Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd. v. CIT

223 CTR 269High Court#23720 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2016.

Judgments citing Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd. v. CIT

M/S Excellent Land Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3052/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri B.R.R. Kumar, Senior DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 44A

…rred to the reasons for issue of notice under Section 148 which was provided to the assessee. Thereafter, the Bench referred to the decisions in CIT v. Atul Jain, 299 ITR 383 (Del), Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd (supra), Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd. v. CIT, 223 CTR 269 (Del) and CIT v. Batra Bhatta Company, 174 Taxman 444 (Del) and eventually held thus:- “9. In the present case, we find that the first sentence of the so-called reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer is mere information received from the Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation). The second sentence is a direction given by the very same De…

The Commissioner of Income Tax III vs. Sfil Stock Broking Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITA - 1056 / 2009HC Delhi27 Apr 2010

Bench: Us Is With Regard To The Validity Of The Proceedings Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As „The Said Act‟). The Facts Are That The Assessee In His Original Return Of Income Filed On 30.11.1998 Had Shown A Long Term Capital Gain Of 2010:Dhc:2334-Db

For Appellant: Mr Mr Sanjeev SabharwalFor Respondent: Mr Ajay Vohra with Ms Kavita Jha
Section 147Section 148

…On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/ assessee placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Atul Jain (supra) as also on several other decisions of this Court including that in the case of Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd. v. CIT: 223 CTR 269 (Del) and CIT v. Batra Bhatta Company: 174 Taxman 444 (Del). The learned counsel for the assessee/ respondent also submitted that the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Jhaveri (supra) was also clear in stating that there must be a belief which must be arrived at by the Assessing Officer and that there must be some material…

The Commissioner of Income Tax III vs. Sfil Stock Broking Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/1056/2009HC Delhi27 Apr 2010

Bench: Us Is With Regard To The Validity Of The Proceedings Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As „The Said Act‟). The Facts Are That The Assessee In His Original Return Of Income Filed On 30.11.1998 Had Shown A Long Term Capital Gain Of 2010:Dhc:2334-Db

For Appellant: Mr Mr Sanjeev SabharwalFor Respondent: Mr Ajay Vohra with Ms Kavita Jha
Section 147Section 148

…On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/ assessee placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Atul Jain (supra) as also on several other decisions of this Court including that in the case of Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd. v. CIT: 223 CTR 269 (Del) and CIT v. Batra Bhatta Company: 174 Taxman 444 (Del). The learned counsel for the assessee/ respondent also submitted that the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Jhaveri (supra) was also clear in stating that there must be a belief which must be arrived at by the Assessing Officer and that there must be some material…

Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd. v. CIT (223 CTR 269) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax