Datamatics Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income

110 ITD 24Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#22106 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2024.

Judgments citing Datamatics Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income

MUTHUSAMY VIKNESH KUMAR,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO, WARD-1, NAMAKKAL, NAMAKKAL

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

ITA 1226/CHNY/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Mr.Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri Manjunatha.Gआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1226/Chny/2023 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Mr. Muthusamy Viknesh Kumar Vs Income Tax Officer, 5/242-A,Teachers Colony, Ward-1, Namakkal-637 001. Namakkal. Pan: Agnpv 1117G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. P.Sajit Kumar, JCITFor Respondent: 23.01.2024

Section 147Section 148Section 234

…section 234 is mandatory only on tax on income returned and not on tax on unanticipated additions made on assessment is not correct as held in 278 ITR 47 or 198 CTR 670 Uttaranchal High Court - (CIT & Anr. Vs. Reading & Bates Exploration Co.), 299 ITR 286 or 110 ITD 24 or 111 TTJ 55 Mum AT- (Datamatics Ltd. vs. ACIT) and 187 DTR 49 or 77 ITR 91 or 203 TTJ 925 Ranchi AT - (Bajrang Lal Naredi vs. ITO). Probable view that such charging is mandatory is not proper, as if so, these decisions would not have been rendered. If Assessing Officer does not follow these precedent decisions of higher appellate authorities, th…

DINESH SALECHA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT -CC- 8(3), MUMBAI

In the result appeals by the assessee stand partly allowed

ITA 5165/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri Shashi TulsiyanFor Respondent: Dr. Deepkant Prasad

Section 13Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154ASection 234BSection 68

…0IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA no.5165/Mum./2018 (Assessment Year : 2008–09) ITA no.5166/Mum./2018 (Assessment Year : 2009–10) ITA no.5167/Mum./2018 (Assessment Year : 2011–12) Shri Dinesh Salecha 4th Floor, 4–D, Vijay Chambers Opp. Dreamland Cinema ……………. Appellant Tribhuvan Road, Mumbai 400 004 PAN – AAOPS2280C v/s Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Central Circle–8(3), Mumbai Assessee by : Shri Shashi Tulsiyan Revenue by : Dr. Deepkant Prasad Date of Hearing – 29.10.2020 Date o…

ASST. CIT, BANGALORE vs. SRI. M.R. SEETHARAMA (INDL), BANGALORE

In the result, both Revenue’s appeal and the assessee's C

ITA 926/BANG/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Respondent: Shri Anurag Sahay, CIT-III (D.R)

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

…re on the part of the A.O. to furnish the reasons renders the assessment proceedings invalid and void ab initio. The Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi Bench & C.O. Nos.74 & 75/Bang/2015 and Mumbai Bench in ITO V. Smt. Gurinder Kaur (102 ITD 189) and Datmatics Ltd. V. ACIT (110 ITD 24) have taken the same view in the light of the Hon'ble Supreme Court’s decision in GKN Driveshaft’s case. The decision of the Hon'ble ITAT in Suez Tractabel SA V. DCIT (143 ITD 614) is squarely applicable to the facts of the appellant’s case. Respectfully following the law laid down in the said decisions relating to the issue of a valid notice unde…