DCIT (2005) 272 ITR 335 (Bomb.), (vi) Bhot Industries Ltd. v. ACIT

248 ITR 192High Court2001#20087 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 360,851 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2025.

Judgments citing DCIT (2005) 272 ITR 335 (Bomb.), (vi) Bhot Industries Ltd. v. ACIT

Brand India Real Estate Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 6(1), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 514/JPR/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2025AY 2012-2013
For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Ranka, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Dharam Singh Meena, JCIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

…the end of the relevant assessment years thus not satisfied-Therefore, impugned notices under s.148 issued on the basis that the claim for deduction under ss.80HH, 80HHA and 80-I was not fully examined are quashed and set aside (x) CIT (Addl) V/s IFCI (2001) 248 ITR 192 (Del.) Reassessment—Validity—Change of opinion—Factual position noted by AAC and the Tribunal clearly goes to show that assessee had not failed or omitted to disclose the primary facts and that the ITO had considered the entire material at the time of original assessment—Therefore, Tribunal was right in holding that ITO had no jurisdiction to reo…

Krishna Build Home Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(2), Jaipur

ITA 143/JPR/2021[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Mar 2022AY 2011-2012

Bench: The Learned Ao, The Reassessment Proceeding Is Illegal, Bad In Law, Without Jurisdiction & Is Based On Wrong Facts & On Change Of Opinion & In Gross Violation Of Proviso To S. 147 Of The It Act, Which Says No Action Can Be Taken M/S. Krishna Build Home Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA)For Respondent: Ms Runi Pal (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 23Section 23(5)Section 24

…/s Purolator [2012] 343 ITR 155 (Del), (iv) Kimplas Trenton Fittings Ltd V/s ACIT [2012] 340 ITR 299 (Bom.) (v) Desai Bros. Ltd v/s DCIT (2005) 272 ITR 335 (Bomb.), (vi) Bhot Industries Ltd V/s ACIT (2004) 267 ITR 161 (Bomb.), (vii) CIT (Addl) V/s IFCI (2001) 248 ITR 192 (Del.) (viii) CIT V/s Elgi Ultra Industries Ltd (2008) 296 ITR 573 (Mad.) The ld. A/R stated that the ld. CIT(A) has relied upon the decision of Yuvraj Vs UOI [2009] 315 ITR 84 (Bom). The facts of this case are distinguishable. In the case of assessee proviso to section 147 is applicable whereas in the cited case the Assessment Year was AY 1996…

Krishna Build Home Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax (Holding Charge of ITO Ward 4(2)), Jaipur

ITA 142/JPR/2021[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Mar 2022AY 2010-2011

Bench: The Learned Ao, The Reassessment Proceeding Is Illegal, Bad In Law, Without Jurisdiction & Is Based On Wrong Facts & On Change Of Opinion & In Gross Violation Of Proviso To S. 147 Of The It Act, Which Says No Action Can Be Taken M/S. Krishna Build Home Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA)For Respondent: Ms Runi Pal (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 23Section 23(5)Section 24

…/s Purolator [2012] 343 ITR 155 (Del), (iv) Kimplas Trenton Fittings Ltd V/s ACIT [2012] 340 ITR 299 (Bom.) (v) Desai Bros. Ltd v/s DCIT (2005) 272 ITR 335 (Bomb.), (vi) Bhot Industries Ltd V/s ACIT (2004) 267 ITR 161 (Bomb.), (vii) CIT (Addl) V/s IFCI (2001) 248 ITR 192 (Del.) (viii) CIT V/s Elgi Ultra Industries Ltd (2008) 296 ITR 573 (Mad.) The ld. A/R stated that the ld. CIT(A) has relied upon the decision of Yuvraj Vs UOI [2009] 315 ITR 84 (Bom). The facts of this case are distinguishable. In the case of assessee proviso to section 147 is applicable whereas in the cited case the Assessment Year was AY 1996…

Smt Ruchika Agarwal, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 270/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jul 2019AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA)For Respondent: Shri K.C. Meena (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 3

…DCIT Vs Purolator (2012) 343 ITR 155 (Del) (v) Kimplas Trenton Fittings Ltd. Vs ACIT (2012) 340 ITR 299 (Bom) (vi) Desai Bros Ltd. Vs DCIT (2005) 272 ITR 335 (Bom) (vii) Bhot Industries Ltd. Vs ACIT (2004) 267 ITR 161 (Bom) (viii) CIT (Addl.) Vs. IFCI (2001) 248 ITR 192 (Del) (ix) CIT Vs. Elgi Ultra Industries Ltd. (2008) 296 ITR 573 (Mad.). For the addition, it was contended by the ld AR that reopening was not valid applying the proposition of law laid down in above judicial pronouncements 5. With regard to merit of disallowance, the ld AR has relied on the following judicial pronouncements in support of the p…

DCIT (2005) 272 ITR 335 (Bomb.), (vi) Bhot Industries Ltd. v. ACIT (248 ITR 192) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax