Co. Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer (2005) 272 ITR 439 (Cal.), Sukhlal Ice & Cold Storage Co. v. Income Tax Officer

199 ITR 129High Court1993#23383 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 359,850 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2019.

Judgments citing Co. Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer (2005) 272 ITR 439 (Cal.), Sukhlal Ice & Cold Storage Co. v. Income Tax Officer

Smt . Sushilabai Ishwardas Bamb, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 5(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2752/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

Section 148

…d 18- 04-2012 was arrived as the reasons had not been properly recorded”. In reaching this conclusion, the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Sukhlal Ice and Storage Company Vs. ITO and Another (1993) 199 ITR 129 (All). The reliance of ld. DR on another judgment of the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in Kohinoor Enterprises Vs. ITO and others (1997) 226 ITR 86 (MP) also 16 Smt. Sushilabai Ishwardas Bamb fortifies the view canvassed by us. In that case also, first notice issued u/s.148 was without any basis and the Department had to drop proceedings.…

M/S.Cornersstone Property Investments Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Bangalore

ITA 665/BANG/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Nagendra Prasad,CIT (D.R)

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

…lier notice under Section 148 of the Act dt.18.4.2012 was dropped as the reasons have not been properly recorded. As pointed out by the learned Departmental Representative for Revenue, the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Sukhlal Ice and Storge Co. 199 ITR 129 has upheld the issue of second notice when the first notice was found to be illegal and found wanting in jurisdiction. Therefore, in our considered view, the issue of the second notice under Section 148 of the Act on 10.6.2013 for Assessment Year 2008-09 is valid, as all the other procedures mandated in the Act have been followed by the Assessing…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sng Developers Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee as well as the appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 735/DEL/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2016AY 2003-04

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…ndant. The finding of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) is contrary to the judicial pronouncements in the case of Indian Tube Co. Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer (2005) 272 ITR 439 (Cal.), Sukhlal Ice & Cold Storage Co. Vs. Income Tax Officer (1993) 199 ITR 129 (All.) and Ashok Kumar Dixit Vs. Income Tax Officer (1992) 198 ITR 669 (All.) C.O. No. 110/Del/2012 AY: 2003-04 ii. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred in law and on facts by not giving any finding on the case laws cited on page 2 of the written submission dated 27.05.2011 on the…