Goodluck Automobile (P) Ltd. v. ACIT

359 ITR 306High Court2012#5046 most cited

What is Goodluck Automobile (P) Ltd. v. ACIT authority for?

A reference to the Director of Valuation (DVO) under section 142A cannot be the foundation for rejecting the books of account if the Assessing Officer (AO) has not already rejected them. If the AO makes a reference to the DVO without first rejecting the books of account, the reference is invalid.

23

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Also referred to as

Goodluck Automobile · section 142A · section 131 · rejection of books of account · reference to DVO · validity of reference · Assessing Officer · Director of Valuation · assessment procedure · income tax

Issues it is cited on

section 131(1)(d)section 142asection 131(1)rule of consistencysection 69brejection of books of accountappeal before cit(a)section 131section 142scrutiny assessmentsection 13section 14

Judgments citing Goodluck Automobile (P) Ltd. v. ACIT

M/S.Ardra Associates, Trichur vs. The DCIT(, Trivandrum

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of

ITA 495/COCH/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE S/SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, AM & GEORGE GEORGE K., JM I.T.A. Nos. 374 to 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 to 2012-13 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner of Vs. M/s. Ardra Associates, Income-tax, Central Circle-1, Capital Towers, Kozhikode. Thiruambady P.O., Patturaikkal, Thrissur-680 022. [PAN:AAIFA 2325E] (Revenue-Appellant) (Assessee-Respondent) I.T.A. Nos. 495 to 499/Coch/2016 & ITA No. 241/Coch/2018) Assessment Years : 2008-09 to 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/s. Ardra Associates, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Capital Towers, Income-…

Sh. Sanjeev Parashar, Aligarh vs. I.T.O., Ward-1, Aligarh

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 230/AGR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra07 Dec 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenashri Sanjeev Parashar Vs..Ito, Ward -1, A-6, Mahavir Park, Extension, Aligarh. Aligarh. Panno.Ajopp3902F (Assessee) (Revenue)

Section 142ASection 69Section 69ASection 69B

…Fit For Publication A.M. J.M. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH: AGRA BEFORE SHRI A. D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Shri Sanjeev Parashar Vs..ITO, Ward -1, A-6, Mahavir Park, Extension, Aligarh. Aligarh. PANNo.AJOPP3902F (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee by Shri Pankaj Gargh, AR. Revenue by Shri Waseem Arshad, Sr. DR. Date of Hearing 26.09.2017 Date of Pronouncement 07.12.2017 ORDER PER, A. D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This is assessee’s appeal for A. Y. 2011-12. The following grounds have been raised: “1. Because the ld. CIT (Appeals) was not justified in confi…

Mount View Club & Resorts P. Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO 10(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05 are allowed and the appeals for the assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07 are partly allowed

ITA 1358/MUM/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं /I.Ta Nos.1358 To 1360 & 1362/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2003-04 To 2006-07 M/S. Mount View Club & The Ito-10(3)(4), बनाम/ Resorts Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai Vs. 27, Mahavir Centre, Sector-17, Vashi Navi Mumbai "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccm 5353M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By: Shri Prakash Pandit Shri Asghar Zain Vp ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By:

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Pandit
Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 69B

…Iqbal Hussain [328 ITR 142]. (3) The Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Naveen Gera [328 ITR 516]. It was further submitted that following the above Apex Court Judgement, the Gujarat High Court in Goodluck Automobiles Private Limited v. ACIT [359 ITR 306] and Allahabad High Court in CIT v. Lucknow Public Education Society [359 ITR 588] has held that reference to valuation officer without rejecting the books of accounts is invalid. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble (T&AP) High Court in the case of Laxmi Constructions (369 ITR 271) submits that ref…