400 021 Nariman Point , Mumbai – 400 021 Pan – Aaacr0426N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Hema KatariaFor Respondent: Shri Manjunatha Swami, CIT D.R
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153C

…Riddhi Siddhi Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT Central Circle 6(4), Mumbai 1 ITA Nos. 646-647/Mum/2018 – A.Y 2013-14 & A.Y 2014-15 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member and Shri N.K. Pradhan, Accountant Member ITA Nos.646-647/Mum/2018 (Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Riddhi Siddhi Developers P. Ltd Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, 45, Maker Chambers-III, Central Circle – 6(4), Room No. 1925, Vs. 223 Nariman Point, 19th Floor, Air India Building, Mumbai – 400 021 Nariman Point , Mumbai – 400 021 PAN – AAACR0426N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appella…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3) , BANGALORE vs. SRI C T RAVI , CHIKKAMANGALUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeals for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2012-13 are dismissed as indicated above

ITA 286/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri. V. Chandrashekhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 2Section 292C

…en the assessee has participated in the proceedings and had not challenged issue of notices as decided by Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Safetag International Pvt. Ltd. in 332 ITR 622 and Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shri Vijyabhai N Chandrani in 357 ITR 713. 2. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in relying on the case of Singhad Technical Society case as the decision does not restrain the AO from making addition only on the incriminating material and it only refers that seized material should pertain to third person and terms it a condition precedent to…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3) , BANGALORE vs. SRI C T RAVI , CHIKKAMANGALUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeals for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2012-13 are dismissed as indicated above

ITA 285/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri. V. Chandrashekhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 2Section 292C

…en the assessee has participated in the proceedings and had not challenged issue of notices as decided by Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Safetag International Pvt. Ltd. in 332 ITR 622 and Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shri Vijyabhai N Chandrani in 357 ITR 713. 2. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in relying on the case of Singhad Technical Society case as the decision does not restrain the AO from making addition only on the incriminating material and it only refers that seized material should pertain to third person and terms it a condition precedent to…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE vs. SRI C T RAVI , CHIKKAMANGALUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeals for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2012-13 are dismissed as indicated above

ITA 284/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri. V. Chandrashekhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 2Section 292C

…en the assessee has participated in the proceedings and had not challenged issue of notices as decided by Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Safetag International Pvt. Ltd. in 332 ITR 622 and Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shri Vijyabhai N Chandrani in 357 ITR 713. 2. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in relying on the case of Singhad Technical Society case as the decision does not restrain the AO from making addition only on the incriminating material and it only refers that seized material should pertain to third person and terms it a condition precedent to…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE vs. SRI C T RAVI , CHIKKAMANGALUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeals for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2012-13 are dismissed as indicated above

ITA 283/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri. V. Chandrashekhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 2Section 292C

…en the assessee has participated in the proceedings and had not challenged issue of notices as decided by Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Safetag International Pvt. Ltd. in 332 ITR 622 and Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shri Vijyabhai N Chandrani in 357 ITR 713. 2. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in relying on the case of Singhad Technical Society case as the decision does not restrain the AO from making addition only on the incriminating material and it only refers that seized material should pertain to third person and terms it a condition precedent to…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE vs. SRI C T RAVI , CHIKKAMANGALUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeals for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2012-13 are dismissed as indicated above

ITA 282/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jul 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri. V. Chandrashekhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 2Section 292C

…en the assessee has participated in the proceedings and had not challenged issue of notices as decided by Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Safetag International Pvt. Ltd. in 332 ITR 622 and Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shri Vijyabhai N Chandrani in 357 ITR 713. 2. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in relying on the case of Singhad Technical Society case as the decision does not restrain the AO from making addition only on the incriminating material and it only refers that seized material should pertain to third person and terms it a condition precedent to…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3),, BANGALORE vs. SMT.PALLAVI RAVI , CHIKKAMANGALUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeals for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2012-13 are dismissed as indicated above

ITA 274/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri. V. Chandrashekhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 2Section 292C

…en the assessee has participated in the proceedings and had not challenged issue of notices as decided by Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Safetag International Pvt. Ltd. in 332 ITR 622 and Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shri Vijyabhai N Chandrani in 357 ITR 713. 2. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in relying on the case of Singhad Technical Society case as the decision does not restrain the AO from making addition only on the incriminating material and it only refers that seized material should pertain to third person and terms it a condition precedent to…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3),, BANGALORE vs. SMT.PALLAVI RAVI , CHIKKAMANGALUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeals for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2012-13 are dismissed as indicated above

ITA 273/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri. V. Chandrashekhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 2Section 292C

…en the assessee has participated in the proceedings and had not challenged issue of notices as decided by Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Safetag International Pvt. Ltd. in 332 ITR 622 and Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shri Vijyabhai N Chandrani in 357 ITR 713. 2. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in relying on the case of Singhad Technical Society case as the decision does not restrain the AO from making addition only on the incriminating material and it only refers that seized material should pertain to third person and terms it a condition precedent to…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3),, BANGALORE vs. SMT.PALLAVI RAVI , CHIKKAMANGALUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeals for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2012-13 are dismissed as indicated above

ITA 272/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jul 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri. V. Chandrashekhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 2Section 292C

…en the assessee has participated in the proceedings and had not challenged issue of notices as decided by Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Safetag International Pvt. Ltd. in 332 ITR 622 and Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shri Vijyabhai N Chandrani in 357 ITR 713. 2. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in relying on the case of Singhad Technical Society case as the decision does not restrain the AO from making addition only on the incriminating material and it only refers that seized material should pertain to third person and terms it a condition precedent to…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3),, BANGALORE vs. M/S CONC SHADE CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD , CHIKKAMANGALUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 302/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

For Appellant: Shri G. Guruswamy, CIT – DRFor Respondent: Shri Ravishankar, Advocate

…en the assessee has participated in the proceedings and had not challenged issue of notices as decided by Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Safetag International Pvt. Ltd. in 332 ITR 622 and Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shri Vijyabhai N Chandrani in 357 ITR 713. 2. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Cr(A) is correct in relying on the case of Singhad Technical Society case as the decision does not restrain the AO from making addition only on the incriminating material and it only refers that seized material should pertain to third person and ITA Nos. 298 & 302/Bang/2018 Page…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S CONC SHADE CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD , CHIKKAMANGALUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 298/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Nov 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

For Appellant: Shri G. Guruswamy, CIT – DRFor Respondent: Shri Ravishankar, Advocate

…en the assessee has participated in the proceedings and had not challenged issue of notices as decided by Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Safetag International Pvt. Ltd. in 332 ITR 622 and Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shri Vijyabhai N Chandrani in 357 ITR 713. 2. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Cr(A) is correct in relying on the case of Singhad Technical Society case as the decision does not restrain the AO from making addition only on the incriminating material and it only refers that seized material should pertain to third person and ITA Nos. 298 & 302/Bang/2018 Page…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE vs. SHRI K G RAJESH , CHIKKAMANGALUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 295/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Nov 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri G. Guruswamy, CIT-DRPFor Respondent: Shri Ravishankar, Advocate

…en the assessee has participated in the proceedings and had not challenged issue of notices as decided by Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Safetag International Pvt. Ltd. in 332 ITR 622 and Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shri Vijyabhai N Chandrani in 357 ITR 713. 3. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) is correct in deleting the addition of agricultural Income without appreciating the fact that no evidences were produced before the AO and the AO was not afforded an opportunity in accordance with Rule 46A. 4. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld…

EKDANTA LAND PVT. LTD.,,RAIGAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1400/PUN/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Ms. Shabana Parveen
Section 132Section 153CSection 234BSection 69C

…to whom notice is issued under section 153C of the Act. It was fairly pointed out to us by Mr. Mistry, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent – assessee that the above decision was reversed by the Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Vijaybhai N. Chandrani (2013) 357 ITR 713. However, we find that the Apex Court reversed the view of Gujarat High Court on the ground that efficacious alternative remedy was available to the petitioner to raise its 8 Ekdanta Land Pvt. Ltd., objections before the authorities under the Act. Therefore, the Gujarat High Court should not have exercised its extra ordinary writ jurisdiction to…

SKYLARK BUILD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

ITA 4370/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K

…lty Shri Sudhakar M. Shetty Sahana Builders & Developers (P) Ltd. . fairly pointed out to us by Mr.Mistry, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent-assessee that the above decision was reversed by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Vijaybhai N. Chandrani [2013] 357 ITR 713/217 Taxman 138/35 taxmann.com 580. However, we find that the Apex Court reversed the view of Gujarat High Court on the ground that efficacious alternative remedy was available to the petitioner to raise its objections before the authorities under the Act. Therefore, the Gujarat High Court should not have exercised its extra ordinary writ jurisdic…

Showing 1–20 of 24 · Page 1 of 2

CIT v. Vijaybhai N. Chandrani (357 ITR 713) — Cited in 24 Judgments | BharatTax