Farrukhabad Gramin Bank v. ITO

273 ITR 113High Court2016#15514 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,607 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2022.

Also reported as

65 Taxmann.com 53

Issues it is cited on

section 55(2)section 139(9)section 49fresh tangible materialsection 55going concernvaluation of sharesfull value of considerationtransfer of capital assetindexed cost of acquisitiondate of transfersection 48

Judgments citing Farrukhabad Gramin Bank v. ITO

ACIT, Jammu vs. Sh Vikramaditya Singh, Jammu

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 269/ASR/2007[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl
Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

…the foundation on which the structure was proposed did not exist. This is what has been held by High Court in the case of CIT vs. Atlas Cycle Industries reported in 180 ITR 319 and, Allahabad High Court in the case of Farrukhabad Gramin Bank v ITO reported in 273 ITR 113 and Bucyrus India (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT reported in [2016] 65 taxmann.com 53 (Kolkata - Trib.). He submitted that, order of assessment 79 ITA.Nos.263/Asr/2003, 267 to 269/Asr/2007 & C.O.Nos.43 to 45/Asr/2007 Shri M.K. Ajatshatru, Jammu & Others, in the case of Ajatshatru Singh could not otherwise be made a basis much less a valid basis to initiate…

ACIT, Cir-II, Jammu vs. Smt. Yashorajya Laxmi, Jammu

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 268/ASR/2007[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl
Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

…the foundation on which the structure was proposed did not exist. This is what has been held by High Court in the case of CIT vs. Atlas Cycle Industries reported in 180 ITR 319 and, Allahabad High Court in the case of Farrukhabad Gramin Bank v ITO reported in 273 ITR 113 and Bucyrus India (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT reported in [2016] 65 taxmann.com 53 (Kolkata - Trib.). He submitted that, order of assessment 79 ITA.Nos.263/Asr/2003, 267 to 269/Asr/2007 & C.O.Nos.43 to 45/Asr/2007 Shri M.K. Ajatshatru, Jammu & Others, in the case of Ajatshatru Singh could not otherwise be made a basis much less a valid basis to initiate…

ACIT, Jammu vs. Dr Karan Singh, Jammu

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 267/ASR/2007[1998-99\u005cu005cu005cu005cu005cu005cu005cu005c]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl
Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

…the foundation on which the structure was proposed did not exist. This is what has been held by High Court in the case of CIT vs. Atlas Cycle Industries reported in 180 ITR 319 and, Allahabad High Court in the case of Farrukhabad Gramin Bank v ITO reported in 273 ITR 113 and Bucyrus India (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT reported in [2016] 65 taxmann.com 53 (Kolkata - Trib.). He submitted that, order of assessment 79 ITA.Nos.263/Asr/2003, 267 to 269/Asr/2007 & C.O.Nos.43 to 45/Asr/2007 Shri M.K. Ajatshatru, Jammu & Others, in the case of Ajatshatru Singh could not otherwise be made a basis much less a valid basis to initiate…

ACIT, Jammu vs. Sh M.K. Ajat Shatru, Jammu

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 263/ASR/2003[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl
Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

…the foundation on which the structure was proposed did not exist. This is what has been held by High Court in the case of CIT vs. Atlas Cycle Industries reported in 180 ITR 319 and, Allahabad High Court in the case of Farrukhabad Gramin Bank v ITO reported in 273 ITR 113 and Bucyrus India (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT reported in [2016] 65 taxmann.com 53 (Kolkata - Trib.). He submitted that, order of assessment 79 ITA.Nos.263/Asr/2003, 267 to 269/Asr/2007 & C.O.Nos.43 to 45/Asr/2007 Shri M.K. Ajatshatru, Jammu & Others, in the case of Ajatshatru Singh could not otherwise be made a basis much less a valid basis to initiate…

Omcon Reign Forest Projects, Visakhapatnam vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 82/VIZ/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam12 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.80-82 /Viz/2018 (धििाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2014-15 Respectively) M/S Omcon Reign Forest Projects Vs. Principal Commissioner Of S.No.180, Opp.Toyoto Income Tax-1 Show Room Visakhapatnam Paradesi Palem Village Madhurawada Visakhapatnam [Pan :Aacfo5604J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri C.Subrahmanyam, Ar प्रत्यार्थी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

…f the Act establishes that the Ld.Pr.CIT is empowered to take action u/s 263 for non initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) in a suitable case. (a) CIT Vs. Ashok Constructions [280 ITR 368 (Allahabad High Court)] (b) CIT Vs. Surendra Prasad Agarwal [273 ITR 113 (Allahabad High Court)] (c) Star Diamond Tools Vs. ITO [1 ITD 696/14 TTJ 59 (ITAT Mumbai)] 2.3. The Ld.Pr.CIT further observed in this case that the assessee has not filed the return of income for the assessment years under consideration, though the assessee had taxable income. The assessee filed the return of income only after issue of letter…

Omcon Reign Forest Projects, Visakhapatnam vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 81/VIZ/2018[213-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam12 Dec 2018

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.80-82 /Viz/2018 (धििाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2014-15 Respectively) M/S Omcon Reign Forest Projects Vs. Principal Commissioner Of S.No.180, Opp.Toyoto Income Tax-1 Show Room Visakhapatnam Paradesi Palem Village Madhurawada Visakhapatnam [Pan :Aacfo5604J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri C.Subrahmanyam, Ar प्रत्यार्थी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

…f the Act establishes that the Ld.Pr.CIT is empowered to take action u/s 263 for non initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) in a suitable case. (a) CIT Vs. Ashok Constructions [280 ITR 368 (Allahabad High Court)] (b) CIT Vs. Surendra Prasad Agarwal [273 ITR 113 (Allahabad High Court)] (c) Star Diamond Tools Vs. ITO [1 ITD 696/14 TTJ 59 (ITAT Mumbai)] 2.3. The Ld.Pr.CIT further observed in this case that the assessee has not filed the return of income for the assessment years under consideration, though the assessee had taxable income. The assessee filed the return of income only after issue of letter…

Farrukhabad Gramin Bank v. ITO (273 ITR 113) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax