CIT v. Vikas Pormoter Pvt Ltd.

277 ITR 337High Court2005#12579 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2020.

Judgments citing CIT v. Vikas Pormoter Pvt Ltd.

M/S AJAY SALT & CHEMICALS,,UNA vs. I.T.O., WARD-1(3),, VERAVAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 296/RJT/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot23 Jan 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.296/Rjt/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2006-2007

For Appellant: Written Submission
Section 143(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

…ITR 462(Bom.) Dharamchand L. Shah 2. 142ITR747(Mad.) Saubhagmal Mahaveerchand 3. 16 TTJ 491 (Ahd.) Sharadchandra C. Patel 7. More ever also when there is no specific satisfaction in original as well as reassessment order, notice issued consequently itself: 1. 277 ITR 337(Del.) Vikas Promoters Pvt. Ltd. 2. 278 ITR 32(Del.) Auto Lampes Ltd. 3. 41 Taxman 496(Kar.) M. W. Pvt. Ltd. 8. It is therefore submitted that penalty levied may kindly cancelled. 6. On the other hand the ld. DR vehemently supported the order of the authorities below. Asstt. Year 2006-07 5 7. We have heard the learned DR and perused the materia…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S INTERNATIONAL CARS & MOTORS LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5150/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

…urisdictional High Court in case of Madhushree Gupta Vs UOI 317 ITR 107 and CIT v Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (2013) 53 (I) ITCL 2 (Karn-HC). I have also gone through the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT v Vikas Pormoter Pvt Ltd 277 ITR 337 and the para 4 is reproduced "Having perused the judgment of the Supreme Court afore referred, we are of the opinion that the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the department is misconceived. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have repeatedly emphasised the word 'satisfaction' and the satisfaction is not to be in the mind of the ass…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S INTERNATIONAL CARS & MOTORS LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5149/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

…urisdictional High Court in case of Madhushree Gupta Vs UOI 317 ITR 107 and CIT v Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (2013) 53 (I) ITCL 2 (Karn-HC). I have also gone through the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT v Vikas Pormoter Pvt Ltd 277 ITR 337 and the para 4 is reproduced "Having perused the judgment of the Supreme Court afore referred, we are of the opinion that the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the department is misconceived. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have repeatedly emphasised the word 'satisfaction' and the satisfaction is not to be in the mind of the ass…

HINDUSTAN COCA COLA MARKETING COMPANY PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-11(2), NEW DELHI

The appeal is partly allowed and the stay

ITA 7900/DEL/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Aparna Karan, CIT(DR)
Section 250(6)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40Section 44A

…faction was not recorded in the assessment order or during the assessment proceedings. 5.1. Useful reference may be made to judicial precedents in the cases of CIT vs. Rajan and Co. (No. 1) [2007] 291 ITR 340 (Delhi), CIT vs. Vikas Promoters P. Ltd. [2005] 277 ITR 337 (Delhi), CIT vs. Auto Lamps Ltd. [2005] 278 ITR 32 (Delhi), CIT vs. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. 246 ITR 568 (Delhi), CIT vs. Super Metal Re-rollers 265 ITR 82 (Delhi), Everplus Securities and Finance Ltd. vs. DCIT [2006] 285 ITR (AT) 112 (Delhi) in support of the view taken by us in the foregoing paragraph no. 5 of this order. In the case…

TRILOK CHAND CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 26, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5983/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Sh. N.S. Sainiassessment Year: 2014-15 Sh. Trilok Chand Chaudhary Vs Acit 39, Gadai Pur, Mehrauli, Central Circle -26 New Delhi-110030 New Delhi Pan : Aaepc0683P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh.Pranshu Goel, Ca Assessee By: Sh. S. S. Rana, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 19/12/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/12/2018 Order Per Diva Singh, Jm:

For Appellant: Sh.Pranshu Goel, CA
Section 271Section 271ASection 274

…inaccurate particulars, the initiation of penalty proceedings will be without jurisdiction" The aforesaid principle is reiterated by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in plethora of cases as under: • Diwan Enterprises 246 ITR 571 (Del) • Vikas Promoters 277 ITR 337 (Del) • Super Metal Rerollers 265 ITR 082 (Del) • Shree Bhagwant Fin Co 280 ITR 412 (Del) • Ranjan 8c co 291 ITR 340 (Del) • Manish Iron Store 263 ITR 484 (PH) • DhanjibhaiKanjibhai 189 ITR (Bom) • Rampur Engg. Co 309 ITR 143 (Del)(FB) It has been held in the following cases that recording of satisfaction for the AO in the assessment order…

DHANRAJ MILLS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (OSD)-II CEN RG-7, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3830/MUM/2009[1987-88]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2017AY 1987-88

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 271(1)(c)Section 273Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, डी, मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “D”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एन. के. "धान, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri N.K. Pradhan, Accountant Member ITA NOs.3830 & 3833/Mum/2009 Assessment Years: 1987-88 & 1998-99 Dhanraj Mills Pvt. Ltd. ACIT(OSD-II) C/o- Pandya Gandhi & Co. बनाम/ CR-7, Advocates & Solicitors, 4th Floor, Vs. Adore House, Aayakar Bhavan, K. Dubash Marg, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400001 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. AAACD5580D ITA NOs.3831 & 3832 /Mum/2009 Asses…

CARBON FINANCE LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 517/KOL/2014[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Mar 2017AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

For Appellant: Ms. Ruchira Kheria, ACA `For Respondent: Shri S. S. Alam, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 10(35)Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 94(7)

…assessment proceedings as and when required. Thus, there was neither any concealment of income nor any inaccurate details/particulars were filed. The assessee further referred to the case of Hon’ble Delhi High court in CIT Vs. Vikas Promoter Pvt. Ltd. (2005) 277 ITR 337 (Del), wherein it was held that satisfaction is not to be in the mind of the AO but must be reflected from the record. The provisions of Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act are penal in nature thus must be strictly interpreted and the element of satisfaction should be apparent from the order itself. Further reliance were placed by the assessee in the case…

CHENNAKESAVA PHARMACEUTICALS VIJAYAWADA vs. THE COMI.OF INCOMETAX VIJ.

In the result, all the appeals are allowed setting aside the common

ITTA/31/2000HC Telangana27 Aug 2012

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

For Appellant: :Sri AV KrishnaFor Respondent: Sri J.V.Prasad
Section 133Section 143Section 260Section 271

…:Sri AV Krishna Koundinya ^ Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent : Sri J.V.Prasad. ? Cases referred: [1] (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) 2 (2010) 335TR 259 (Delhi) 3 (2008) 300 ITR 40 (AP) 4 (2003) 263 ITR 484 (P & H) 5 (2005) 277 ITR 337 (Delhi) 6 (2000) 246 ITR 568 (Delhi) 7 (2000) 246 ITR 571 (Delhi) 8 (2009) 309 ITR 143 (Delhi) (FB) 9 (2008) 307 ITR 147 (Delhi) 10 (2007) 291 ITR 519(SC) 11 (2000)241 ITR 124 (MP) 12(2001)251 ITR 009 (SC) 13(2010)291ITR 519 (SC) 14AIR 1973 S.C. 22 15(2008)306 ITR 277 (SC) HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.…

CIT v. Vikas Pormoter Pvt Ltd. (277 ITR 337) — Cited in 8 Judgments | BharatTax