Dagli v. CIT, 62 ITR 102 (Guj); Madanlal Agarwal v. CIT, 144 ITR 745 (All); PN Sasikumar v. CIT

264 ITR 410High Court2003#17449 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2024.

Judgments citing Dagli v. CIT, 62 ITR 102 (Guj); Madanlal Agarwal v. CIT, 144 ITR 745 (All); PN Sasikumar v. CIT

Smt. Varshaben Paras Jani(L.H. of Shri Paras Chunilal Jani), Ahmedabad vs. ACIT, Circle-5(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 536/AHD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 536/Ahd/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13)

For Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT. DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 292B

…i Kapasi , 66 ITR 147 (SC); CIT v. Kurban Hussain Ibrahimji Mithiborwala, 82 ITR 821 (SC); Nayalchand Malukchand Dagli v. CIT, 62 ITR 102 (Guj); Madanlal Agarwal v. CIT, 144 ITR 745 (All); PN Sasikumar v. CIT, 170 ITR 80 (Ker); and Electro Steel Castings Ltd. 264 ITR 410 (Cal)-SLP Dismissed 266 ITR (St.) 104 (SC). The existence of a valid section 148 notice being a condition precedent for the exercise of the jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer to assess or reassess under Section 147, it does not confer any right to the assessee, which he could abandon. Want of a notice affects the jurisdiction of the Assessing…

Manoj Kumar, Rewari vs. ITO Ward-2, Rewri

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 9011/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2

…e laws as under: - Bir Bahadur Singh Sijwali Vs. ITO (2015) 68 SOT 197 (ITAT) Delhi; - CIT Vs. Smt. Maniben Velji Shah (2006) 283 ITR 453 (Bom.); - Smt. Kantamani Venkata Satyavathi Vs. ITO (1967) 64 ITR 516 (AP); - ITO Vs. Electro Steel Castings Ltd. (2003) 264 ITR 410 (Cal.); - Smt. Munni Devi Vs. ITO Ward-2, Rewari (ITAT New Delhi); - CIT Vs. Mohmed Juned Dadani (2013) 355 ITR 172 (Guj.); - Bharat Singh Vs. ITO ward-2, Rewari, ITAT-Delhi dt. 23.5.2022 Therefore, he prayed that the reopening deserves to be quashed. 4 5. On the other hand learned DR opposed the submissions and supported the orders of the auth…

Mrf Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT Ltu 2(I/C), Chennai

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

ITA 1175/CHNY/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jan 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1175/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Mrf Limited, The Acit, New No.114, Greams Road, V. Large Tax Payer Unit-2(I/C), Chennai – 600 006. Chennai. Pan: Aaacm4154G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Suresh Periasamy,Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 30.12.2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.01.2021

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Periasamy,JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80JSection 8O

…Assessing Officer could have found the truth but he did not, does not preclude the Assessing Officer from exercising the power of reassessment to bring to tax the escaped income. The Kolkata High court in the case of ITO v. Electra Steel Castings Ltd, (2003) 264 ITR 410, 426, held that it cannot be accepted that there has been full and true disclosure of all material facts relating to the payment of the selling agency commission by mere disclosure of the selling agency agreement. The Kerala High court in the case of Alappat JeweIs, 30 taxrnann. corn 212, had also held that mere production of books of account et…

Empee Distilleries Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2699/CHNY/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Jan 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Respondent: 16.10.2019

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 41(1)Section 47

…his regard, the ld. CIT(A) relied on various decisions viz., Indian Home Pipe Co. Ltd., 348 ITR 439 (BOM), and a Siel Power Products Ltd., 340 ITR 53 (Del), Kantamani Venkatesh Narayana & Sons v. Addl. ITO 63 ITR 638 SC, ITO v. Electro Steel Castings Ltd., 264 ITR 410 (Cal), Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd., 291 ITR 500 SC, Kelvinator of India 187 Taxman 312 SC etc . In view of the above Judgements, the ld. CIT(A) held that until otherwise a case is made out that the A O examined the said issue and accepted, merely furnishing of such 'information which is found to be false at the time of initiation of r…

DCIT, Central Circle - 2(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Basanti Hosiery Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed and the cross objection of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2147/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Nov 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm ] I.T.A No. 2147/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Dcit, Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Basanti Hosiery Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aadcb 3168 J] (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 98/Kol/2018 (Arising Out Of I.T.A No. 2147/Kol/2017) Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Basanti Hosiery Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aadcb 3168 J] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri C.J. Singh, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Agarwal, Sr. Advocate

Section 133(6)Section 142(3)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

…Agarwal is that reopening has been done for verification and investigation and hence bad in law, as reopening cannot be made for conducting roving enquiries as held by Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of ITO vs. Electrosteel Castings reported in [2003] 264 ITR 410 (Cal) page 427 and the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of M. Mahadeva vs. CIT reported in 404 ITR 747 (Kar)at page 751 paragraph nos. 12 and 13. In our view this is not the case of the assessing officer involving in roving and fishing enquiries. The case law cited do not apply to the facts of this case. Mr. Agarwal has objected to the us…