Income-Tax Officer and Others v. Santosh Kumar Dalmia

208 ITR 337High Court1994#15340 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2018.

Judgments citing Income-Tax Officer and Others v. Santosh Kumar Dalmia

MAMTA DINESH,BULANDSHAHR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 3(1), BULANDSHAHR

In the result, appeal of Assessee is allowed

ITA 1709/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: Shri Deepesh Garg, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69

…hat “Opinion of the DVO per se is not sufficient information for the purposes of reopening of the assessment under section 147 of the I.T. Act.” He has also relied upon Judgment of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of ITO vs. Santosh Kumar Dalmia (1994) 208 ITR 337 (Cal.) in which it was held as under : “There being no material on record to show prima facie that assessee understated the sale consideration, assessment cannot be reopened on the basis of higher valuation attributed by Valuation Officer.” 4.2. He has also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Akshar Infrastructu…

THE ITO,, GUNTUR vs. SRI ASHOK KUMAR PERIWAL,, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

ITA 339/VIZ/2016[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 May 2018AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.339/Viz/2016 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14) Income Tax Officer Vs. Sri Ashok Kumar Periwal Ward-1(1) H.No.25-16-179/6 Guntur Opp.Old Mirchi Yard Guntur [Pan :Ahopp2643M] (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""थ"/ Respondent) Cross Objection No.51/Viz/2016 Arising Out Of I.T.A.No.339/Viz/2016 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 2Section 251

…isdiction of the assessee is vested with the ITO, Ward-1(2), Guntur and again there is no denying fact that the jurisdiction was not transferred to ITO, Ward-1(1), Siliguri. Hon’ble Kolkata High Court in the case of ITO and Others Vs. Santosh Kumar Dalmia [208 ITR 337] (Kol) held that if the income tax officer did not have any jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice, the writ court can always interfere irrespective of the fact whether the assessment pursuant to such notice has been made or not. If the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act, which is the condition precedent for making the reassessment is quashe…

ITO, WARD - 56(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. NOPANY & SONS, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1621/KOL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 292B

…n the present case, the ITO, Ward 3(1), having no jurisdiction over the appellant issued the notice u/s.l43(2). It is relevant to note here that the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Income-Tax Officer and Others v. Santosh Kumar Dalmia, [1994] 208 ITR 337 (Cal), has held that, "if the Income-tax Officer did not have any jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice, the writ court can always interfere irrespective of the fact whether the assessment pursuant to such notice has been made or not. If the notice issued under section 148 of the said Act, which is / the condition precedent for making reasses…

M/S. NOPANY & SONS,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 56(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1301/KOL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 292B

A.C.I.T CIR - 1,ASANSOL, ASANSOL vs. M/S BURNPUR CEMENT LTD., ASANSOL

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 2513/KOL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri T. K. Neogi, JCIT, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Smt. Shreya Agarwal, CA

Section 147

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH: KOLKATA [Before Shri N. V. Vasudevan, JM & Shri M. Balaganesh, AM] I.T.A No.2513/Kol/2013 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Vs. M/s. Burnpur Cement Ltd. Circl1-1, Asansol (PAN:AACCA1999B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Date of hearing: 13.05.2016 Date of pronouncement: 18.05.2016 For the Appellant: Shri T. K. Neogi, JCIT, Sr. DR For the Respondent: Smt. Shreya Agarwal, CA ORDER Per Shri M. Balaganesh, AM: This appeal by revenue is arising out of order of CIT(A), Asansol vide Appeal No. 213/CIT(A)/Asl/cir-1/Asl/12-13 dated 02.09.2013. Ass…

ITO 12(3)4, MUMBAI vs. URMILA CONSTRUCITON COMPANY, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4634/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2005-06 Ito-12(3)(4), M/S Urmila Construction Room No.123, 1St Floor, Company, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road 422, Nagindas Master Road, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400023 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaafu0226C Shri B.Yadagiri -Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Vijay C. Kothari

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 69

…C), Indian & Eastern Newspaper Society vs. CIT, (1979) 119 ITR 996 and 6 Urmila Construction Company CIT Vs Modipon Ltd., reported in 2011 334 ITR 106 supports the case of the assessee. The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Satosh Kumar Dalmia (1994) 208 ITR 337 (Cal.) held that valuation report cannot by itself form the basis for reopening the assessment. In another case of Smt. Uma Devi Jhavar vs ITO 1994 Tax LR 78 (Cal.), the Hon’ble High Court held that valuation is always a question of opinion. Even after 01/04/1989, the concept of “change of opinion”, was not removed by the legislation. In the afor…