DCIT v. Sunita Finlease Ltd.

330 ITR 491High Court2011#1898 most cited

What is DCIT v. Sunita Finlease Ltd. authority for?

CBDT administrative instructions and circulars are binding on income tax authorities and departmental officers, who must follow them during the assessment process and cannot act in contravention, even though these instructions are not binding on courts or assessees.

60

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

DCIT v. Sunita Finlease Ltd. · Sunita Finlease Ltd. · section 119(2)(a) · section 119(2) · CBDT instructions binding · income tax authorities · departmental officers · Assessing Officer · contravention of instructions · administrative instructions · 330 ITR 491

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 148Section 292BSection 10(15)(iv)(h)

Issues it is cited on

section 119(2)(a)section 127(1)section 5(8)principal director general of income-taxsection 124(3)section 119(2)section 124section 120section 292bbclosely held companysection 292baccumulated profits

Judgments citing DCIT v. Sunita Finlease Ltd.

Orient Industrial Corporation, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 35, Kolkata

ITA 2247/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 261/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Tarasafe International Private Limited,......................Appellant C/O. Dutta Properties, Budge Budge Trunk Road, Gobindpur, Kolkata-700141 [Pan:Aadct0645E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.........................Respondent Circle-15(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107

…ITA No.261/KOL/2020, ITA Nos. 107, 108/KOL/2020, ITA No. 136/KOL/2020, ITA No. 23/KOL/2020, ITA Nos. 132 & 133/KOL/2021, ITA No. 2247/KOL/2017, ITA Nos. 2316, 2317/KOL/2019, ITA No. 2385/KOL/2019, ITA Nos. 2448, 2449/KOL/2019 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ) & Shri Manish Borad, Accountant Member I.T.A. No. 261/KOL/2020 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Tarasafe International Private Limited,......................Appellant C/o. Dutta Properties, Budge Budge Trunk Road, Gobindpur, Kolkata-700141 [PAN:AADCT0645E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner of Income Ta…

M/S Tata Medical Centre Trust, Kolkata vs. CIT(Exemption), Kolkaa

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 287/KOL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 263

…ing the rigours of law are binding on all the officers responsible for implementation of the Act and, therefore, bound to follow and observe any such orders, instructions and directions of the Board. 13.4 In the decision of DCIT v. Sunita Finlease Ltd. [2011] 330 ITR 491 (CG,) it was held by the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in para 16 that the administrative Instruction No. 9/2004 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes is binding on administrative officer in view of the statutory provision contained in section 143(2), which provides for limitation of 12 months for issuance of notice under section 143(2…

Costal Energy (P) Ltd, Howrah vs. ITO, Ward-15(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 348/KOL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.348/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Costal Energy (P) Ltd......................................................………...…..…Appellant Ganesh Complex, Nh-6 Bombay Road, Raghudevpur, Howrah- 711322. [Pan: Aaccc7578A] Vs. Ito, Ward-15(1), Kolkata..................................................…....…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 24, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 23, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 24.02.2020 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-5, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Pcit’] Agitating The Action Of The Pcit In Passing The Impugned Order U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Exercising His Revision Jurisdiction. 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 147Section 263

…ing the rigours of law are binding on all the officers responsible for implementation of the Act and, therefore, bound to follow and observe any such orders, instructions and directions of the Board. 13.4 In the decision of DCIT v. Sunita Finlease Ltd. [2011] 330 ITR 491 (CG,) it was held by the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in para 16 that the administrative Instruction No. 9/2004 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes is binding on administrative officer in view of the statutory provision contained in section 143(2), which provides for limitation of 12 months for issuance of notice under section 143(2…

Mesers Durga Manikanta Traders, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Bhilai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 59/RPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri G D Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 59/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Durga Manikanta Traders, Flat No. B-204, Rishabh City Prime Rishabh South City, Potiyakala, Durg (C.G.)-491 001 Pan : Aahfd2524P .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1),Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.N Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 44A

…on court or the assessee, but the departmental authorities are bound by them and cannot act in contravention of the same. Also, support is drawn from the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in the case of Dy. CIT Vs. Sunita Finlease Ltd. [2011] 330 ITR 491 (Chattisgarh). In its said order it was observed by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court that the administrative instructions issued by CBDT are binding on the Income-tax authorities. On the basis of our aforesaid 16 M/s. Durga Manikanta Traders, Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1) observations, we are of the considered view that as the framing of the assessmen…

Shri H.K. Suresh, Bengaluru vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 625/BANG/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Pai, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Vandana Ramachandan, CIT(TP1)(DR)(ITAT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…all the officers responsible for Page 10 of 14 implementation of the Act and, therefore, bound to follow and observe any such orders, instructions and directions of the Board. 13.4 In the decision of Dy. CIT v. Sunita Finlease Ltd. [2011] 11 taxmann.com 241/330 ITR 491 (Chattisgarh) it was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in para 16 that the administrative Instruction No. 9/2004 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes is binding on administrative officer in view of the statutory provision contained in section 143(2), which provides for limitation of 12 months for issuance of notice under secti…

Rcc Institute of Technology, Kolkata vs. CIT(Exemptions), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 108/KOL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.108/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Rcc Institute Of Technology..…………………................................……Appellant C.I.T Cambus(Old), Cannel South Road, Beliaghata, Kolkata-700015. [Pan: Aaaar4012N] Vs. Cit(Exemption), Kolkata............…...................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 28, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 29, 2022 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.03.2021 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Exemption), Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(Exemption’)] Exercising His Revision Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Has Contested The Validity Of The Revision Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(Exemption) U/S 263 Of The Act Not Only On Merits But Also, Inter Alia, On The Ground That The Aforesaid Order Was Null & Void As No Document Identification Number (Din) Has Been Mentioned In The Body Of The Impugned Order Which Was In Violation Of Circular No.19 Of 2019 Of Cbdt. Since The Aforesaid Legal Issue Will Be Determinative Of The Very Validity Of The Impugned Revision Order Passed

Section 119Section 263

…ing the rigours of law are binding on all the officers responsible for implementation of the Act and, therefore, bound to follow and observe any such orders, instructions and directions of the Board. 13.4 In the decision of DCIT v. Sunita Finlease Ltd. [2011] 330 ITR 491 (CG,) it was held by the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in para 16 that the administrative Instruction No. 9/2004 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes is binding on administrative officer in view of the statutory provision contained in section 143(2), which provides for limitation of 12 months for issuance of notice under section 143(2…

Shri Mahesh Kumar Sureka, Howrah vs. PCIT-13, Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 106/KOL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.106/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Mahesh Kumar Sureka..…………………................................……Appellant 6/2/1, Ashutosh Mukherjee Lane, Howrah-711106. [Pan: Alcps8735K] Vs. Pcit-13, Kolkata......................…...................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 28, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 29, 2022 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.01.2021 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-13, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Pcit’] Exercising His Revision Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Has Contested The Validity Of The Revision Order Passed By The Ld. Pcit U/S 263 Of The Act Not Only On Merits But Also, Inter Alia, On The Ground That The Aforesaid Order Was Null & Void As No Document Identification Number (Din) Has Been Mentioned In The Body Of The Impugned Order Which Was In Violation Of Circular No.19 Of 2019 Of Cbdt. Since The Aforesaid Legal Issue Will Be Determinative Of The Very Validity Of The Impugned Revision Order

Section 119Section 263

…ing the rigours of law are binding on all the officers responsible for implementation of the Act and, therefore, bound to follow and observe any such orders, instructions and directions of the Board. 13.4 In the decision of DCIT v. Sunita Finlease Ltd. [2011] 330 ITR 491 (CG,) it was held by the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in para 16 that the administrative Instruction No. 9/2004 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes is binding on administrative officer in view of the statutory provision contained in section 143(2), which provides for limitation of 12 months for issuance of notice under section 143(2…

Smt. Sunita Agarwal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-43(6), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 432/KOL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.432/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Smt. Sunita Agarwal………………………………................................……Appellant C/O Rajesh Mohan & Associates, Unit No.18, 5Th Floor, Bagati House, 34, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, Kolkata-700013. [Pan: Adcpa9325P] Vs. Ito, Ward-43(6), Kolkata............…...................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Amal Sudhir Kamat, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 29, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 22, 2022 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.06.2020 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-15, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Pcit’) Exercising His Revision Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Has Contested The Validity Of The Revision Order Passed By The Ld. Pcit U/S 263 Of The Act Not Only On Merits But Also, Inter Alia, On The Ground That The Aforesaid Order Was Null & Void As No Document Identification Number (Din) Has Been Mentioned In The Body Of The Impugned Order Which Was In Violation Of Circular No.19 Of

Section 119Section 263

…ing the rigours of law are binding on all the officers responsible for implementation of the Act and, therefore, bound to follow and observe any such orders, instructions and directions of the Board. 13.4 In the decision of DCIT v. Sunita Finlease Ltd. [2011] 330 ITR 491 (CG,) it was held by the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in para 16 that the administrative Instruction No. 9/2004 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes is binding on administrative officer in view of the statutory provision contained in section 143(2), which provides for limitation of 12 months for issuance of notice under section 143(2…

Intrado Ec India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. DCIT-Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 239/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 143(3)Section 153Section 2CSection 40Section 92C

…are binding on all the officers responsible for implementation of the Act and, therefore, bound to follow and observe any such orders, instructions and directions of the Board. 13.4 In the decision of Dy. CIT v. Sunita Finlease Ltd. [2011] 11 taxmann.com 241/330 ITR 491 (Chattisgarh) it was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in para 16 that the administrative Instruction No. 9/2004 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes is binding on administrative officer in view of the statutory provision contained in section 143(2), which provides for limitation of 12 months for issuance of notice under secti…

Dilip Kothari, Bengaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bangalore

In the result, all three appeals are partly allowed

ITA 405/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 153CSection 263

…are binding on all the officers responsible for implementation of the Act and, therefore, bound to follow and observe any such orders, instructions and directions of the Board. 13.4 In the decision of Dy. CIT v. Sunita Finlease Ltd. [2011] 11 taxmann.com 241/330 ITR 491 (Chattisgarh) it was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in para 16 that the administrative Instruction No. 9/2004 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes is binding on administrative officer in view of the statutory provision contained in section 143(2), which provides for limitation of 12 months for issuance of notice under secti…

Dilip Kothari, Bengaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bangalore

In the result, all three appeals are partly allowed

ITA 404/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 153CSection 263

…are binding on all the officers responsible for implementation of the Act and, therefore, bound to follow and observe any such orders, instructions and directions of the Board. 13.4 In the decision of Dy. CIT v. Sunita Finlease Ltd. [2011] 11 taxmann.com 241/330 ITR 491 (Chattisgarh) it was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in para 16 that the administrative Instruction No. 9/2004 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes is binding on administrative officer in view of the statutory provision contained in section 143(2), which provides for limitation of 12 months for issuance of notice under secti…

Dilip Kothari, Bengaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bangalore

In the result, all three appeals are partly allowed

ITA 403/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 153CSection 263

…are binding on all the officers responsible for implementation of the Act and, therefore, bound to follow and observe any such orders, instructions and directions of the Board. 13.4 In the decision of Dy. CIT v. Sunita Finlease Ltd. [2011] 11 taxmann.com 241/330 ITR 491 (Chattisgarh) it was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in para 16 that the administrative Instruction No. 9/2004 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes is binding on administrative officer in view of the statutory provision contained in section 143(2), which provides for limitation of 12 months for issuance of notice under secti…

Shri Pravinkumar Hiralal Vora, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-2, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 153/AHD/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.153/Ahd/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 Pravinkumar Hiralal Vora, D.C.I.T., A-71, Trithbhumi Apartment, Vs. Circle-2, Nr. Thakorbhai Desai Hall, Ahmedabad. Law Garden, Ellis Bridge, Ahmedabad-380006. Pan: Abjpv2934B

For Appellant: Shri P.D. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Sr.D.R
Section 119Section 143(2)Section 254

…issue on PAN jurisdiction does not arise. 16.3 We also note that the certificate honourable Chhattisgarh High Court in similar facts and circumstances has decided the issue in favour of the assessee in the case of CIT versus Sony thus winless Ltd reported in 330 ITR 491 wherein it was held as under: 13. In the matter of Smt. Nayana P. Dedhia's case (supra), the Andhra Pradesh Court held that these guidelines issued by the Board in exercise of powers in terms of section 119 of the Act relaxing the rigours of law are binding on all the officers responsible for implementation of the Act and, therefore, bound to fol…

Tata Medical Centre Trust, Kolkata vs. CIT(Exemptions), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 238/KOL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17 Tata Medical Centre Trust Commissioner Of Income- Plot No. Dh 7 Dh 8, 14 Tax, (Exemption), Major Arterial Road (Ew) Vs. Kolkata. Action Area I, West Bengal-700156 (Pan: Aabtt2222Q) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Akshay Ringasia, CA & Tarak Nath JaiswalFor Respondent: Shri Deb Kr. Sonowal, CIT, DR
Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 263

…ing the rigours of law are binding on all the officers responsible for implementation of the Act and, therefore, bound to follow and observe any such orders, instructions and directions of the Board. 13.4 In the decision of DCIT v. Sunita Finlease Ltd. [2011] 330 ITR 491 (CG,) it was held by the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in para 16 that the administrative Instruction No. 9/2004 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes is binding on administrative officer in view of the statutory provision contained in section 143(2), which provides for limitation of 12 months for issuance of notice under section 143(2…

DCIT, Cir-5(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Proficient Commodities Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee in CO No

ITA 1346/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1346/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Ram Bilash Meena, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…ncial Services (P.) Ltd. v. ITO in ITA No. 1426/Kol/2011. We consider it fit to incorporate the relevant portion of the Tribunal order which is as under :— '5. We find that the Hon'ble Chhatishgarh High Court in the case of DCIT v. Sunita Finlease Ltd.(2011) 330 ITR 491 (Chh) has considered the same Instruction No. 9/2004 dated 20.09.2004 which are applicable in the present case also and quash the selection of scrutiny and completion of assessment by holding as invalid. Hon'ble Chattishgarh High Court in Sunita Finlease Ltd.'s case (supra) has considered section 119 of the Act by stating that Section 119 of the…

Sahayamatha Salterns Pvt. Limited, Tuticorin vs. DCIT Circle 1, Tuticorin

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1498/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1498/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-2015. M/S. Sahayamatha Salterns Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd, Income Tax, 13-A-1, Meenakshipuram Circle I, West, Tuticorin. Tuticorin 628 002. Tamil Nadu

For Appellant: Shri. G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A. Sundararajan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263

…ai Tribunal) 02 Gift land handicraft vs. CIT, 108 TTJ 0312 (Delhi Tribunal) 03 Nayek Paper Converters s. ACIT, 93 ITD 144 (Kol Tribunal) 04 Ajit Gupta vs. ITO, (2007) 108 TTJ 301 05 CIT vs. Narayana P. Dedhia, 270 ITR 572 (AP) 06 DCIT vs. Sunita Finlease Ltd, 330 ITR 491 (Chat) 07 Kwalpro Exports vs. ACIT, 109 TTJ 0869 08 CIT vs. Amal Generators Ltd, 84 DTR 0045 09 CIT vs. Howrah Flour Mills Ltd, 236 ITR 156 10 CIT vs. PVP Ventures, 211 Taxman 554 11 Jai Commercial Co. Ltd. vs. JCIT, 66 TTJ 731 12 Andhra Valley Power Supply vs. DICT, 53 TTJ 0647’’. and decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case…

Smt. Padmavathi, Tirunelveli vs. ITO, Ward 3, Tirunelveli

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands

ITA 1306/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri. G. Baskar, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)

…case laws. 01 ‘’ITO vs. Pericles Foods, 17 SOT 602. 02 Gift land Handicraft vs. CIT, 108 TTJ 0312. 03 Nayek Paper Converters vs. ACIT, 93 ITR 144. 04 Ajit Gupta vs. ITO, 108 TTJ 301. 05 CIT vs. Narayana P. Dedhia, 270 ITR 572 06 DCIT vs. Sunita Finlease Ltd, 330 ITR 491 07 Kwalpro Exports vs. ACIT, 110 ITD 59 08 CIT vs. Amal Generators Ltd 84 DTR 0045. 09 CIT vs. Howrah Flour Mills Ltd, 236 ITR 156. 10 CIT vs. PVP Ventures 211 Taxman 554 11 Jai Commercial Co. Ltd vs. JCIT, 76 ITR 65 and 12 Andhra Valley Power Supply Co. Ltd vs. DCIT, 55 ITD 24’’. Thus, the ld. Authorised Representative submitted that ld. PCIT o…

Kanchanjunga Impex P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 9(2)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4687/MUM/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am Kanchanjunga Impex P. Ltd. The Income Tax Officer, Gala No. 113 & 114, 1 St Floor, Ward 9(2)(2) Udyogbhavna, Sharma Indl Vs. Estate Goregaon (E) Mumbai-400 063 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aaack4208P

For Appellant: Ashwin Chhag, ARFor Respondent: M.C. Omi Ningshen, DR
Section 119Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153

…the period set out the board vide instruction no. 09 of 2004 and according to him, subordinate authorities are bound by the instruction under section 119 of the Act as held by Hon’ble Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of DCIT Vs. Sunita Finlease Ltd. (2011) 330 ITR 491 (Chh). On the other hand, the learned Sr. DR heavily relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 5. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We find that the Hon’ble Chhatishgarh High Court in the case of DCIT Vs. Sunita Finlease Ltd. (2011) 330 ITR 491 (Chh) has considered the same Instruc…

M/S Jasleen Education Society, Indore vs. The ACIT 2(1), Indore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 82/IND/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jan 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A. No.82/Ind/2013 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/S Jasleen Education Society Indore Pan – Aaaaj 1218L :: अपीलाथ" /Appellant Vs Acit 2(1) :: ""यथ" /Respondent Indore Shri S.N. Agrawal & "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By Shri Pankaj Mogra Shri Rajiv Jain राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By 5.1.2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख Date Of Hearing 19.1.2017 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख Date Of Pronouncement

Section 10Section 119Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…case the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 1.8.2005 which is barred by limitation as per Circular No. 10/2004. The learned counsel for the assessee relied upon the decision of the Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of DCIT vs. Sunita Finlease Ltd.; 330 ITR 491 wherein it is held that notice for selection of scrutiny issued beyond the period as prescribed in the CBDT Circular No. 9/2004 is not valid. The learned counsel for the assessee also relied upon the decision of the ITAT, Indore Bench, in the case of M/s Jasleen Education Society Shri Sanjay Agrawal; ITA No. 490/Ind/2008 dated 27.11.2012 wherei…

Sri Krishnendu Chowdhury, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-1, Haldia, Purba Medinipur

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 1153/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2010-11

Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

…l Services Pvt. Limited Vs ITO in ITA No. 1426/Kol/2011. We consider it fit to incorporate the relevant portion of the Tribunal order which is as under :- “5. We find that the Hon'ble Chhatishgarh High Court in the case of DCIT Vs. Sunita Finlease Ltd. (2011) 330 ITR 491 (Chh) has considered the same Instruction No. 9/2004 dated 20.09.2004 which are applicable in the present case also and quash the selection of scrutiny and completion of assessment by holding as invalid. Hon'ble Chattishgarh High Court in Sunita Finlease Ltd.'s ITA No.1153/Kol/2015 A.Y. 2010-11 Sh K. Chowdhury vs. ITO Wd-1, Haldia Page 9 case (s…