Income Tax Officer & Ors. 298 ITR 32(Bom.) and Asian Cerc Information Services Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO

293 ITR 271High Court2007#24273 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 363,016 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2018.

Judgments citing Income Tax Officer & Ors. 298 ITR 32(Bom.) and Asian Cerc Information Services Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO

Maharashtra Stae Road Development Corporation Td, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(2), Mumbai

ITA 4900/MUM/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Years: 2002-03 Dcit-5(2), M/S Maharashtra State Road R. No.571, Development Corporation बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Limited, Vs. M.K. Road, Pwd Compound, Near Mumbai-400020 Priyadarshni Park, Nepeansea Road, Mumbai-400036 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacm6833C Assessment Years: 2002-03 M/S Maharashtra State Dcit-5(2), Road Development R. No.571, बनाम/ Corporation Limited, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Pwd Compound, Near M.K. Road, Priyadarshni Park, Mumbai-400020 Nepeansea Road, Mumbai-400036 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacm6833C "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri B.S. Sharma & Shri Dalpat Shah राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri Narendra Singh Janpangi-Dr

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148

…249 ITR 306(SC), Idea Celluar Ltd. vs DCIT 301 ITR 407 (Bom.), ICICI Home Finance Co. Ltd. vs ACIT 210 taxmann 67 (Bom.), IL & FS Investment Managers Ltd. vs Income Tax Officer & Ors. 298 ITR 32(Bom.) and Asian Cerc Information Services Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO 293 ITR 271 (Bom.). Our attention was invited to various pages of the paper book. On the other hand, Shri Narendra Singh Janpangi, Ld. CIT-DR, defended the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). 2.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. So far as, reopening beyond four years is concerned,…

DCIT 5(2), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4519/MUM/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Years: 2002-03 Dcit-5(2), M/S Maharashtra State Road R. No.571, Development Corporation बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Limited, Vs. M.K. Road, Pwd Compound, Near Mumbai-400020 Priyadarshni Park, Nepeansea Road, Mumbai-400036 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacm6833C Assessment Years: 2002-03 M/S Maharashtra State Dcit-5(2), Road Development R. No.571, बनाम/ Corporation Limited, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Pwd Compound, Near M.K. Road, Priyadarshni Park, Mumbai-400020 Nepeansea Road, Mumbai-400036 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacm6833C "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri B.S. Sharma & Shri Dalpat Shah राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri Narendra Singh Janpangi-Dr

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148

…249 ITR 306(SC), Idea Celluar Ltd. vs DCIT 301 ITR 407 (Bom.), ICICI Home Finance Co. Ltd. vs ACIT 210 taxmann 67 (Bom.), IL & FS Investment Managers Ltd. vs Income Tax Officer & Ors. 298 ITR 32(Bom.) and Asian Cerc Information Services Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO 293 ITR 271 (Bom.). Our attention was invited to various pages of the paper book. On the other hand, Shri Narendra Singh Janpangi, Ld. CIT-DR, defended the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). 2.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. So far as, reopening beyond four years is concerned,…

ACIT, Bhubaneswar vs. M/S. Neelachal Gramya Bank, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue and cross objection

ITA 58/CTK/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Jul 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri B.K.Mohapatra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kunal Singh, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 22Section 36Section 44ASection 80PSection 80P(4)

…Ahmedabad vs. ACIT (1997) 227 ITR 906 (Guj) CIT vs. Lucuns TVS Ltd. (2001) 249 ITR 306 (SC) Purity Tech Textiles Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2010) 325 ITR 459 (Bom) Adani Exports vs. DCIT (1999) 240 ITR 224 (G uj) Asian Cere Information Services (P)Ltd. v. ITO (2007) 293 ITR 271 (Bom) 23. That in view of the above, it is therefore submitted that: i. the issue of the aforesaid notice u/s. 148 of the Act is bad and legally untenable as the conditions provided in section 147 and 148 and as has been judicially interpreted have not been satisfied. ii. the aforesaid notice u/s. 148 of the Act is lack of/in excess of jurisdi…