CIT vs Central Warehousing Corporation (2015) 371 ITR 81 Del) (c) Vodafone South Ltd. v. Union of India

363 ITR 388High Court2014#20615 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2021.

Judgments citing CIT vs Central Warehousing Corporation (2015) 371 ITR 81 Del) (c) Vodafone South Ltd. v. Union of India

Saraswati Realtech P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-22(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 3269/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2010-11 Saraswati Realtech P. Ltd., Vs. Ito, B-23, Ground Floor, Ward-22(3), Pushpanjali Enclave, New Delhi. Pitampura, New Delhi. Pan: Aamcs0744G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Jain, Ca & Shri Hemant Pahwa, Ca Revenue By : Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.10.2021 Order

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Jain, CA &For Respondent: Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr.DR

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Central Warehousing Corporation, 371 ITR 81, he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court, following the earlier order of the Hon’ble High Court in the case of Vodafone South Ltd. vs. Union of India, reported in 363 ITR 388, has held that the attempt of the AO to revisit the same issue for third time without any tangible or fresh material could not be held as valid. The action of the AO 19 was nothing, but, the tax authorities’ effort to overreach the law and, resultantly, a sheer harassment of the petitioner. 8.2 Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi Hig…

G.T.Mohan Rao, Kakinada vs. The ITO, Kakinada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 182/VIZ/2015[]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Sept 2019

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.182/Viz/2015 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2007-08) G.T.Mohan Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Prop.Ramya Engineering Co. Ward-1 Plot No.3-20-4/1/A Kakinada Rammohan Nagar Kakinada [Pan : Aehpg7387R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Smt.Suman Malik, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 01.08.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2019 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Smt.Suman Malik, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194ISection 37(1)Section 40Section 40a

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री िी. दुगाा राि,न्याधयक सदस्य एिं श्री धड.एस. सुन्दर धसंह, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.182/Viz/2015 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2007-08) G.T.Mohan Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Prop.Ramya Engineering Co. Ward-1 Plot No.3-20-4/1/A Kakinada Rammohan Nagar Kakinada [PAN : AEHPG7387R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri G.V.N.Hari, AR प्रत्यधथी की…

Basanti Jeevanlal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 14(3)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 909/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2006-07 Smt. Basanti Jeevanlal Jain, The Income Tax Officer 287, Dharamraj Gully, Ward-14(3)(2), बनाम/ M.J. Market, Earnest House, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Agdpj5258A

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54

…is to reopen the assessment as it was not fault of the assessee. The ratio laid 7 Smt. Basanti Jeevanlal Jain down in IBS Software Services Pvt. Ltd. vs UOI (2015) 379 ITR 66, Unitech Holdings Ltd. (2016) 138 DTR (Del.) 272, Vodafone South Ltd. vs UOI (2014) 363 ITR 388 (Del.) supports our view. Thus, the reopening was not valid. 3. Now, we shall deal with the merits of the appeal. Before adverting further, we are reproducing hereunder section 54 of the Act for ready reference and analysis:- “ 54. (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), where, in the case of an assessee being an individual or a Hindu…

M/S.. Upkar International (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 6710/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jun 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kanta.Y. : 2003-04 Upkar International (P) Ltd., Dcit, Circle 18(1), C/O J.S. Kochar & Associates, Vs. Cr Building, 209, Sewak Bhawan, I.P. Estate, New Delhi 16/2, Wea Karol Bagh, New Delhi – 110 005

For Appellant: Sh. J.S. Kochar & Sh. Udai BirFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Jain, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80Section 801BSection 80I

…by the following decisions and therefore, the reassessment needs to be quashed. (a) CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) (b) CIT vs Central Warehousing Corporation (2015) 371 ITR 81 Del) (c) Vodafone South Ltd. vs Union of India (2014) 363 ITR 388 (Del) (d) Madhukar Khosla vs ACIT (2014) 367 ITR 165 (Del) 4 A.Y. 2003-04 (e) BLB Ltd. vs ACIT (2012) 343 ITR 129 (Del) 6. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and stated that lower authorities have have passed a well reasoned order on the basis of the documentary evidences filed by the assessee as well as preva…