Dy. CIT v. Maxima Systems Ltd.

236 CTR 443High Court2010#23839 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,607 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2022.

Also reported as

40 DTR 49

Judgments citing Dy. CIT v. Maxima Systems Ltd.

Innovative Welfare and Educational Society, Gr. Noida vs. ADIT (E), Trust Circle, New Delhi

ITA 7599/DEL/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri N. K. Choudhryito(Exemption), Vs. Innovative Welfare & Ward-1(2), Educational Society, New Delhi Regd. Office: B-19, Defence Colony, New Delhi Pan: Aaati4207R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Kapoor, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Shri Hemant Gupta, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 147(1)Section 148Section 2(15)Section 250

…(2), after expiry of twelve months from the end of month in which return was filed, notice issued was barred by limitation and therefore, assessment made in pursuance of said notice was quashed. In the case of Dy. CIT vs. Maxima Systems Ltd. (2010) 40 DTR 49/236 CTR 443 (Guj.), it was held that: Notice having been served after the expiry of 12 months from the end of the month in which the return is furnished, Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to frame the assessment. In the case of CIT vs. PaiVaibhav Hotels (P) Ltd. (2010) 42 DTR 121 (Kar.), it was held that: Omission on the part of the assessing authority…

Innovative Welfare and Educational Society, Gr. Noida vs. ADIT (E), Trust Circle, New Delhi

ITA 7598/DEL/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri N. K. Choudhryito(Exemption), Vs. Innovative Welfare & Ward-1(2), Educational Society, New Delhi Regd. Office: B-19, Defence Colony, New Delhi Pan: Aaati4207R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Kapoor, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Shri Hemant Gupta, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 147(1)Section 148Section 2(15)Section 250

…(2), after expiry of twelve months from the end of month in which return was filed, notice issued was barred by limitation and therefore, assessment made in pursuance of said notice was quashed. In the case of Dy. CIT vs. Maxima Systems Ltd. (2010) 40 DTR 49/236 CTR 443 (Guj.), it was held that: Notice having been served after the expiry of 12 months from the end of the month in which the return is furnished, Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to frame the assessment. In the case of CIT vs. PaiVaibhav Hotels (P) Ltd. (2010) 42 DTR 121 (Kar.), it was held that: Omission on the part of the assessing authority…

ITO (Exemptions), New Delhi vs. M/S. Innovative Welfare and Educational Society, New Delhi

ITA 166/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri N. K. Choudhryito(Exemption), Vs. Innovative Welfare & Ward-1(2), Educational Society, New Delhi Regd. Office: B-19, Defence Colony, New Delhi Pan: Aaati4207R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Kapoor, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Shri Hemant Gupta, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 147(1)Section 148Section 2(15)Section 250

…(2), after expiry of twelve months from the end of month in which return was filed, notice issued was barred by limitation and therefore, assessment made in pursuance of said notice was quashed. In the case of Dy. CIT vs. Maxima Systems Ltd. (2010) 40 DTR 49/236 CTR 443 (Guj.), it was held that: Notice having been served after the expiry of 12 months from the end of the month in which the return is furnished, Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to frame the assessment. In the case of CIT vs. PaiVaibhav Hotels (P) Ltd. (2010) 42 DTR 121 (Kar.), it was held that: Omission on the part of the assessing authority…

Dy. CIT v. Maxima Systems Ltd. (236 CTR 443) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax