Dulichand Singhania v. ACIT

278 ITR 470High Court#20275 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,615 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 115JBSection 139Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Judgments citing Dulichand Singhania v. ACIT

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh vs. Winsome Textile Industries Ltd, Chandigarh

ITA 556/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Feb 2025AY 2011-12
For Respondent: The DCIT
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…there being no failure to disclose truly all material facts, the pre- sent reassessment proceedings are bad in law in terms of the ratio of the following judgments: a) Dulichand Singhania Vs. ACIT 269 ITR 192. b) Winsome Textile Industries Vs. Union of India 278 ITR 470. c) Navkar share and stock brokers Vs. ACIT 390 ITR 362 & d) Haryana Acrylics Manufacturing company Vs. CIT 308 ITR 38 ii) That it is relevant to point out that after initiation of the reassessment proceedings, a notice was issued U/s 142(1) was issued on 4th July, 2018 asking the undersigned to provided information and copies of accounts of i) R…

Winsome Textile Industries Limited, Chandigarh vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 528/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ved Parkash Kalia Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…there being no failure to disclose truly all material facts, the pre- sent reassessment proceedings are bad in law in terms of the ratio of the following judgments: a) Dulichand Singhania Vs. ACIT 269 ITR 192. b) Winsome Textile Industries Vs. Union of India 278 ITR 470. c) Navkar share and stock brokers Vs. ACIT 390 ITR 362 & d) Haryana Acrylics Manufacturing company Vs. CIT 308 ITR 38 ii) That it is relevant to point out that after initiation of the reassessment proceedings, a notice was issued U/s 142(1) was issued on 4th July, 2018 asking the undersigned to provided information and copies of accounts of i) R…

Ramotar Singh HUF, Rewari vs. ITO, Ward- 2, Rewari

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

ITA 3933/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2012-13 Ramotar Singh, Huf, Vs Ito, Rewari Ward-2, C/O Naresh Singh Chauhan, Advocate, Rewari. 1035-P, Sector-3, Part Ii, Near Ganeshi Lal Dharmshala, Rewari, Haryana. Pan: Aashr5279J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate. Revenue By : Ms Rakhi Vimal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(14)Section 45

…c Manufacturing Company Ltd. vs. CIT, 308 ITR 38; the decisions of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Duli Chand Singhania vs. ACIT, 269 ITR 192; in the case of Mahavir Spinning Mills Ltd. vs. CIT, 270 ITR 290; Winsome Textile Industries Ltd. vs. UOI, 278 ITR 470 and various other decisions, he submitted that when the original assessment was completed u/s 143(3), reopening of the assessment u/s 147/148 of the Act beyond a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year is not permissible since there is no allegation by the AO of any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully a…

Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Gurgaon

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

ITA 6698/DEL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jun 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiassessment Year : 2005-06 Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Dcit, Circle- 1(1), Jindal Centre, Gurgaon. 12, Bhikaji Cama Place, Vs. Delhi.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 80I

…a v. ACIT: 269 ITR 182 (P&H). (c) Mahavir Spinning Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT: 270 ITR 290 (P&H). (d) State Bank of Patiala v. CIT: 375 ITR 109 (P&H). (e) Oriental Carpet Mfrs. (India) Ltd. v. ITO: (1987) 168 ITR 296 (P&H). (f) In Winsome Textiles Industries Vs. UOI: 278 ITR 470 (P&H). (g) Avtec v. DCIT: 395 ITR 434 (Del.). 12 Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd. v. ACIT: 216 ITR 371 (Guj.) (i) Fenner India Ltd. v. DCIT: 241 ITR 672 (Mad.). (j) Hindustan Lever Ltd. : 268 ITR 332 (Bom.). (k) Babu Lal Jug Raj & Co. vs. ITO: 289 ITR 115 (Raj.). (l) Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company v. CIT: 308 ITR 38 (D…

Dulichand Singhania v. ACIT (278 ITR 470) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax