Gauri Shankar Chaudhury v. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors.

234 ITR 865High Court1998#20009 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,607 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2023.

Judgments citing Gauri Shankar Chaudhury v. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors.

DCIT, CC-2, Jaipur vs. Shri Vimal Chand Surana(HUF), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 62/JPR/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) &For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 139Section 143Section 147Section 150(2)Section 153CSection 2Section 250Section 69

…urisdiction. Accordingly the notice issued u/s 148 on basis of direction is also wrong, bad in law and without jurisdiction. The submissions are also deriving support from the case of 15 Shri Vimal Chand Surana HUF GauriShankar Choudhary v. Addl. CIT (1998) 234 ITR 865, 869, 870 (Pat).it is held “Resort to section 150 (1) can be taken only in cases where it becomes necessary to make assessment or reassessment or recomputation in consequence of, or to give effect to, any finding or direction pursuant to an appellate order passed by the appellate authority or pursuant to any order in reference or revision or b…

D.C.I.T., Circle-6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S G.K.Ispat Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross objection of the different assessees are also dismissed

ITA 2408/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar] "ी संजय गग" "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य के सम"

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ‘सी’, कोलकाता [Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member ] "ी संजय गग" "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य के सम" I.T.A. No. 2408/Kol/2019 Assessment Year : 2011-12 DCIT, Circle-6(1), Kolkata Vs. M/s G.K. Ispat Pvt. Ltd. (PAN: AACCG 5067 A) Appellant / (अपीलाथ") Respondent / (!"यथ") C.O. No. 55/Kol/2019 (Arising out of I.T.A. No. 2408/Kol/2019) Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/s G.K. Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Circle-6(1), Kolkata (PAN: AACCG 5067 A) Cross-objector Respondent / (!"यथ"…

DCIT, Circle - 6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Gaurav Rose Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross objection of the different assessees are also dismissed

ITA 2407/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar] "ी संजय गग" "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य के सम"

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ‘सी’, कोलकाता [Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member ] "ी संजय गग" "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य के सम" I.T.A. No. 2408/Kol/2019 Assessment Year : 2011-12 DCIT, Circle-6(1), Kolkata Vs. M/s G.K. Ispat Pvt. Ltd. (PAN: AACCG 5067 A) Appellant / (अपीलाथ") Respondent / (!"यथ") C.O. No. 55/Kol/2019 (Arising out of I.T.A. No. 2408/Kol/2019) Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/s G.K. Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Circle-6(1), Kolkata (PAN: AACCG 5067 A) Cross-objector Respondent / (!"यथ"…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Neetee Clothing (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 267/DEL/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Oct 2015AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate and Shri Somil Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. Dam Kanunjna, Senior DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)Section 150Section 80Section 80HSection 80I

…er of appeal, reference or revision could not have been passed, when it was purported to have been passed by reason of its being barred by limitation, the same could not be revived u/s 150 (1). Reliance is placed on Gauri Shankar Choudhary v. Addl. CIT (1998) 234 ITR 865 (Pat) & CIT v, Vaikundom Rubber Co. Ltd., (2001) 249 ITR 19 (Ker.) 6.5 A three-judge bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in K.M. Sharma vs. ITO, 254 ITR 772 (SC) points out that sub-so (2) aims at putting an embargo on reopening assessments, which have attained finality on the expiry of the prescribed period of limitation. Sub- 8 ITA No267/Del./201…

Gauri Shankar Chaudhury v. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors. (234 ITR 865) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax