Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. v. Metro and Metro

404 ITR 304High Court2018#20788 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,615 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Judgments citing Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. v. Metro and Metro

Guru Kripa Associates, Bareilly vs. Pr. CIT, Bareilly

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 97/LKW/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow14 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(3)Section 263

…e of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Champ Info Software. reported in (2021) 5 NYPCTR 840 (All.) (viii) Copy of Judgement and order dated March 12, 2010 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad, in the case of CIT vs Metro & Metro reported in (2018) 404 ITR 304 (All). II. PROCEEDING BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER u/s 143(3) of the 3 Copy of acknowledgement receipt dated 12.10.2017 of ITR-5 filed. 4 Copy of notice dated 25.09.2018 issued under section 143(2) of the Act by ITO-1(2), Bareilly New. 5 Copy of screenshot of reply filed on 07.10.2018 in response to notice under section 143(2) of the Act dated 25.09.…

Dinesh Kumar Singh, Mirzapur vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Allahabad

ITA 11/ALLD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad04 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Godbole, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ramendra Kumar Vishwakarma, CIT-DR and Shri A.K. Singh, Sr. D.R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…Office Expenses, on the grounds that these expense remained unverifiable . The ld. Counsel for the assessee relied upon judgment and order of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. v. Metro and Metro , reported in (2018) 404 ITR 304(All.). The ld. Counsel for the assessee also relied upon the order of ITAT, Amritsar Bench in the case of Dharam Pal v. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhatinda reported in (2017) 82 taxmann.com 83 (Amritsar-Trib.). The ld. Counsel for the assessee also relied upon the order of ITAT, Amritsar Bench in the case of Jiwan Kumar v. PCIT, Bhatinda, re…

Jagjit Singh, Panipat vs. Pr.CIT, Karnal

In the result, appeal of Assessee allowed

ITA 2777/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT-D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 269SSection 271DSection 54B

…re was no need for the 32 ITA.No.2777/Del./2018 Shri Jagjit Singh, Panipat. assessing officer to have mention the detail facts in the reassessment order. The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Krishna Cap Box Pvt., Ltd., 372 ITR 310 and Metro & Metro 404 ITR 304 held that “when assessing officer called for details and assessee responded, A.O. however, did not discuss or mention the details in the order, no proceedings under section 263 would lie.” In the present case since reassessment proceedings have been initiated solely on the reason that assessee has availed exemption under section 54B by making inv…

Gateway Distriparks(Kerala) Ltd, Cochin vs. ACIT, Cochin

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

ITA 216/COCH/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Aug 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. No.216/Coch/2018 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Gateway Distriparks (Kerala) Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Ltd., Door No. 26/1804, Income-Tax, Circle-1(2), Kochi Chakiat House, Subramaniam Road, Willington Island, Kochi-682 003. [Pan:Aaccg 6616P] (Assessee-Appellant) (Revenue-Respondent) Assessee By Shri P.M. Veeramani, Ca Revenue By Smt. A.S. Bindhu, Dr Date Of Hearing 14/08/2018 Date Of Pronouncement 28/08/2018

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)

…ar and firm decision that the order passed by the AO is either erroneous or to be prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue but neither has been found in the present case. The Ld. AR relied on the decision of Allahabad High Court in CIT vs Metro and Metro ( 404 ITR 304). Accordingly, he prayed that the order of Commissioner of Income tax under section 263 may be set aside. 5. On the other hand, the Ld. DR relied on the order of the CIT and also submitted that premium on lease also is not entitled for depreciation. Further, he relied on the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Heredilla Che…