Jagannath Bawri v. CIT

234 ITR 464Reported decision#11327 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2023.

Judgments citing Jagannath Bawri v. CIT

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1, Aurangabad vs. M/S Partha Multitrade India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 685/PUN/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.682 To 685/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12 & 2013-14 Dcit, Central Circle-1, Vs. M/S. Partha Multitrade Aurangabad. India Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As Swift Ventures Pvt. Ltd.), Flat No.1/5, A. S. Yadav Chawl Pada, Nr. Mahakali Mandir, Dahisar, Mumbai-400068. Pan : Aalcs3668L Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari Assessee By : None Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Common Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 30.06.2022 For The Assessment Years 2009-10 To 2011-12 & 2013-14 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Four Appeals Of The Revenue, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal Of The Revenue In Ita No.685/Pun/2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari
Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

…her by A or B or by both together, it would be open to the relevant IT authorities to determine the said question by taking appropriate proceedings both against A and B.” 12. Subsequently, the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Jagannath Bawri vs. CIT, 234 ITR 464 also explained the concept of protective assessment as under :- “As regards the contention of Ms. Hazarika, learned counsel for the petitioners about income-tax returns, on perusal of Annexure-A series it can only be said that those documents are only intimation which is sent to the assessee specifying the sum so payable under section 143(1)(a).…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1, Aurangabad vs. M/S Partha Multitrade India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 684/PUN/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.682 To 685/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12 & 2013-14 Dcit, Central Circle-1, Vs. M/S. Partha Multitrade Aurangabad. India Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As Swift Ventures Pvt. Ltd.), Flat No.1/5, A. S. Yadav Chawl Pada, Nr. Mahakali Mandir, Dahisar, Mumbai-400068. Pan : Aalcs3668L Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari Assessee By : None Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Common Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 30.06.2022 For The Assessment Years 2009-10 To 2011-12 & 2013-14 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Four Appeals Of The Revenue, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal Of The Revenue In Ita No.685/Pun/2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari
Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

…her by A or B or by both together, it would be open to the relevant IT authorities to determine the said question by taking appropriate proceedings both against A and B.” 12. Subsequently, the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Jagannath Bawri vs. CIT, 234 ITR 464 also explained the concept of protective assessment as under :- “As regards the contention of Ms. Hazarika, learned counsel for the petitioners about income-tax returns, on perusal of Annexure-A series it can only be said that those documents are only intimation which is sent to the assessee specifying the sum so payable under section 143(1)(a).…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1, Aurangabad vs. M/S Partha Multritrade India Pvt Ltd (Earlier Known As Swift Ventures Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 683/PUN/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.682 To 685/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12 & 2013-14 Dcit, Central Circle-1, Vs. M/S. Partha Multitrade Aurangabad. India Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As Swift Ventures Pvt. Ltd.), Flat No.1/5, A. S. Yadav Chawl Pada, Nr. Mahakali Mandir, Dahisar, Mumbai-400068. Pan : Aalcs3668L Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari Assessee By : None Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Common Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 30.06.2022 For The Assessment Years 2009-10 To 2011-12 & 2013-14 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Four Appeals Of The Revenue, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal Of The Revenue In Ita No.685/Pun/2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari
Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

…her by A or B or by both together, it would be open to the relevant IT authorities to determine the said question by taking appropriate proceedings both against A and B.” 12. Subsequently, the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Jagannath Bawri vs. CIT, 234 ITR 464 also explained the concept of protective assessment as under :- “As regards the contention of Ms. Hazarika, learned counsel for the petitioners about income-tax returns, on perusal of Annexure-A series it can only be said that those documents are only intimation which is sent to the assessee specifying the sum so payable under section 143(1)(a).…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1, Aurangabad vs. M/S Partha Multitrade India Pvt Ltd (Earlier Known As Swift Ventures Pvt Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 682/PUN/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.682 To 685/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12 & 2013-14 Dcit, Central Circle-1, Vs. M/S. Partha Multitrade Aurangabad. India Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As Swift Ventures Pvt. Ltd.), Flat No.1/5, A. S. Yadav Chawl Pada, Nr. Mahakali Mandir, Dahisar, Mumbai-400068. Pan : Aalcs3668L Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari Assessee By : None Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Common Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 30.06.2022 For The Assessment Years 2009-10 To 2011-12 & 2013-14 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Four Appeals Of The Revenue, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal Of The Revenue In Ita No.685/Pun/2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari
Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

…her by A or B or by both together, it would be open to the relevant IT authorities to determine the said question by taking appropriate proceedings both against A and B.” 12. Subsequently, the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Jagannath Bawri vs. CIT, 234 ITR 464 also explained the concept of protective assessment as under :- “As regards the contention of Ms. Hazarika, learned counsel for the petitioners about income-tax returns, on perusal of Annexure-A series it can only be said that those documents are only intimation which is sent to the assessee specifying the sum so payable under section 143(1)(a).…

Smt. Bhagwati Devi Meel, Mohan Kunj Veer Tejaji Colony, Nawalgarh Road, Sikar C/O Kalani & Co. Chartered Accountants, 5Th Floor, Kilestone Building, Gandhinagar Turn, Tonk Road, Jaipur, Sikar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3, Sikar, Ward-3 Sikar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 296/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Aug 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT
Section 148

…t, although there SMT. BHAGWATI DEVI MEEL VS ITO, WARD 3, SIKAR is no such provision in the Income Tax Act to make protective assessment. It is imperative to mention that Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Jagannath Bawri and Others vs CIT and Others, 234 ITR 464 has explained the concept of protective assessment in following manner. ‘’As regards the contention of Ms. Hazarika, ld. Counsel for the petitioners about the income tax returns, on perusal of annexure-A series it can only be said that those documents are only intimation which is sent to the assessee specifying the sum so payable u/s 143(1)(a). A…

Nita Donald Sequeira, Mumbai vs. ITO 12(2)(4) Now ITO 17(2)(4), Mumbai

ITA 1518/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2017AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Ashok J. Patil-ARFor Respondent: Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen-DR
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, मुंबई मुंबई “ एच एच” खंडपीठ खंडपीठ आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई एच एच खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“H”Bench Mumbai सव"ी सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" सव"ी राजे"" राजे"",लेखा राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं सद"य एवं एवं, राम एवं राम राम लाल राम लाल लाल नेगी लाल नेगी नेगी, "याियक नेगी "याियक "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य सद"य सद"य Before S/Shri Rajendra,Accountant Member and Ram Lal Negi,Judicial Member आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./1518/Mum/2015, िनधा"रण अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11 वष"…

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi II vs. Mahindra Finlease P.Ltd

Appeals are allowed and the

ITA/981/2008HC Delhi31 Jan 2011

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

Section 132Section 158B

…ed to be held by respondent No. 1 in pursuance of the impugned notice issued by him against the appellant.” 13. Following the aforesaid judgment, Gauhati High Court in the case of Jagannath Bawri and Others Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and Others [234 ITR 464] has explained the concept of protective assessment in the following manner: “As regards the contention of Ms. Hazarika, learned counsel for the petitioners about income-tax returns, on perusal of annexure-A series it can only be said that those documents are only intimation which is sent to the assessee specifying the sum so payable unde…

Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi II vs. Mahindra Finlease P. Ltd

Appeals are allowed and the

ITA-981/2008HC Delhi31 Jan 2011
Section 132Section 158B

…ed to be held by respondent No. 1 in pursuance of the impugned notice issued by him against the appellant.” 13. Following the aforesaid judgment, Gauhati High Court in the case of Jagannath Bawri and Others Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and Others [234 ITR 464] has explained the concept of protective assessment in the following manner: “As regards the contention of Ms. Hazarika, learned counsel for the petitioners about income-tax returns, on perusal of annexure-A series it can only be said that those documents are only intimation which is sent to the assessee specifying the sum so payable unde…

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi II vs. Mahindra Finlease P.Ltd

Appeals are allowed and the

ITA - 981 / 2008HC Delhi31 Jan 2011
Section 132Section 158B

…ed to be held by respondent No. 1 in pursuance of the impugned notice issued by him against the appellant.” 13. Following the aforesaid judgment, Gauhati High Court in the case of Jagannath Bawri and Others Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and Others [234 ITR 464] has explained the concept of protective assessment in the following manner: “As regards the contention of Ms. Hazarika, learned counsel for the petitioners about income-tax returns, on perusal of annexure-A series it can only be said that those documents are only intimation which is sent to the assessee specifying the sum so payable unde…

Jagannath Bawri v. CIT (234 ITR 464) — Cited in 9 Judgments | BharatTax