Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Dy. CIT v. Zuari Estate Development and Investment Co. Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 11, Section 11(5), Section 12A, Section 13, Section 143(1), Section 143(1)(a)(ii).

Dy. CIT v. Zuari Estate Development and Investment Co. Ltd. (373 ITR 661)

Q: What is Dy. CIT v. Zuari Estate Development and Investment Co. Ltd. authority for?

Reopening of assessment beyond four years under Section 147 requires strict satisfaction of conditions precedent, including fresh tangible material, and cannot be based on a mere change of opinion from the original assessment. Further, debatable or interpretational issues cannot be adjusted during processing under Section 143(1).

Q: How many judgments cite Dy. CIT v. Zuari Estate Development and Investment Co. Ltd.?

61 judgments on BharatTax cite Dy. CIT v. Zuari Estate Development and Investment Co. Ltd. (373 ITR 661), spanning 2016 to 2026.

DCIT Cen Cir 2(1), Mumbai vs. United Stock Exchange of India Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 541/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.541/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax United Stock Exchange Of India Ltd. (Since Merged With Bse Limited) Central Circle-2(1) बनाम/ 25Th Floor (West Wing), P.J. Towers Room No.804,8Th Floor Vs. Dalal Street, Fort Old Cgo Building, Annex Mumbai-400 001 M.K.Road,Mumbai-400 020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aabcu-0464-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & Cross Objection No.103/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) United Stock Exchange Of India Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of Income (Since Merged With Bse Limited) Tax Central Circle-2(1) बनाम/ 25Th Floor (West Wing), P.J. Towers Room No.804,8Th Floor Vs. Dalal Street, Fort Old Cgo Building, Annex Mumbai-400 001 M.K.Road,Mumbai-400 020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aabcu-0464-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Vijay Mehta, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Vidisha Kalra, Ld. CIT DR

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 3

…wed. Therefore, a plain reading clearly establishes that in undisputed terms, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that 143(l)(a) intimation is not assessment at all. Subsequently. Supreme Court in Dy. CIT v. Zuari Estate Development and Investment Co. Ltd. [2015] 373 ITR 661 further settled the legal position that where the return had been processed under section 143(1) of the Act, there was no 'assessment'. 2. Order of Supreme Court in Rajesh Jhaveri not discussed in any case: In Perusal of various decisions namely Kabul Chawla, Anil Kumar Bhatia, Chetandas Lachmandas, Canara Housing. Filatex India Ltd. and Contine…

Deputy Director of Income-Tax, Pune vs. Sandvik A B., Pune

ITA 623/PUN/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jun 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.608/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2006-07

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak & S. SrinivasFor Respondent: S/Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT & Ajay Modi, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 148Section 151(2)

….05.2016. He took us through the facts of the case and reference to various decisions including the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ACIT Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. (supra), DCIT Vs. Zuari Estate Development & Investment Co. Ltd. (2015) 373 ITR 661 (SC) and the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Khubchandani Healthparks (P.) Ltd. Vs. ITO (supra) and pointed out that the Hon’ble High Court has laid down the requirements in first proviso to section 147 of the Act and it has been held that where initial return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act and an intimation was sent to the assessee,…

Deputy Director of Income-Tax vs. Sandvik A B., Pune

ITA 608/PUN/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jun 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.608/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2006-07

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak & S. SrinivasFor Respondent: S/Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT & Ajay Modi, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 148Section 151(2)

….05.2016. He took us through the facts of the case and reference to various decisions including the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ACIT Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. (supra), DCIT Vs. Zuari Estate Development & Investment Co. Ltd. (2015) 373 ITR 661 (SC) and the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Khubchandani Healthparks (P.) Ltd. Vs. ITO (supra) and pointed out that the Hon’ble High Court has laid down the requirements in first proviso to section 147 of the Act and it has been held that where initial return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act and an intimation was sent to the assessee,…

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Godawari Estates Pvt. Ltd

ITA 493/JPR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA and Shri Gulshan Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Rolee Agarwal, CIT - DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 56(1)

…if the returns have been processed u/s 143(1) it will be treated as if the assessments are complete. Now after the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Zuari Estate Development & Investment Co. Ltd. [2015] 373 ITR 661 (SC) and Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd. [2007] 291 ITR 500(SC) it is clear that 9 ACIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs Godawari Estates Pvt.Ltd. Kolkata processing of a case u/s 143(1) is not an assessment, which fact has been admitted by the Delhi High Court in the case of Indu Lata Rangwala v. Deputy…

Ajay J Doshi (HUF), Mumbai vs. ITO 12(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 121/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06 Shri Ajay J. Doshi-Huf, Income Tax Officer-12(2)(4), 21, Marker Tower ‘L’ Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ G.D. Somani Marg, M.K. Road, Vs. Cuff Parade, Mumbai Mumbai-400005 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aacha8912M

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 151

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, सी, मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “C”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एन. के. "धान, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri N.K. Pradhan, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2005-06 Shri Ajay J. Doshi-HUF, Income Tax Officer-12(2)(4), 21, Marker Tower ‘L’ Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ G.D. Somani Marg, M.K. Road, Vs. Cuff Parade, Mumbai Mumbai-400005 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.AACHA8912M "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Shri Sashi Tulsiyan राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue by Shri Rajat Mittal -DR 04/05…

Disha N . Lalwani, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 23(2)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6398/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2003-04 Disha N. Lalwani, Income Tax Officer- J-301, Vardhaman Nagar 23(2)(2), बनाम/ Jn. Of R.P. Rd. & M.G. Rd. C-10-Pratyakshkar Vs. Mulund (W), Bhavan, 02Nd Floor, Mumbai-400080 Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra, Mumbai-400007 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaapl6056H

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…okshi. When confronted on the issue of cross examination, the ld. counsel for the assessee fairly agreed that Mr. Mukesh Chokshi were cross examined by the assessee. 2.2. In reply, the ld. counsel for the assessee, placed reliance upon the decision in (2015) 373 ITR 661 (SC) and 322 ITR 622 (Del.). On merit, the ld. counsel for the assessee claimed that the transactions are genuine, sales bills were produced before the Assessing Officer, therefore, there was nothing to indicate that the transactions were bogus. In reply, the ld. DR strongly contended that all the transactions are bogus and the transactions were…

Sumanlata Bansal, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 8, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the ld

ITA 6541/MUM/2012[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2017AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68

…as not necessary in such a case by the AO to come across some fresh tangible material to form reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment. He, in this respect, has relied upon the following decisions: 1. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Zuari Estate [2015] 373 ITR 661 (SC) 2. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Indu Lata Rangwala vs. Dy. CIT [2016] 384 ITR 337. The ld. DR has further submitted that similar proposition can be applied in the case of assessment made under section 153A of the Act and that it is not necessary for the AO to come across some fresh tangible material during the search action. 10. We have cons…

Mrs. Sumanlata Bansal, Mumbai vs. The ACIT Cen Cir-8, Mumbai

In the result appeals bearing No

ITA 530/MUM/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2016AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sanjay Garg

For Appellant: Shri Ashok D. Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Srivastava, D.R

Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68

…was not necessary in such a case by the AO to come across some fresh tangible material to form reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment. He, in this respect, has relied upon the following decisions: 1. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Zuari Estate [2015] 373 ITR 661 (SC) 2. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Indu Lata Rangwala vs. Dy. CIT [2016] 384 ITR 337. The ld. DR has further submitted that similar proposition can be applied in the case of assessment made under section 153A of the Act and that it is not necessary for the AO to come across some fresh tangible material during the search action. 10. We have cons…

Mrs. Sumanlata Bansal, Mumbai vs. The ACIT Cen Cir-8, Mumbai

In the result appeals bearing No

ITA 529/MUM/2008[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sanjay Garg

For Appellant: Shri Ashok D. Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Srivastava, D.R

Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68

…was not necessary in such a case by the AO to come across some fresh tangible material to form reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment. He, in this respect, has relied upon the following decisions: 1. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Zuari Estate [2015] 373 ITR 661 (SC) 2. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Indu Lata Rangwala vs. Dy. CIT [2016] 384 ITR 337. The ld. DR has further submitted that similar proposition can be applied in the case of assessment made under section 153A of the Act and that it is not necessary for the AO to come across some fresh tangible material during the search action. 10. We have cons…

Mrs. Sumanlata Bansal, Mumbai vs. The ACIT Cen Cir-8, Mumbai

In the result appeals bearing No

ITA 528/MUM/2008[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2016AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sanjay Garg

For Appellant: Shri Ashok D. Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Srivastava, D.R

Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68

…was not necessary in such a case by the AO to come across some fresh tangible material to form reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment. He, in this respect, has relied upon the following decisions: 1. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Zuari Estate [2015] 373 ITR 661 (SC) 2. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Indu Lata Rangwala vs. Dy. CIT [2016] 384 ITR 337. The ld. DR has further submitted that similar proposition can be applied in the case of assessment made under section 153A of the Act and that it is not necessary for the AO to come across some fresh tangible material during the search action. 10. We have cons…

Mrs. Sumanlata Bansal, Mumbai vs. The ACIT Cen Cir-8, Mumbai

In the result appeals bearing No

ITA 527/MUM/2008[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2016AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sanjay Garg

For Appellant: Shri Ashok D. Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Srivastava, D.R

Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68

…was not necessary in such a case by the AO to come across some fresh tangible material to form reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment. He, in this respect, has relied upon the following decisions: 1. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Zuari Estate [2015] 373 ITR 661 (SC) 2. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Indu Lata Rangwala vs. Dy. CIT [2016] 384 ITR 337. The ld. DR has further submitted that similar proposition can be applied in the case of assessment made under section 153A of the Act and that it is not necessary for the AO to come across some fresh tangible material during the search action. 10. We have cons…

Mrs. Sumanlata Bansal, Mumbai vs. The ACIT Cen Cir-8, Mumbai

In the result appeals bearing No

ITA 526/MUM/2008[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2016AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sanjay Garg

For Appellant: Shri Ashok D. Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Srivastava, D.R

Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68

…was not necessary in such a case by the AO to come across some fresh tangible material to form reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment. He, in this respect, has relied upon the following decisions: 1. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Zuari Estate [2015] 373 ITR 661 (SC) 2. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Indu Lata Rangwala vs. Dy. CIT [2016] 384 ITR 337. The ld. DR has further submitted that similar proposition can be applied in the case of assessment made under section 153A of the Act and that it is not necessary for the AO to come across some fresh tangible material during the search action. 10. We have cons…

Mrs. Sumanlata Bansal, Mumbai vs. The ACIT Cen Cir-8, Mumbai

In the result appeals bearing No

ITA 525/MUM/2008[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2016AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sanjay Garg

For Appellant: Shri Ashok D. Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Srivastava, D.R

Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68

…was not necessary in such a case by the AO to come across some fresh tangible material to form reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment. He, in this respect, has relied upon the following decisions: 1. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Zuari Estate [2015] 373 ITR 661 (SC) 2. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Indu Lata Rangwala vs. Dy. CIT [2016] 384 ITR 337. The ld. DR has further submitted that similar proposition can be applied in the case of assessment made under section 153A of the Act and that it is not necessary for the AO to come across some fresh tangible material during the search action. 10. We have cons…

Agya Ram vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are allowed but in the circumstances with no order as to

ITA/292/2004HC Delhi01 Aug 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 147Section 22Section 28

…), after noticing the decisions of the Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Limited (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC) and Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Zuari Estate Development & Investment Co. Ltd. (2015) 373 ITR 661 (SC), this Court summarised the legal position, inter alia, as under: “35.6 Whereas in a case where the initial assessment order is under Section 143 (3), and it is sought to be reopened within four years from the expiry of the relevant assessment year, the AO has to base his 'reasons to believe' that income has escaped assessment on some f…

Agya Ram vs. Commmissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are allowed but in the circumstances with no order as to

ITA/290/2004HC Delhi01 Aug 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 147Section 22Section 28

…), after noticing the decisions of the Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Limited (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC) and Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Zuari Estate Development & Investment Co. Ltd. (2015) 373 ITR 661 (SC), this Court summarised the legal position, inter alia, as under: “35.6 Whereas in a case where the initial assessment order is under Section 143 (3), and it is sought to be reopened within four years from the expiry of the relevant assessment year, the AO has to base his 'reasons to believe' that income has escaped assessment on some f…

M.K. Cycle Industries Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 6161/DEL/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jun 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2003-04 M/S. M.K. Cycle Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ward – 6(1), New Delhi G-76, Sant Nagar Extn., Tilak Nagar, New Delhi (Pan: Aaecs3075L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271Section 31Section 68

…the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in para-35.9 has said that decision of the Delhi High Court and other High Courts to the extent of inconsistency with the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Zuari Estate Development and Investment Company Limited (2015) 373 ITR 661 (SC) cannot be said to reflect the correct legal position. In para-35.5 to 35.7, the Hon’ble High Court has summarized the legal position emanating from the judgment of the Zuari Estate Development and Investment Company Limited (supra) as under: “35.5 As explained by the Supreme Court in Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd. (supra) and reiterate…

Kotak Mahindra Investments Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 3(2), Mumbai

ITA 6897/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Chetan KakaFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar-DR

Section 115WSection 254(1)

…आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, , , , मुंबई अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई ए खंडपीठ मुंबई खंडपीठ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“A”Bench Mumbai सव"ी राजे"",लेखा सद"य एवं अिमत शु"ल "याियक सद"य Before S/Sh.Rajendra,Accountant Member and Amit Shukla,Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.6897/Mum/2012 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 Kotak Mahindra Investments Ltd. Dy. CIT 36-38A, Nariman Bhavan Range-3(2) Vs. 227 Nariman Point,Mumbai-400 021. Aayakar Bhavan PAN:AAACH 1075 K Mumbai-400 020. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) Revenue by: Shri Rajendra Kumar-DR…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sara Services & Enginners Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the results appeal of the assessee is partly disallowed on ground no

ITA 544/DEL/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Sri C.M.Garg, Jm & Sri L.P.Sahu, Am Ita No. 406,407/Del./2010 Asstt. Year : 2002-03 Asstt. Year : 2003-04

For Appellant: Sri O.P. Sapra, Sri Sandeep Sapara, Adv. , ShriFor Respondent: Sri Sujit kumar, Sr. DR & Smt. Sunita Kejriwal, CIT,DR

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 80H

…At this juncture, ITA No. 406, 207/Del/2010 Sara Services & Engs. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT it is necessary and relevant to consider the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of DCIT vs. Juari State Development and Investment Company Ltd. reported as 373 ITR 661 (SC) wherein their lordship speaking for the Apex court of India allowing the appeal of the revenue held the main issue involved in the case had not been addressed by the Hon’ble High Court and the asessee’s return was accepted u/s 143(1) of the Act and there was no question of “change of opinion” inasmuch as while accepting the return, no opinio…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sara Services & Enginners Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the results appeal of the assessee is partly disallowed on ground no

ITA 543/DEL/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Sri C.M.Garg, Jm & Sri L.P.Sahu, Am Ita No. 406,407/Del./2010 Asstt. Year : 2002-03 Asstt. Year : 2003-04

For Appellant: Sri O.P. Sapra, Sri Sandeep Sapara, Adv. , ShriFor Respondent: Sri Sujit kumar, Sr. DR & Smt. Sunita Kejriwal, CIT,DR

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 80H

…At this juncture, ITA No. 406, 207/Del/2010 Sara Services & Engs. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT it is necessary and relevant to consider the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of DCIT vs. Juari State Development and Investment Company Ltd. reported as 373 ITR 661 (SC) wherein their lordship speaking for the Apex court of India allowing the appeal of the revenue held the main issue involved in the case had not been addressed by the Hon’ble High Court and the asessee’s return was accepted u/s 143(1) of the Act and there was no question of “change of opinion” inasmuch as while accepting the return, no opinio…

Sara Services & Engineers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the results appeal of the assessee is partly disallowed on ground no

ITA 407/DEL/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Sri C.M.Garg, Jm & Sri L.P.Sahu, Am Ita No. 406,407/Del./2010 Asstt. Year : 2002-03 Asstt. Year : 2003-04

For Appellant: Sri O.P. Sapra, Sri Sandeep Sapara, Adv. , ShriFor Respondent: Sri Sujit kumar, Sr. DR & Smt. Sunita Kejriwal, CIT,DR

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 80H

…At this juncture, ITA No. 406, 207/Del/2010 Sara Services & Engs. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT it is necessary and relevant to consider the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of DCIT vs. Juari State Development and Investment Company Ltd. reported as 373 ITR 661 (SC) wherein their lordship speaking for the Apex court of India allowing the appeal of the revenue held the main issue involved in the case had not been addressed by the Hon’ble High Court and the asessee’s return was accepted u/s 143(1) of the Act and there was no question of “change of opinion” inasmuch as while accepting the return, no opinio…

Dy. CIT v. Zuari Estate Development and Investment Co. Ltd.

What is Dy. CIT v. Zuari Estate Development and Investment Co. Ltd. authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Dy. CIT v. Zuari Estate Development and Investment Co. Ltd.

DCIT Cen Cir 2(1), Mumbai vs. United Stock Exchange of India Ltd, Mumbai

Deputy Director of Income-Tax, Pune vs. Sandvik A B., Pune

Deputy Director of Income-Tax vs. Sandvik A B., Pune

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Godawari Estates Pvt. Ltd

Ajay J Doshi (HUF), Mumbai vs. ITO 12(2)(4), Mumbai

Disha N . Lalwani, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 23(2)(2), Mumbai

Sumanlata Bansal, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 8, Mumbai

Mrs. Sumanlata Bansal, Mumbai vs. The ACIT Cen Cir-8, Mumbai

Mrs. Sumanlata Bansal, Mumbai vs. The ACIT Cen Cir-8, Mumbai

Mrs. Sumanlata Bansal, Mumbai vs. The ACIT Cen Cir-8, Mumbai

Mrs. Sumanlata Bansal, Mumbai vs. The ACIT Cen Cir-8, Mumbai

Mrs. Sumanlata Bansal, Mumbai vs. The ACIT Cen Cir-8, Mumbai

Mrs. Sumanlata Bansal, Mumbai vs. The ACIT Cen Cir-8, Mumbai

Agya Ram vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Agya Ram vs. Commmissioner of Income Tax

M.K. Cycle Industries Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

Kotak Mahindra Investments Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 3(2), Mumbai

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sara Services & Enginners Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sara Services & Enginners Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Sara Services & Engineers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi