(D. K. Jain J.) in Apogee International Limited v. Union of India

220 ITR 248High Court1996#5557 most cited

What is (D. K. Jain J.) in Apogee International Limited v. Union of India authority for?

An intimation under Section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, even after its substitution with effect from June 1, 1999, is not an 'assessment'. Acknowledgement of a return by ministerial staff, where no tax is payable or refund is due, does not constitute an assessment.

21

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Apogee International Limited v. Union of India · section 143(1) · intimation · assessment · ministerial staff · acknowledgement of return · no tax payable · no refund due · D.K. Jain J.

Sections most often in play

Section 10BSection 139Section 143(1)Section 154Section 32AB(5)Section 80A(5)Section 80ACSection 80IA

Issues it is cited on

section 54(1)section 54esection 55asection 54ecsection 13(2)long-term capital assetsection 53asection 53within four yearsfresh tangible materialsection 55circle rate

Judgments citing (D. K. Jain J.) in Apogee International Limited v. Union of India

ARUNA ALLOY STEELS PRIVATES LIMITED,MADURAI vs. ACIT,CORP. CIRCLE-1, MADURAI, MADURAIQ

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2803/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Respondent: Mr.Ashwin D. Gowda
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 156Section 80I

…(SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that an intimation u/s.143(1) of the Act can’t be held to be an assessment by observing as under: These aspects were highlighted by one of us (D.K. Jain J) in Apogee International Ltd. v. Union of India [1996] 220 ITR 248 (Delhi). It may be noted above that under the first proviso to the newly substituted section 143(1), with effect from 1-6-1999, except as provided in the provision itself, the acknowledgement of the return shall be deemed to be an intimation under section 143(1) where (a) either no sum is payable by the assessee, or (b) no refund is due to him. I…

JOYO PLASTICS,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-24 (1)

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical...

ITA 4405/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Joyo Plastics, Acit Circle-24(1), 104, Jai Antariksh Co-Op Society, 601, 6Th Floor, Piramal Vs. Makwana Road, Marol Naka, Chamber, Lalbaug, Marol, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400059. Pan No. Aaafj 0286 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Ajay R Sing/Akshay Pawar : Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing : 01/05/2024 : 13/05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Mr. Ajay R Sing/Akshay Pawar
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

…selective scrutiny of returns. These aspects return and to concentrate on selective scrutiny of returns. were highlighted by one of us (D. K. Jain J) in y one of us (D. K. Jain J) in Apogee International Apogee International Limited v. Union of India [(1996) 220 ITR 248]. It may be noted above Limited v. Union of India [(1996) 220 ITR 248]. It may be noted above that under the first proviso to the newly substituted section 143(1), with that under the first proviso to the newly substituted section 143(1), with that under the first proviso to the newly substituted section 143(1), with effect from June 1, 1999, exc…

ZINTEC SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-17(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1690/HYD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Zintec Software (P) Ltd, Vs. Dy. C.I.T. Hyderabad Circle 17(2) Pan:Aaaczi110H Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, C.A Revenue By: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 16/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/08/2022 Order Per Laliet Kumar, J.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 6.6.2018 Of The Learned Cit (A)-5, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2011-12. 2. The Legal Grounds Raised By The Assessee Before Us Are As Under: “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Failed To Appreciate That The Time Limitation Laid Down Under Section 154(7) Applies Only To Amendment Of Any "Order Passed" Referred To In Section 154(1)(A) & Not To Amendment Of Any Intimation Or Deemed Intimation Under Sub-Section (1) Of Section 143(1) Referred To In Section 154(1) (B) And, Therefore, Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Stating That The Rectification Application Is Beyond The Date Of Limitation. 2. Without Prejudice To Ground No. 1, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Is Not Justified In Not Adjudicating On The Ground Of Page 1 Of 11

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 116Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 154(1)Section 154(1)(a)Section 154(7)Section 200A

…ITA No 1690 of 2018 Zintec Software P Ltd आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri R.K. Panda, Accountant Member AND Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member Assessment Year: 2011-12 Zintec Software (P) Ltd, Vs. Dy. C.I.T. Hyderabad Circle 17(2) PAN:AAACZI110H Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri K.C. Devdas, C.A Revenue by: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai, CIT(DR) Date of hearing: 16/08/2022 Date of pronouncement: 17/08/2022 ORDER Per Laliet Kumar, J.M This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 6.6.2018 of the le…

SH. VALMIK THAPAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

ITA 5767/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

For Appellant: Shri Salil AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143Section 147Section 54Section 54E

…e., to minimize the Departmental work to scrutinize each and every return and to concentrate on selective scrutiny of returns. Page 25 of 53 These aspects were highlighted by one of us (D.K. Jain, J.) in Apogee International Limited v. Union of India (1996) 220 ITR 248 (Del). It may be noted above that under the first proviso to the newly substituted section 143 (1), with effect from 1st June 1999, except as provided in the provision itself, the acknowledgment of the return shall be deemed to be an intimation under Section 143 (1) where (a) either no sum is payable by the Assessee, or (b) no refund is due to hi…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. VALMIK THAPAR, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

ITA 6726/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

For Appellant: Shri Salil AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143Section 147Section 54Section 54E

…e., to minimize the Departmental work to scrutinize each and every return and to concentrate on selective scrutiny of returns. Page 25 of 53 These aspects were highlighted by one of us (D.K. Jain, J.) in Apogee International Limited v. Union of India (1996) 220 ITR 248 (Del). It may be noted above that under the first proviso to the newly substituted section 143 (1), with effect from 1st June 1999, except as provided in the provision itself, the acknowledgment of the return shall be deemed to be an intimation under Section 143 (1) where (a) either no sum is payable by the Assessee, or (b) no refund is due to hi…

SHRI VALMIK THAPAR,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

ITA 6346/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

For Appellant: Shri Salil AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143Section 147Section 54Section 54E

…e., to minimize the Departmental work to scrutinize each and every return and to concentrate on selective scrutiny of returns. Page 25 of 53 These aspects were highlighted by one of us (D.K. Jain, J.) in Apogee International Limited v. Union of India (1996) 220 ITR 248 (Del). It may be noted above that under the first proviso to the newly substituted section 143 (1), with effect from 1st June 1999, except as provided in the provision itself, the acknowledgment of the return shall be deemed to be an intimation under Section 143 (1) where (a) either no sum is payable by the Assessee, or (b) no refund is due to hi…

ITO 19(2)(3), MUMBAI vs. MEENAKSHI N SHAH, MUMBAI

ITA 7082/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit 5(2)(2) Meridian Chem Bond Mumbai Purchase Ltd., बनाम/ 903 Raheja Centre, Free Vs. Press Journal Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. Aaacr1789G

Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ‘आई’,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “I”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी जी. मंजूनाथ, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri JOGINDER SINGH, Judicial Member, and Shri G. MANJUNATHA, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2007-08 DCIT 5(2)(2) Meridian Chem Bond Mumbai Purchase Ltd., बनाम/ 903 Raheja Centre, Free Vs. Press Journal Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) PAN. AAACR1789G 2 Meridian Chem Bond P Ltd. & Meenakshi N Shah ITA No.7385 & 7082/Mum/2016 & C.O. No.86 & 85/Mum/2018 Assessment Year: 2007-08 ITO19…

NAVNIDHI STEEL AND ENGG CO. P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3420/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2007-08

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…f the Legislature, i.e., to minimize the departmental work to scrutinize each and every return and to concentrate on selective scrutiny of returns. These aspects were highlighted by one of us (D.K. Jain J) in Apogee International Ltd. v. Union of India [1996] 220 ITR 248 (Delhi). It may be noted above that under the first proviso to the newly substituted section 143(1), with effect from 1-6-1999, except as provided in the provision itself, the acknowledgement of the return shall be deemed to be an intimation under section 143(1) where (a) either no sum is payable by the assessee, or (b) no refund is due to him. I…

PRAKASH,TRICHY vs. ITO, TRICHY

In the result, the appeals of the assessees for all the

ITA 1223/CHNY/2017[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Aug 2017AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: Shri. A.S. Sriraman, Adv
Section 133ASection 148Section 271(1)Section 281B

…Legislature, i.e., to minimize the Departmental work to scrutinize each and every return and to concentrate on selective scrutiny of returns. These aspects were highlighted by one of us (D. K. Jain J.) in Apogee International Limited v. Union of India [1996] 220 ITR 248 (Delhi). It may be noted above that under the first proviso to the newly substituted section 143(1), with effect from June 1, 1999, except as provided in the provision itself, the acknowledgment of the return shall be deemed to be an intimation under section 143(1) where (a) either no sum is payable by the assessee, or (b) no refund is due to him…

PRAKASH,TRICHY vs. ITO, TRICHY

In the result, the appeals of the assessees for all the

ITA 1222/CHNY/2017[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Aug 2017AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: Shri. A.S. Sriraman, Adv
Section 133ASection 148Section 271(1)Section 281B

…Legislature, i.e., to minimize the Departmental work to scrutinize each and every return and to concentrate on selective scrutiny of returns. These aspects were highlighted by one of us (D. K. Jain J.) in Apogee International Limited v. Union of India [1996] 220 ITR 248 (Delhi). It may be noted above that under the first proviso to the newly substituted section 143(1), with effect from June 1, 1999, except as provided in the provision itself, the acknowledgment of the return shall be deemed to be an intimation under section 143(1) where (a) either no sum is payable by the assessee, or (b) no refund is due to him…

S.DEVENDRAN,TRICHY vs. ITO, TRICHY

In the result, the appeals of the assessees for all the

ITA 1221/CHNY/2017[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Aug 2017AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: Shri. A.S. Sriraman, Adv
Section 133ASection 148Section 271(1)Section 281B

…Legislature, i.e., to minimize the Departmental work to scrutinize each and every return and to concentrate on selective scrutiny of returns. These aspects were highlighted by one of us (D. K. Jain J.) in Apogee International Limited v. Union of India [1996] 220 ITR 248 (Delhi). It may be noted above that under the first proviso to the newly substituted section 143(1), with effect from June 1, 1999, except as provided in the provision itself, the acknowledgment of the return shall be deemed to be an intimation under section 143(1) where (a) either no sum is payable by the assessee, or (b) no refund is due to him…

S.DEVENDRAN,TRICHY vs. ITO, TRICHY

In the result, the appeals of the assessees for all the

ITA 1220/CHNY/2017[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Aug 2017AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: Shri. A.S. Sriraman, Adv
Section 133ASection 148Section 271(1)Section 281B

…Legislature, i.e., to minimize the Departmental work to scrutinize each and every return and to concentrate on selective scrutiny of returns. These aspects were highlighted by one of us (D. K. Jain J.) in Apogee International Limited v. Union of India [1996] 220 ITR 248 (Delhi). It may be noted above that under the first proviso to the newly substituted section 143(1), with effect from June 1, 1999, except as provided in the provision itself, the acknowledgment of the return shall be deemed to be an intimation under section 143(1) where (a) either no sum is payable by the assessee, or (b) no refund is due to him…

M.R.PRASAD,TRICHY vs. ITO, TRICHY

In the result, the appeals of the assessees for all the

ITA 1219/CHNY/2017[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Aug 2017AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: Shri. A.S. Sriraman, Adv
Section 133ASection 148Section 271(1)Section 281B

…Legislature, i.e., to minimize the Departmental work to scrutinize each and every return and to concentrate on selective scrutiny of returns. These aspects were highlighted by one of us (D. K. Jain J.) in Apogee International Limited v. Union of India [1996] 220 ITR 248 (Delhi). It may be noted above that under the first proviso to the newly substituted section 143(1), with effect from June 1, 1999, except as provided in the provision itself, the acknowledgment of the return shall be deemed to be an intimation under section 143(1) where (a) either no sum is payable by the assessee, or (b) no refund is due to him…

M.R.PRASAD,TRICHY vs. ITO, TRICHY

In the result, the appeals of the assessees for all the

ITA 1218/CHNY/2017[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Aug 2017AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: Shri. A.S. Sriraman, Adv
Section 133ASection 148Section 271(1)Section 281B

…Legislature, i.e., to minimize the Departmental work to scrutinize each and every return and to concentrate on selective scrutiny of returns. These aspects were highlighted by one of us (D. K. Jain J.) in Apogee International Limited v. Union of India [1996] 220 ITR 248 (Delhi). It may be noted above that under the first proviso to the newly substituted section 143(1), with effect from June 1, 1999, except as provided in the provision itself, the acknowledgment of the return shall be deemed to be an intimation under section 143(1) where (a) either no sum is payable by the assessee, or (b) no refund is due to him…

SURESH L. SATYANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 23(3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3452/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri Biren GabhawalaFor Respondent: Shri B.S. Bist, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…to minimize the departmental work to scrutinize each and every return and to concentrate on selective scrutiny of returns. These aspects were highlighted by one of us (D.K. Jain J) in Apogee International Ltd. v. Union ITA 3452/Mum/2016 26 of India [1996] 220 ITR 248 (Delhi). It may be noted above that under the first proviso to the newly substituted section 143(1), with effect from 1-6-1999, except as provided in the provision itself, the acknowledgement of the return shall be deemed to be an intimation under section 143(1) where (a) either no sum is payable by the assessee, or (b) no refund is due to him. I…

RATNAGIRI STAINLESS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 5(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4463/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4463/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) M/S Ratnagiri Stainless Pvt. Income Tax Officer 5(3)(1), बनाम/ Ltd., Mumbai. V. 21/23, Laxmi Niwas, 2 Nd Parsiwada Lane, Opp V.P. Road Police Station, Mumbai – 400 004. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aadcr2993P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri N.M. PorwalFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop,DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234A

…f the Legislature, i.e., to minimize the departmental work to scrutinize each and every return and to concentrate on selective scrutiny of returns. These aspects were highlighted by one of us (D.K. Jain J) in Apogee International Ltd. v. Union of India [1996] 220 ITR 248 (Delhi). It may be noted above that under the first proviso to the newly substituted section 143(1), with effect from 1-6-1999, except as provided in the provision itself, the acknowledgement of the return shall be deemed to be an intimation under section 143(1) where (a) either no sum is payable by the assessee, or (b) no refund is due to him. I…

ACIT, CC-44, MUMBAI vs. SHILPA SUNIL MAJITHIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals and assessee’s cross objections are dismissed

ITA 5138/MUM/2009[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2016AY 1995-96
Section 268A

…by the Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. [2007] 291 ITR 500 (SC). Tracing the legislative history of the provision, for which it makes reference to its earlier decision in Apogee International Ltd. vs. Union of India [1996] 220 ITR 248 (SC), it explained that the legislative intent is very clear from the use of the word ‘intimation’ as substituted for ‘assessment’, which denote different concepts. While in assessment, the A.O. is free to make any addition after grant of opportunity to the assessee, no such addition/adjustment is permissible u/s. 143(1), where-under he cannot go…

KASHINATH TAPURIAH,KOLKATTA vs. DCIT CEN CIR 2, MUMBAI

In the result, the penalty appeals for all the seven years under reference are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8339/MUM/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan, Vp & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am Sr. Appellant Respondent A.Ys.

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Karia &For Respondent: Shri Girish Dave &
Section 132(1)Section 132ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…by the Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. [2007] 291 ITR 500 (SC). Tracing the legislative history of the provision, for which it makes reference to its earlier decision in Apogee International Ltd. vs. Union of India [1996] 220 ITR 248 (SC), it explained that the legislative intent is very clear from the use of the word ‘intimation’ as substituted for ‘assessment’, which denote different concepts. While in assessment, the A.O. is free to make any addition after grant of opportunity to the assessee, no such addition/adjustment is permissible u/s. 143(1), where-under he cannot go…

SHRI KASHINATH TAPURIAH,KOLKATTA vs. DY.CIT.C.C.2, MUMBAI

In the result, the penalty appeals for all the seven years under reference are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3820/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan, Vp & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am Sr. Appellant Respondent A.Ys.

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Karia &For Respondent: Shri Girish Dave &
Section 132(1)Section 132ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…by the Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. [2007] 291 ITR 500 (SC). Tracing the legislative history of the provision, for which it makes reference to its earlier decision in Apogee International Ltd. vs. Union of India [1996] 220 ITR 248 (SC), it explained that the legislative intent is very clear from the use of the word ‘intimation’ as substituted for ‘assessment’, which denote different concepts. While in assessment, the A.O. is free to make any addition after grant of opportunity to the assessee, no such addition/adjustment is permissible u/s. 143(1), where-under he cannot go…

PADMAPRIYA REAL ESTATE,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2145/CHNY/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jun 2015AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2145/Mds/2011 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2002-03

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Madhavan, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 148

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद"य केसम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.2145/Mds/2011 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2002-03 M/s Padmapriya Real Estate, The Income Tax Officer, Arjay Apex Centre, v. Business Ward XV(2), 51, College Road, Chennai - 600 034 . Chennai - 600 006. PAN : AAAFP 0659 A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""यथ" क…

Showing 1–20 of 21 · Page 1 of 2