(i) S. Naarayanappa v. CIT

148 CTR 62High Court1998#7406 most cited
15

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2021.

Judgments citing (i) S. Naarayanappa v. CIT

ITO 24(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. ANUSHREE V. KHETAN, MUMBAI

In the result, the issue stands remitted to the file of the assessing officer

ITA 4975/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Pawan Sing, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4975/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) The Ito-24(1)(2) Smt. Anushree V. Khetan बनाम/ 2Nd Floor, Khetan Bhavan, 605, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400 012 78, J. B. Nagar, Andheri (E), Vs. Mumbai-400 049 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aocpk 8810 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ram Tiwari ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Rakesh Joshi

For Appellant: Shri Ram TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Joshi
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

…e questioned at that time. Therefore objection of the appellant to the reopening of the case and stating the same as bad in law cannot be accepted and cases relied upon by appellant do not hold good. 5.1.7. In the case of Praful Chunilal Patel Vs. ACIT (1998) 148 CTR 62 (Guj.): (1999) 236 ITR 832 (Guj), it has been held by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court that "If the AO honestly comes to a conclusion that a mistake has been made, it matters nothing so far as his jurisdiction to initiate the proceedings under s. 147 is concerned, that he may have come to an erroneous conclusion whether on law or on facts. His juris…

RITU SANJAY MANTRY,MUMBAI vs. ITO 24(3)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 2003/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2003/Mum/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Ritu Sanjay Mantry Ito-24(3)(4), बनाम/ C-24, Padma Nagar, Mumbai Andheri Kurla Road, Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 099 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aghpm 2569 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Nishit Gandhi ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Mrs. N. Hemlatha सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 30.11.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 09.02.2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 20.01.2017 & Pertains To Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Read As Under: 1) On Facts & Circumstances Of Case & In Law, Ld.Ao Erred In Reopening The Completed Assessment On Issuing The Notice U/S. 148 Without Having A Valid Reason To Believe 'That Income Had Escaped Assessment & Without

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Mrs. N. Hemlatha
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “एक-सद"य मामला” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI "ी शमीम याहया, लेखा सद"य के सम" । BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2003/Mum/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Ritu Sanjay Mantry ITO-24(3)(4), बनाम/ C-24, Padma Nagar, Mumbai Andheri Kurla Road, Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 099 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. AGHPM 2569 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by : Shri Nishit Gandhi ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Mrs. N. Hemlatha सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 30.11.2017 Date of…