Commissioner of Income-tax v. Nanalal Tribhovandas

100 ITR 734High Court1975#1222 most cited
93

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2023.

Also referred to as

Nanalal Tribhovandas · 100 ITR 734 · Income Tax Act 1961 · Section 120 · Section 127 · Jurisdiction of tax authorities · Transfer of cases · Assessment procedure · Gujarat High Court · Assessee definition section 2(7) · Book profits 115JA · Interest under section 234B

Issues it is cited on

section 2(7)section 120(4)(b)section 120(1)section 163section 2(7a)section 115jasection 120section 16section 156interest under section 234bsection 127book profits

Judgments citing Commissioner of Income-tax v. Nanalal Tribhovandas

NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 3(2), MUMBAI

ITA 3553/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-2000 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Nuclear Power Corporation Of Acit, Range-3(2), India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400021. Central Avenue, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai-400094. Pan No. Aaacn 3154 F Appellant Respondent

…jarat High Co The Gujarat High Court has, of course, taken the urt has, of course, taken the very view in its two decisions in CIT v. Nanalal very view in its two decisions in CIT v. Nanalal very view in its two decisions in CIT v. Nanalal Tribhovandas [1975) 100 ITR 734 and P. V. Doshi v. Tribhovandas [1975) 100 ITR 734 and P. V. Tribhovandas [1975) 100 ITR 734 and P. V. CIT |1978] 113 ITR 22. Indirectly, the Allahabad CIT |1978] 113 ITR 22. Indirectly, the Allahabad CIT |1978] 113 ITR 22. Indirectly, the Allahabad High Court in CIT v. Hari Raj Swarup and Sons High Court in CIT v. Hari Raj Swarup and Sons High C…

NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 3(2), MUMBAI

ITA 2452/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-2000 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Nuclear Power Corporation Of Acit, Range-3(2), India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400021. Central Avenue, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai-400094. Pan No. Aaacn 3154 F Appellant Respondent

…jarat High Co The Gujarat High Court has, of course, taken the urt has, of course, taken the very view in its two decisions in CIT v. Nanalal very view in its two decisions in CIT v. Nanalal very view in its two decisions in CIT v. Nanalal Tribhovandas [1975) 100 ITR 734 and P. V. Doshi v. Tribhovandas [1975) 100 ITR 734 and P. V. Tribhovandas [1975) 100 ITR 734 and P. V. CIT |1978] 113 ITR 22. Indirectly, the Allahabad CIT |1978] 113 ITR 22. Indirectly, the Allahabad CIT |1978] 113 ITR 22. Indirectly, the Allahabad High Court in CIT v. Hari Raj Swarup and Sons High Court in CIT v. Hari Raj Swarup and Sons High C…

NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD,,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. C.I.T,RANGE 3(2), MUMBAI

ITA 3867/MUM/2008[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-2000 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Nuclear Power Corporation Of Acit, Range-3(2), India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400021. Central Avenue, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai-400094. Pan No. Aaacn 3154 F Appellant Respondent

…jarat High Co The Gujarat High Court has, of course, taken the urt has, of course, taken the very view in its two decisions in CIT v. Nanalal very view in its two decisions in CIT v. Nanalal very view in its two decisions in CIT v. Nanalal Tribhovandas [1975) 100 ITR 734 and P. V. Doshi v. Tribhovandas [1975) 100 ITR 734 and P. V. Tribhovandas [1975) 100 ITR 734 and P. V. CIT |1978] 113 ITR 22. Indirectly, the Allahabad CIT |1978] 113 ITR 22. Indirectly, the Allahabad CIT |1978] 113 ITR 22. Indirectly, the Allahabad High Court in CIT v. Hari Raj Swarup and Sons High Court in CIT v. Hari Raj Swarup and Sons High C…

NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD,,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. C.I.T,RANGE 3(2), MUMBAI

ITA 4745/MUM/2007[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-2000 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Nuclear Power Corporation Of Acit, Range-3(2), India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400021. Central Avenue, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai-400094. Pan No. Aaacn 3154 F Appellant Respondent

…jarat High Co The Gujarat High Court has, of course, taken the urt has, of course, taken the very view in its two decisions in CIT v. Nanalal very view in its two decisions in CIT v. Nanalal very view in its two decisions in CIT v. Nanalal Tribhovandas [1975) 100 ITR 734 and P. V. Doshi v. Tribhovandas [1975) 100 ITR 734 and P. V. Tribhovandas [1975) 100 ITR 734 and P. V. CIT |1978] 113 ITR 22. Indirectly, the Allahabad CIT |1978] 113 ITR 22. Indirectly, the Allahabad CIT |1978] 113 ITR 22. Indirectly, the Allahabad High Court in CIT v. Hari Raj Swarup and Sons High Court in CIT v. Hari Raj Swarup and Sons High C…

NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD,,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. C.I.T,RANGE 3(2), MUMBAI

ITA 4744/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-2000 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Nuclear Power Corporation Of Acit, Range-3(2), India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400021. Central Avenue, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai-400094. Pan No. Aaacn 3154 F Appellant Respondent

…jarat High Co The Gujarat High Court has, of course, taken the urt has, of course, taken the very view in its two decisions in CIT v. Nanalal very view in its two decisions in CIT v. Nanalal very view in its two decisions in CIT v. Nanalal Tribhovandas [1975) 100 ITR 734 and P. V. Doshi v. Tribhovandas [1975) 100 ITR 734 and P. V. Tribhovandas [1975) 100 ITR 734 and P. V. CIT |1978] 113 ITR 22. Indirectly, the Allahabad CIT |1978] 113 ITR 22. Indirectly, the Allahabad CIT |1978] 113 ITR 22. Indirectly, the Allahabad High Court in CIT v. Hari Raj Swarup and Sons High Court in CIT v. Hari Raj Swarup and Sons High C…

NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD,,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. C.I.T,RANGE 3(2), MUMBAI

ITA 4743/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-2000 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Nuclear Power Corporation Of Acit, Range-3(2), India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400021. Central Avenue, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai-400094. Pan No. Aaacn 3154 F Appellant Respondent

…jarat High Co The Gujarat High Court has, of course, taken the urt has, of course, taken the very view in its two decisions in CIT v. Nanalal very view in its two decisions in CIT v. Nanalal very view in its two decisions in CIT v. Nanalal Tribhovandas [1975) 100 ITR 734 and P. V. Doshi v. Tribhovandas [1975) 100 ITR 734 and P. V. Tribhovandas [1975) 100 ITR 734 and P. V. CIT |1978] 113 ITR 22. Indirectly, the Allahabad CIT |1978] 113 ITR 22. Indirectly, the Allahabad CIT |1978] 113 ITR 22. Indirectly, the Allahabad High Court in CIT v. Hari Raj Swarup and Sons High Court in CIT v. Hari Raj Swarup and Sons High C…

THE DY CIT 3(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 4603/MUM/2007[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-2000 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Nuclear Power Corporation Of Acit, Range-3(2), India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400021. Central Avenue, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai-400094. Pan No. Aaacn 3154 F Appellant Respondent

…jarat High Co The Gujarat High Court has, of course, taken the urt has, of course, taken the very view in its two decisions in CIT v. Nanalal very view in its two decisions in CIT v. Nanalal very view in its two decisions in CIT v. Nanalal Tribhovandas [1975) 100 ITR 734 and P. V. Doshi v. Tribhovandas [1975) 100 ITR 734 and P. V. Tribhovandas [1975) 100 ITR 734 and P. V. CIT |1978] 113 ITR 22. Indirectly, the Allahabad CIT |1978] 113 ITR 22. Indirectly, the Allahabad CIT |1978] 113 ITR 22. Indirectly, the Allahabad High Court in CIT v. Hari Raj Swarup and Sons High Court in CIT v. Hari Raj Swarup and Sons High C…

NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT RANGE 3(2), MUMBAI

ITA 4413/MUM/2004[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-2000 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Nuclear Power Corporation Of Acit, Range-3(2), India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400021. Central Avenue, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai-400094. Pan No. Aaacn 3154 F Appellant Respondent

…jarat High Co The Gujarat High Court has, of course, taken the urt has, of course, taken the very view in its two decisions in CIT v. Nanalal very view in its two decisions in CIT v. Nanalal very view in its two decisions in CIT v. Nanalal Tribhovandas [1975) 100 ITR 734 and P. V. Doshi v. Tribhovandas [1975) 100 ITR 734 and P. V. Tribhovandas [1975) 100 ITR 734 and P. V. CIT |1978] 113 ITR 22. Indirectly, the Allahabad CIT |1978] 113 ITR 22. Indirectly, the Allahabad CIT |1978] 113 ITR 22. Indirectly, the Allahabad High Court in CIT v. Hari Raj Swarup and Sons High Court in CIT v. Hari Raj Swarup and Sons High C…

NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL.COMMR.OF INCOME TAX, SPL. RG.32, MUMBAI

ITA 202/MUM/2004[98-99]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-2000 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Nuclear Power Corporation Of Acit, Range-3(2), India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400021. Central Avenue, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai-400094. Pan No. Aaacn 3154 F Appellant Respondent

…jarat High Co The Gujarat High Court has, of course, taken the urt has, of course, taken the very view in its two decisions in CIT v. Nanalal very view in its two decisions in CIT v. Nanalal very view in its two decisions in CIT v. Nanalal Tribhovandas [1975) 100 ITR 734 and P. V. Doshi v. Tribhovandas [1975) 100 ITR 734 and P. V. Tribhovandas [1975) 100 ITR 734 and P. V. CIT |1978] 113 ITR 22. Indirectly, the Allahabad CIT |1978] 113 ITR 22. Indirectly, the Allahabad CIT |1978] 113 ITR 22. Indirectly, the Allahabad High Court in CIT v. Hari Raj Swarup and Sons High Court in CIT v. Hari Raj Swarup and Sons High C…

NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT(OSD) RANGE 3(2), MUMBAI

ITA 114/MUM/2004[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-2000 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Nuclear Power Corporation Of Acit, Range-3(2), India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400021. Central Avenue, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai-400094. Pan No. Aaacn 3154 F Appellant Respondent

…jarat High Co The Gujarat High Court has, of course, taken the urt has, of course, taken the very view in its two decisions in CIT v. Nanalal very view in its two decisions in CIT v. Nanalal very view in its two decisions in CIT v. Nanalal Tribhovandas [1975) 100 ITR 734 and P. V. Doshi v. Tribhovandas [1975) 100 ITR 734 and P. V. Tribhovandas [1975) 100 ITR 734 and P. V. CIT |1978] 113 ITR 22. Indirectly, the Allahabad CIT |1978] 113 ITR 22. Indirectly, the Allahabad CIT |1978] 113 ITR 22. Indirectly, the Allahabad High Court in CIT v. Hari Raj Swarup and Sons High Court in CIT v. Hari Raj Swarup and Sons High C…

ITO -INTL TAX CIRCLE 3(3) (2), MUMBAI vs. RAHUL RAJNIKANT PARIKH, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 426/MUM/2022[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2004-05
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 22Section 34Section 34(1)(a)

…6 of 8 consider that as this ground goes to the very root of the matter, it should be allowed after the appellants are compensated by costs." The Gujarat High Court has, of course, taken the very view in its two decisions in CIT v. Nanalal Tribhovandas [1975] 100 ITR 734 and P.V. Doshi v. CIT [1978] 113 ITR 22. Indirectly, the Allahabad High Court in CIT v. Hari Raj Swarup and Sons [1982] 138 ITR 462, has also taken the same view. We, therefore, hold that a ground by which the jurisdiction to make assessment itself is challenged can be urged before any authority for the first time. This, however, does not solve t…

RAHUL RAJNIKANT PARIKH,MUMBAI vs. ITO INTL TAX CIRCLE 3(3) (2) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 425/MUM/2022[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2003-04
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 22Section 34Section 34(1)(a)

…6 of 8 consider that as this ground goes to the very root of the matter, it should be allowed after the appellants are compensated by costs." The Gujarat High Court has, of course, taken the very view in its two decisions in CIT v. Nanalal Tribhovandas [1975] 100 ITR 734 and P.V. Doshi v. CIT [1978] 113 ITR 22. Indirectly, the Allahabad High Court in CIT v. Hari Raj Swarup and Sons [1982] 138 ITR 462, has also taken the same view. We, therefore, hold that a ground by which the jurisdiction to make assessment itself is challenged can be urged before any authority for the first time. This, however, does not solve t…

KALPESH RAMNIKLAL JHAVERI,MUMBAI vs. ITO INTL TAX CIR 3(3) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 424/MUM/2022[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2004-05
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 22Section 34Section 34(1)(a)

…6 of 8 consider that as this ground goes to the very root of the matter, it should be allowed after the appellants are compensated by costs." The Gujarat High Court has, of course, taken the very view in its two decisions in CIT v. Nanalal Tribhovandas [1975] 100 ITR 734 and P.V. Doshi v. CIT [1978] 113 ITR 22. Indirectly, the Allahabad High Court in CIT v. Hari Raj Swarup and Sons [1982] 138 ITR 462, has also taken the same view. We, therefore, hold that a ground by which the jurisdiction to make assessment itself is challenged can be urged before any authority for the first time. This, however, does not solve t…

KALPESH RASHMIKANT JHAVERI,MUMBAI vs. ITO IT ,CIRCLE- 3(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 423/MUM/2022[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2003-04
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 22Section 34Section 34(1)(a)

…6 of 8 consider that as this ground goes to the very root of the matter, it should be allowed after the appellants are compensated by costs." The Gujarat High Court has, of course, taken the very view in its two decisions in CIT v. Nanalal Tribhovandas [1975] 100 ITR 734 and P.V. Doshi v. CIT [1978] 113 ITR 22. Indirectly, the Allahabad High Court in CIT v. Hari Raj Swarup and Sons [1982] 138 ITR 462, has also taken the same view. We, therefore, hold that a ground by which the jurisdiction to make assessment itself is challenged can be urged before any authority for the first time. This, however, does not solve t…

YCH LOGISTICS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 322/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Dr. S.Palani Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,‘डी’ "यायपीठ,चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ीमहावीर "सह, उपा"य" एवं"ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद"यके सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 322/CHNY/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011 - 12 YCH Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd., The DCIT, Plot No.DV1, SIPCOT Hi-Tech SEZ, Vs. Corporate Circle 3(2), Phase II, Sirumangadu Village, Chennai. Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District – 602 105. PAN : AAACY 2873L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri Ajit Ku…

ABDULVAHED A. SHEIKH, LEGAL HEIROF LATE SMT. SARIFABEN BIKHUBHAI SHEK,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-7(2)(5),, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 2948/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jan 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri A.C. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S. S. Shukla, Sr. D.R
Section 120(3)(a)Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 282Section 54F

…. Therefore, no question of finality of the remand order could ever arise in the present context, if the mandatory conditions for founding jurisdiction for initiating reassessment proceeding were absent. This is the view in CIT vs. Nanalal Tribhovandas (1975) 100 ITR 734 (Guj), agreeing with the Madras view that there would be no such finality by remand because consent could not confer jurisdiction, and so, such objection in regard to the validity of the notice under s. 34 could be raised before the AAC. 12. The learned standing counsel in this connection marshalled in aid the decision in Northern Railway Co-oper…

DDIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. TRAVELPORT LP USA, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue ITA No

ITA 218/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri K. N Chary

For Appellant: Shri Kanchan Kaushal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR
Section 260ASection 9(1)(i)

…ion of finality of the remand order could ever arise in the present context, if the mandatory conditions for founding jurisdiction for initiating reassessment proceeding were absent. This is the view in Commissioner of Income-tax v. NanalalTribhovandas (1975) 100 ITR 734 (Guj), agreeing with the Madras view that there would be no such finality by remand because consent could not confer jurisdiction, and so, such objection in regard to the validity of the notice under section 34 could be raised before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. 17. The learned standing counsel in this connection marshalled in aid the de…

DDIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. TRAVELPORT LP USA, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue ITA No

ITA 217/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri K. N Chary

For Appellant: Shri Kanchan Kaushal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR
Section 260ASection 9(1)(i)

…ion of finality of the remand order could ever arise in the present context, if the mandatory conditions for founding jurisdiction for initiating reassessment proceeding were absent. This is the view in Commissioner of Income-tax v. NanalalTribhovandas (1975) 100 ITR 734 (Guj), agreeing with the Madras view that there would be no such finality by remand because consent could not confer jurisdiction, and so, such objection in regard to the validity of the notice under section 34 could be raised before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. 17. The learned standing counsel in this connection marshalled in aid the de…

DDIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. WORLDSPAN L.P. USA, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue ITA No

ITA 6500/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri K. N Chary

For Appellant: Shri Kanchan Kaushal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR
Section 260ASection 9(1)(i)

…ion of finality of the remand order could ever arise in the present context, if the mandatory conditions for founding jurisdiction for initiating reassessment proceeding were absent. This is the view in Commissioner of Income-tax v. NanalalTribhovandas (1975) 100 ITR 734 (Guj), agreeing with the Madras view that there would be no such finality by remand because consent could not confer jurisdiction, and so, such objection in regard to the validity of the notice under section 34 could be raised before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. 17. The learned standing counsel in this connection marshalled in aid the de…

DDIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. WORLDSPAN L.P. USA, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue ITA No

ITA 6499/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri K. N Chary

For Appellant: Shri Kanchan Kaushal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR
Section 260ASection 9(1)(i)

…ion of finality of the remand order could ever arise in the present context, if the mandatory conditions for founding jurisdiction for initiating reassessment proceeding were absent. This is the view in Commissioner of Income-tax v. NanalalTribhovandas (1975) 100 ITR 734 (Guj), agreeing with the Madras view that there would be no such finality by remand because consent could not confer jurisdiction, and so, such objection in regard to the validity of the notice under section 34 could be raised before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. 17. The learned standing counsel in this connection marshalled in aid the de…

Showing 1–20 of 93 · Page 1 of 5