Fu Sheen Tannery & Anr. v. ITO

262 ITR 456High Court2003#13931 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2023.

Issues it is cited on

section 143(l)(a)time barred assessmentsection 151(1)section 264share application moneysection 149documents seizedunexplained expendituresection 132areason to believecross objectionsection 151

Judgments citing Fu Sheen Tannery & Anr. v. ITO

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S CHOTTI LEASING & FINANCE PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 6214/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 250Section 4

…ng the appeal in time against the CIT(A)’s order the AO made a fresh assessment without jurisdiction and which is against the law on the facts of the case and not sustainable in the eyes of law.-Fu Sheen Tannery & Anr. vs. ITO (2003) 185 CTR (Cat) 76 : (2003) 262 ITR 456 (Cal) relied on” 18. Considering the facts of the case in hand in totality as explained hereinabove in the light of the plethora of judicial decision discussed hereinabove. We are of the considered view that the AO has wrongly assumed jurisdiction in framing the assessment order dated 02.03.2015 u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act and such order des…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S CHOTTI LEASING & FINANCE PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 6213/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 250Section 4

…ng the appeal in time against the CIT(A)’s order the AO made a fresh assessment without jurisdiction and which is against the law on the facts of the case and not sustainable in the eyes of law.-Fu Sheen Tannery & Anr. vs. ITO (2003) 185 CTR (Cat) 76 : (2003) 262 ITR 456 (Cal) relied on” 18. Considering the facts of the case in hand in totality as explained hereinabove in the light of the plethora of judicial decision discussed hereinabove. We are of the considered view that the AO has wrongly assumed jurisdiction in framing the assessment order dated 02.03.2015 u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act and such order des…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S CHOTTI LEASING & FINANCE PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 6212/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 250Section 4

…ng the appeal in time against the CIT(A)’s order the AO made a fresh assessment without jurisdiction and which is against the law on the facts of the case and not sustainable in the eyes of law.-Fu Sheen Tannery & Anr. vs. ITO (2003) 185 CTR (Cat) 76 : (2003) 262 ITR 456 (Cal) relied on” 18. Considering the facts of the case in hand in totality as explained hereinabove in the light of the plethora of judicial decision discussed hereinabove. We are of the considered view that the AO has wrongly assumed jurisdiction in framing the assessment order dated 02.03.2015 u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act and such order des…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S CHOTTI LEASING & FINANCE PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 6211/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 250Section 4

…ng the appeal in time against the CIT(A)’s order the AO made a fresh assessment without jurisdiction and which is against the law on the facts of the case and not sustainable in the eyes of law.-Fu Sheen Tannery & Anr. vs. ITO (2003) 185 CTR (Cat) 76 : (2003) 262 ITR 456 (Cal) relied on” 18. Considering the facts of the case in hand in totality as explained hereinabove in the light of the plethora of judicial decision discussed hereinabove. We are of the considered view that the AO has wrongly assumed jurisdiction in framing the assessment order dated 02.03.2015 u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act and such order des…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SHREY INFRADEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 6229/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Madhumita Roy[A.Y 2010-11]

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 264Section 4

…ng the appeal in time against the CIT(A)’s order the AO made a fresh assessment without jurisdiction and which is against the law on the facts of the case and not sustainable in the eyes of law.-Fu Sheen Tannery & Anr. vs. ITO (2003) 185 CTR (Cat) 76 : (2003) 262 ITR 456 (Cal) relied on” 18. Considering the facts of the case in hand in totality as explained hereinabove in the light of the plethora of judicial decision discussed hereinabove. We are of the considered view that the AO has wrongly assumed jurisdiction in framing the assessment order dated 02.03.2015 u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act and such order des…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAM PORTFOLIO PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6218/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamblethe Dcit, Vs Sam Portfolio Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 18, 5/5761, Dev Nagar, Jhandewalan, Karol Bagh, Near Yes Bank New Delhi Atm, New Delhi – 110 005 (Pan : Aahcs 6810 N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 403/Del/2015 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 6218/Del/2015) ( Assessment Year – 2008-09 ) Sam Portfolio Pvt. Ltd., Vs The Dcit, 5/5761, Dev Nagar, Circle – 18, Karol Bagh, Near Yes Bank Jhandewalan, Atm, New Delhi – 110 005 New Delhi (Pan : Aahcs 6810 N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. H. K. Chaudhari, Cit-D.R. Revenue By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate Date Of Hearing 18.02.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 20.02.2020

Section 132Section 132ASection 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 264

…ng the appeal in time against the CIT(A)’s order the AO made a fresh assessment without jurisdiction and which is against the law on the facts of the case and not sustainable in the eyes of law.-Fu Sheen Tannery & Anr. vs. ITO (2003) 185 CTR (Cat) 76 : (2003) 262 ITR 456 (Cal) relied on” & CO No.403/Del/2015 18. Considering the facts of the case in hand in totality as explained hereinabove in the light of the plethora of judicial decision discussed hereinabove. We are of the considered view that the AO has wrongly assumed jurisdiction in framing the assessment order dated 02.03.2015 u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the A…

SH. BARAT PAL SOOD,,PHAGWARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, PHAGWARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 11/ASR/2015[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar03 Feb 2020AY 2009-2010
For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Vijh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Charan Dass, DR
Section 143(3)

…आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, अमृतसर न्यायऩीठ, अमृतसर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH AMRITSAR BEFORE SHRI L.P. SAHU, AM & SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM आयकर अऩीऱ सं./ITA No.11/ASR/2015 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2009-2010) Sh. Barat Pal Sood, Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Phagwara Rattan Niwas, G.T.Road, Phagwara C/o V.P.Vijh & Co., C.A. K.K. Tower, Ist & IInd Floor, Opp. Circuit House, Jalandhar स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PANNo. : ACJPS 0851 J (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Sandeep Vijh, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Charan Dass, DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Heari…

Fu Sheen Tannery & Anr. v. ITO (262 ITR 456) — Cited in 7 Judgments | BharatTax