Deepak Wadhwa v. ACIT

435 ITR 699High Court#20858 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 143(1)Section 151Section 50CSection 69

Issues it is cited on

section 2(40)sanction under section 151sanctioning authoritynon application of mindsection 50csection 50reason to believereopening of assessmentcross objectionsection 151notice under section 148section 143(1)

Judgments citing Deepak Wadhwa v. ACIT

Mani D Seervai, Mumbai vs. ITO 34(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 232/MUM/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri M.M. Golvala & Ms. Aruna Aiyar, A/RsFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. D/R
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 69

…| | आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ, मुंबई | | | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 232/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mani D Seervai, Mumbai Income Tax Officer, Ward- C/o Kalyaniwalla & Mistry LLP Vs 34(2)(4), Mumbai 2nd Floor, Esplanade House 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg Fort Maharashtra - 400001 [PAN: ALKPS2232F] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri M.M. Golvala & Ms. Aruna Aiyar, A/Rs Revenue by : Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hea…

Kunwar Pal Singh, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward - 1(3), Ghaziabad

In the result, the impugned notice is quashed

ITA 172/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: learned first appellate authority, inter alia, challenging the reopening of the assessment under section 147 of the Act.

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147

…3/Mum/2022 and CO No. 130/Mum/2022 for AY 2011-12, wherein, the Mumbai Tribunal by placing reliance on the decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court order dated 15.12.2021, decision of the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of Deepak Wadhwa Vs. ACIT reported in 435 ITR 699 and decision of the Hon‟ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Mumtaz Haji Mohamad Menon Vs. ITO reported in 408 ITR 268 had quashed 5 | P a g e AY: 2010-11 the reopening proceedings. The relevant observation of the order of the Mumbai Tribunal are as under:- “3.2. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before us. From the perusal of the reasons r…

Anuj Chaudhary, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward- 1(1), Ghaziabad

ITA 3453/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69

…3/Mum/2022 and CO No. 130/Mum/2022 for AY 2011-12, wherein, the Mumbai Tribunal by placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court order dated 15.12.2021, decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Deepak Wadhwa Vs. ACIT reported in 435 ITR 699 and decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Mumtaz Haji Mohamad Menon Vs. ITO reported in 408 ITR 268 had quashed the reopening proceedings. The relevant observation of the order of the Mumbai Tribunal are as under:- "3.2. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before us. From the perusal of the reasons recorded reproduced supra, w…

The Pr. CIT Mumbai City-19, Mumbai vs. Shri Champaklal M. Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, the impugned notice is quashed

ITA 2253/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2022AY 2011-12
Section 143(3)Section 148

…mons dated 22.10.2019, Ex. "L" herein issued by the Respondent. 9. Petition disposed.” 9 ITA No.2253/Mum/2022 & CO No.13/Mum/2022 M/s. Champaklal Madhurabhai Mehta 3.3. Similarly, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Deepak Wadhwa vs. ACIT reported in 435 ITR 699 had also occasion to consider the similar issue wherein it was observed as under:- 5.2. As far as the other aspect is concerned, in our view, since the proof put in place by the petitioner-assessee with regard to the acknowledgment of return filed for the assessment year 2011-12 has not been disputed by the Revenue, as noticed above, the challen…

Deepak Wadhwa v. ACIT (435 ITR 699) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax