GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd v. ITO 259 ITR 19 (SC) K. S. Suresh v. DCIT

287 ITR 337High Court2006#8963 most cited
12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2022.

Judgments citing GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd v. ITO 259 ITR 19 (SC) K. S. Suresh v. DCIT

KASHISH EXPORTS PVT. LTD.,NOIDA vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2279/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad(Through Video Conferencing) आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No.2279/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2006-07 Kashish Exports Pvt. Ltd., Acit C/O. Sanjiv Suri, बनाम Circle : 5 (1), A–203, Ananda Eldeco, Vs. New Delhi. Sector : 48, Noida [U.P.] Pan : Aacck3350J अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Choudhary, Sr. D. RFor Respondent: 1/04/2022
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 148Section 269SSection 68

…first passing a speaking order on the objections raised by the petitioner. In fact the Delhi High Court relied its own judgment on the same issue of non disposal of objection to notice u/s 148 by the A.O in case of Smt. Kamlesh Sharma v. B.L Meena, ITO [2006] 287 ITR 337. Thus, your honour's kind attention is drawn to the fact that the reassessment order is clearly arbitrary , against the well settled principle by the Supreme Court and as such bad in law. (c) Reassessment merely on the basis of investigation wing held to ber not valid : In the instant case , the learned ACIT has issued notice under section 148 of…

KISHORE H AJMERA (HUF),MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed as indicated above

ITA 7371/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Department by Shri Brajendra Kumar
Section 147Section 68Section 69

…ecisions in support of her contentions: - (i) Bayer Materials Science (P.) Ltd., v. DCIT [382 ITR 333 (Bom.)] (ii) Vishwanth Engineers v. ACIT [352 ITR 549 (Guj.)] (iii) General Motors India P. Ltd. v. DCIT [354 ITR 244 (Guj.) (iv) Smt. Kamlesh Sharma v. ITO [287 ITR 337 (Del.)] (v) Hotel Regal International & Anr.v. ITO & Anr. [37 DTR (Cal) 360] (vi) Bharat Jayantilal Patel v. UOI [378 ITR 596 (BOm)] (vii) Dynacraft Air Controls v. Smt. Sneha Joshi & Ors. [358 ITR 102 (BOM). (viii) Ankita A. Choksey v. Income Tax Officer in W.P. NO. 3344 of 2018 dated 10.01.2019. 8. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted…

KISHORE H AJMERA (HUF),MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed as indicated above

ITA 7370/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Department by Shri Brajendra Kumar
Section 147Section 68Section 69

…ecisions in support of her contentions: - (i) Bayer Materials Science (P.) Ltd., v. DCIT [382 ITR 333 (Bom.)] (ii) Vishwanth Engineers v. ACIT [352 ITR 549 (Guj.)] (iii) General Motors India P. Ltd. v. DCIT [354 ITR 244 (Guj.) (iv) Smt. Kamlesh Sharma v. ITO [287 ITR 337 (Del.)] (v) Hotel Regal International & Anr.v. ITO & Anr. [37 DTR (Cal) 360] (vi) Bharat Jayantilal Patel v. UOI [378 ITR 596 (BOm)] (vii) Dynacraft Air Controls v. Smt. Sneha Joshi & Ors. [358 ITR 102 (BOM). (viii) Ankita A. Choksey v. Income Tax Officer in W.P. NO. 3344 of 2018 dated 10.01.2019. 8. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted…

JASMIN K AJMERA (HUF),MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 2 (2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed as indicated above

ITA 7368/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Department by Shri Brajendra Kumar
Section 147Section 68Section 69

…ecisions in support of her contentions: - (i) Bayer Materials Science (P.) Ltd., v. DCIT [382 ITR 333 (Bom.)] (ii) Vishwanth Engineers v. ACIT [352 ITR 549 (Guj.)] (iii) General Motors India P. Ltd. v. DCIT [354 ITR 244 (Guj.) (iv) Smt. Kamlesh Sharma v. ITO [287 ITR 337 (Del.)] (v) Hotel Regal International & Anr.v. ITO & Anr. [37 DTR (Cal) 360] (vi) Bharat Jayantilal Patel v. UOI [378 ITR 596 (BOm)] (vii) Dynacraft Air Controls v. Smt. Sneha Joshi & Ors. [358 ITR 102 (BOM). (viii) Ankita A. Choksey v. Income Tax Officer in W.P. NO. 3344 of 2018 dated 10.01.2019. 8. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted…

JASMIN K AJMERA (HUF),MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 2 (2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed as indicated above

ITA 7367/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Department by Shri Brajendra Kumar
Section 147Section 68Section 69

…ecisions in support of her contentions: - (i) Bayer Materials Science (P.) Ltd., v. DCIT [382 ITR 333 (Bom.)] (ii) Vishwanth Engineers v. ACIT [352 ITR 549 (Guj.)] (iii) General Motors India P. Ltd. v. DCIT [354 ITR 244 (Guj.) (iv) Smt. Kamlesh Sharma v. ITO [287 ITR 337 (Del.)] (v) Hotel Regal International & Anr.v. ITO & Anr. [37 DTR (Cal) 360] (vi) Bharat Jayantilal Patel v. UOI [378 ITR 596 (BOm)] (vii) Dynacraft Air Controls v. Smt. Sneha Joshi & Ors. [358 ITR 102 (BOM). (viii) Ankita A. Choksey v. Income Tax Officer in W.P. NO. 3344 of 2018 dated 10.01.2019. 8. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted…

JITEN K AJMERA (HUF),MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 2 (2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed as indicated above

ITA 7366/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Department by Shri Brajendra Kumar
Section 147Section 68Section 69

…ecisions in support of her contentions: - (i) Bayer Materials Science (P.) Ltd., v. DCIT [382 ITR 333 (Bom.)] (ii) Vishwanth Engineers v. ACIT [352 ITR 549 (Guj.)] (iii) General Motors India P. Ltd. v. DCIT [354 ITR 244 (Guj.) (iv) Smt. Kamlesh Sharma v. ITO [287 ITR 337 (Del.)] (v) Hotel Regal International & Anr.v. ITO & Anr. [37 DTR (Cal) 360] (vi) Bharat Jayantilal Patel v. UOI [378 ITR 596 (BOm)] (vii) Dynacraft Air Controls v. Smt. Sneha Joshi & Ors. [358 ITR 102 (BOM). (viii) Ankita A. Choksey v. Income Tax Officer in W.P. NO. 3344 of 2018 dated 10.01.2019. 8. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted…

DCIT (LTU), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GAIL (INDIA) LTD., NEW DELHI

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal filed by the ld AO on the limited issue that order passed by the ld AO is barred by limitation. Ground No. 1 is dismissed

ITA 6079/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jul 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit(Ltu), Vs. M/S. Gail (India) Ltd, Circle-1, 16, Bhikaji Cama Place, Nbcc Plaza Pusp Vihar, Rk Puram, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 263

…TR 536 (Del) 42. Sheo Nath Singh. 82 ITR 148 (SC) document1 43. Ganga Saran & Sons (P) Ltd, 130 ITR 1. 11 (SC) 44. Birla VXL, 217 ITR 1 (Gujrat) 45. Multiscreen Media (P) Ltd. 324 ITR 54 (Bombay) 46. Garden Finance Limited, 268 ITR 48(Guj) 47. Kamlesh Sharma, 287 ITR 337 (Del) 48. Allana Cold Storage Ltd.. Vs. ITO 287 ITR 1 (Bom) 49. Asian Paints Limited, 296 ITR 90 (Bom) 50. Keshav Shares and Stocks Ltd, 326 ITR 553(Del) 51. Vishwanath Engineers, 354 ITR211(Guj) 52. Aroni Commercials Ltd, 362 ITR 403 (Bom) 53. Torrent Power SEC Ltd, 45 Taxman.com 443(Guj) 54. Lakhmani Mewal Das. 103 ITR 437.448(SC) 55. Arjun Sin…

AMBUJA CEMENT INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

ITA 2600/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2600/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2005-06)

For Appellant: Shri. Soumen Adak &For Respondent: Shri Satish Chandra Rajore
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 234B

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “A” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2600/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2005-06) Ambuja Cement India बिाम/ ACIT CIR 3(1) Private Ltd. (Since Merged Aayakar Bhavan, with Holcim India P. Ltd.), v. M.K. Road, 106, Maker Chamber-III, Mumbai-400020 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PAN : AACCA3390A (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee by: Shri. Soumen Adak & Shri. Harish Agarwal Revenue by : Shri Satish…

M/S. GANESH KUMAR & SONS HUF,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

ITA 1708/DEL/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2017AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Miss Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amrit Lal, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 68

…arguments of the ld. AR that the A.O has not disposed of the objections raised on reopening of the assessment is concerned, the ld. AR referring to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Smt. Kamlesh Sharma Vs. B.L. Meena, ITO & Ors reported at 287 ITR 337 [Del] submitted that he has no objection if the matter is restored to the file of the A.O with the direction to give an opportunity to the A.O to dispose of the objections filed by the assessee by passing a speaking order. 16. The ld. AR has, in his rejoinder, submitted that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in subsequent decisions has held that if t…

M/S. RICHA INDUSTRIES LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. ACIT, FARIDABAD

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

ITA 1476/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Mar 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. Kuldip Singh & Sh.Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 36Section 80I

…TR 577 (Del) JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS WRT TO PARA 3C ABOVE Judgement Judgement Name No. 21. GKN Drivershafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO [2003] 259 ITR 19 (SC) 22. Allana Cold Storage Ltd. v ITO [2006] 287 ITR 1 (Bom.) 23. Smt. Kamlesh Sharma v. B.L.Meena, ITO [2006] 287 ITR 337 (Delhi) 24. IOT Infrastructure and Energy Services Ltd. v Asst. CIT [2010] 329 ITR 547 (Bom.) JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS WRT TO PARA 3D ABOVE Judgement Judgement Name No. 14. CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2002] 256 ITR 1 (Delhi). 25. Vishwanath Engineers v. Asst. CIT [2013] 352 ITR 549 (Guj). 38. SHREE RAM BUILDERS vs. ACIT (OSD) [2015] 377 ITR…

OMPRAKASH B SALECHA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 6716/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Ral Lal Negi Shri Omprakash B. Salecha Income Tax Officer-4(2)(1) B-104, Chandra Apartments Room No. 644, 6Th Floor Vs. S.V.P. Road, Borivali (W) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai 400103 Mumbai 400020 Pan – Ansps5306A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Premaranel J
Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…llowing judgments of the Hon. Supreme Court and other appellate authorities the assessment passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 is invalid GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd v. ITO 259 ITR 19 (SC) K. S. Suresh v. DCIT 279 ITR 61 (Mad) Smt. Kamlesh Sharma v. B. L. Meena, ITO 287 ITR 337(Del). ITO v. Smt. Sukhini P. Modi 295 ITR 169 ITAT, Ahmedabad CIT v. C. Palaniappan 284 ITR 257 (Mad) 4 Shri Omprakash B. Salecha 5.2 Per contra, the learned D.R. for Revenue submits that this very same ground was raised by the assessee before the learned CIT(A) and was dismissed. It is contended that except for making the above averments, no ma…

SRI. A.S. CHINNASWAMY RAJU,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 1559/BANG/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri S. Venkatesan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri G.R. Reddy, CIT-I (D.R)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…Vs. ITO and others (2006) 287 ITR 1 has quashed the assessment where the Assessing Officer did not follow the procedure of considering the objections and dealing with the same in the order the Delhi High Court in the case of Smt. Kamlesh Sharma Vs. ITO (2006) 287 ITR 337 had set aside the assessment and directed the Assessing Officer to consider and pass a speaking order on the assessee's objections. The above clearly shows that this is a curable procedure not followed by the Assessing Officer which he must necessarily follow and accordingly we so direct.” Thus it is clear that the reassessment was set aside for…

GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd v. ITO 259 ITR 19 (SC) K. S. Suresh v. DCIT (287 ITR 337) — Cited in 12 Judgments | BharatTax