Income-tax Officer v. Smt. Lalitaben Kapadia

115 TTJ 938Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2008#10997 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2023.

Judgments citing Income-tax Officer v. Smt. Lalitaben Kapadia

DCIT(Ltu) - 1, Mumbai vs. Acc Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3177/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…has mainly relied upon following decisions: (i) CIT v. Puja Prints [2014] 360 ITR 697 (Bombay) (ii) CIT v. DaulatMota (ITA No. 1031 of 2008) (Bombay HC) (iii) Ms. Rubab M. Kazerani v. JCIT (2004) 91 ITD 429 (Mum.) (iv) ITO v. Smt. Lalitaben B. Kapadia (2008) 115 TTJ 938 (Mum) (v) Peninsula Land Ltd. v. DCIT [IT APPEAL NOS. 3440 AND 3696 (MUM.) OF 2009] 76. The Ld. AR has also relied upon following decisions wherein it is held that amendment brought by Finance Act 2012 is not prospective in nature. (i) CIT v. Puja Prints [2014] 360 ITR 697 (Bombay) (ii) Relevant extracts from explanatory memorandum to Finance A…

DCIT(Ltu) - 1, Mumbai vs. Acc Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3176/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 55A

…4] 360 ITR 697 (Bombay) (ii) Relevant extracts from explanatory memorandum to Finance Act, 2012 (iii) CIT v. Daulat Mota (ITA No. 1031 of 2008) (Bombay HC) (iv) Ms. Rubab M. Kazerani v. JCIT (2004) 91 ITD 429 (Mum.) (v) ITO v. Smt. Lalitaben B. Kapadia (2008) 115 TTJ 938 (Mum) (vi) Peninsula Land Ltd. v. DCIT [IT APPEAL NOS. 3440 AND 3696 (MUM.) OF 2009] 5. The Ld.AR has also stated that reopening was made based on change of opinion is bad-in-law for which reliance is placed on following decisions” 4 ITA NO.3135& 3136/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2009-10) M/s. ACC Limited (i) CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Limited [(2010) 320 I…

Acc Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl CIT(Ltu), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3137/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…has mainly relied upon following decisions: (i) CIT v. Puja Prints [2014] 360 ITR 697 (Bombay) (ii) CIT v. DaulatMota (ITA No. 1031 of 2008) (Bombay HC) (iii) Ms. Rubab M. Kazerani v. JCIT (2004) 91 ITD 429 (Mum.) (iv) ITO v. Smt. Lalitaben B. Kapadia (2008) 115 TTJ 938 (Mum) (v) Peninsula Land Ltd. v. DCIT [IT APPEAL NOS. 3440 AND 3696 (MUM.) OF 2009] 76. The Ld. AR has also relied upon following decisions wherein it is held that amendment brought by Finance Act 2012 is not prospective in nature. (i) CIT v. Puja Prints [2014] 360 ITR 697 (Bombay) (ii) Relevant extracts from explanatory memorandum to Finance A…

Acc Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT(Ltu) - 1, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3136/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 55A

…4] 360 ITR 697 (Bombay) (ii) Relevant extracts from explanatory memorandum to Finance Act, 2012 (iii) CIT v. Daulat Mota (ITA No. 1031 of 2008) (Bombay HC) (iv) Ms. Rubab M. Kazerani v. JCIT (2004) 91 ITD 429 (Mum.) (v) ITO v. Smt. Lalitaben B. Kapadia (2008) 115 TTJ 938 (Mum) (vi) Peninsula Land Ltd. v. DCIT [IT APPEAL NOS. 3440 AND 3696 (MUM.) OF 2009] 5. The Ld.AR has also stated that reopening was made based on change of opinion is bad-in-law for which reliance is placed on following decisions” 4 ITA NO.3135& 3136/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2009-10) M/s. ACC Limited (i) CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Limited [(2010) 320 I…

Acc Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT(Ltu) - 1, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3135/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 55A

…4] 360 ITR 697 (Bombay) (ii) Relevant extracts from explanatory memorandum to Finance Act, 2012 (iii) CIT v. Daulat Mota (ITA No. 1031 of 2008) (Bombay HC) (iv) Ms. Rubab M. Kazerani v. JCIT (2004) 91 ITD 429 (Mum.) (v) ITO v. Smt. Lalitaben B. Kapadia (2008) 115 TTJ 938 (Mum) (vi) Peninsula Land Ltd. v. DCIT [IT APPEAL NOS. 3440 AND 3696 (MUM.) OF 2009] 5. The Ld.AR has also stated that reopening was made based on change of opinion is bad-in-law for which reliance is placed on following decisions” 4 ITA NO.3135& 3136/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2009-10) M/s. ACC Limited (i) CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Limited [(2010) 320 I…

Acc Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Ltu, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6082/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 145A

…has mainly relied upon following decisions: (i) CIT v. Puja Prints [2014] 360 ITR 697 (Bombay) (ii) CIT v. DaulatMota (ITA No. 1031 of 2008) (Bombay HC) (iii) Ms. Rubab M. Kazerani v. JCIT (2004) 91 ITD 429 (Mum.) (iv) ITO v. Smt. Lalitaben B. Kapadia (2008) 115 TTJ 938 (Mum) (v) Peninsula Land Ltd. v. DCIT [IT APPEAL NOS. 3440 AND 3696 (MUM.) OF 2009] 55. The Ld. AR has also relied upon following decisions wherein it is held that amendment brought by Finance Act 2012 is not prospective in nature. (i) CIT v. Puja Prints [2014] 360 ITR 697 (Bombay) (ii) Relevant extracts from explanatory memorandum to Finance Act…

Acc Ltd ( Formerly Known As the Associates Cement Companies Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Ltu, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4669/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 145A

…has mainly relied upon following decisions: (i) CIT v. Puja Prints [2014] 360 ITR 697 (Bombay) (ii) CIT v. DaulatMota (ITA No. 1031 of 2008) (Bombay HC) (iii) Ms. Rubab M. Kazerani v. JCIT (2004) 91 ITD 429 (Mum.) (iv) ITO v. Smt. Lalitaben B. Kapadia (2008) 115 TTJ 938 (Mum) (v) Peninsula Land Ltd. v. DCIT [IT APPEAL NOS. 3440 AND 3696 (MUM.) OF 2009] 55. The Ld. AR has also relied upon following decisions wherein it is held that amendment brought by Finance Act 2012 is not prospective in nature. (i) CIT v. Puja Prints [2014] 360 ITR 697 (Bombay) (ii) Relevant extracts from explanatory memorandum to Finance Act…

Addl.C.I.T. Ltu, Mumbai vs. Acc Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4556/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 145A

…has mainly relied upon following decisions: (i) CIT v. Puja Prints [2014] 360 ITR 697 (Bombay) (ii) CIT v. DaulatMota (ITA No. 1031 of 2008) (Bombay HC) (iii) Ms. Rubab M. Kazerani v. JCIT (2004) 91 ITD 429 (Mum.) (iv) ITO v. Smt. Lalitaben B. Kapadia (2008) 115 TTJ 938 (Mum) (v) Peninsula Land Ltd. v. DCIT [IT APPEAL NOS. 3440 AND 3696 (MUM.) OF 2009] 55. The Ld. AR has also relied upon following decisions wherein it is held that amendment brought by Finance Act 2012 is not prospective in nature. (i) CIT v. Puja Prints [2014] 360 ITR 697 (Bombay) (ii) Relevant extracts from explanatory memorandum to Finance Act…

Pfizer Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 8739/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2008-09 Pfizer Limited, Acit Range 8(2), Patel Estate, Off S.V. Rd. Aayakar Bahwan, बनाम/ Jogeshwari (W), M.K. Marg, Vs. Mumba-400102 Mumbai- (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aaacp3334M

…the applicability of section 55A(a) vis-a-vis section 55A(b): (a) Hiaben Jayantilal Shah v Income-tax Officer (Gui HC) (310 ITR 31) b) Ms. Rubab M. Kazerani v Joint Commissioner of Income-tax 97 TTJ 698 (Mum) c) Income-tax Officer vs Smt. Lalitaben Kapadia (115 TTJ 938) (Mum) (d) Smt. Sarla N. Sakraney v Income-tax Officer (Mum) (e) Sajjankumar M. Harlalka v Joint Commissioner of Income- tax (102 TTJ 974) (Mum) (f) Smt. Krishnabai Tingre v Income-tax Officer (101 lTD 317) (Pune) 9.9. On the other hand Ld. CIT (DR) has vehemently opposed the arguments of the Ld. Counsel. He has supported the action of AO in…

Income-tax Officer v. Smt. Lalitaben Kapadia (115 TTJ 938) — Cited in 9 Judgments | BharatTax