K.M Bansal Vs CIT 195 ITR 247 (Allahabad) (d) PCIT v. ITAT

25 ITR 447High Court1954#13844 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,418 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Judgments citing K.M Bansal Vs CIT 195 ITR 247 (Allahabad) (d) PCIT v. ITAT

A.C.I.T, Wardha Circle, Wardha vs. M/S Kapil Solvex Pvt .Ltd, Yavatmal

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 221/NAG/2017[2009-20010]Status: Trans-OutITAT Pune26 Sept 2024

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…eopening the assessment, the earlier judgment of the Supreme Court which directly addresses the question would apply and on that basis the reassessment cannot be invalidated. It would be relevant to note that in Presidency Talkies Ltd Vs First Additional ITO (25 ITR 447). the Madras High Court held that there is no requirement in any of the provisions of the Act or any section that the reasons which induced the CIT to accord sanction to proceed u/s 34 must also be communicated to the assessee and "the requirement regarding communication of the reasons to the Commissioner is, in our opinion, intended to safeguard…

Rajesh Ladhani, Faizabad vs. DCIT CC, Agra

In the result, all three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 106/AGR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Agra06 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaita No. 106,107 & 108/Agra/2019 Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2011-12 Vs. Dy. C.I.T. –Central Circle, Rajesh Ladhani, 259, Savera Bhawan, Ram Nagar Colony, Agra. Faizabad. Pan: Abapl5646C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153D

…on the strength of following Judgments: (a) S. Narayanappa vs. CIT 63 ITR 219 (SC) (b) Kailash Moudgil Vs DCIT 72 ITD 97 (Special Bench) (c) K.M Bansal Vs CIT 195 ITR 247 (Allahabad) (d) PCIT Vs ITAT 88 taxman.com 644 (Del) (e) Presidency Talkies Ltd Vs ITO 25 ITR 447 (Mad.) 7. We have considered the rival submissions in the light of case laws relied upon by both the parties and order granting Approval dated 27.03.2015 passed under section 153-D of the Act, which was obtained by the assessee under the Right to Information Act, 2005 as reproduced by us above. 8. The Revenue on the face of order dated 18.09.201…

Anurag Mittal, Firozabad vs. DCIT Central Circle, Agra

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

ITA 136/AGR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra06 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 153ASection 153DSection 234A

…Agr/2018 9 Asst. Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14 (a) S. Narayanappa vs. CIT 63 ITR 219 (SC) (b) Kailash Moudgil Vs DCIT 72 ITD 97 (Special Bench) (c) K.M Bansal Vs CIT 195 ITR 247 (Allahabad) (d) PCIT Vs ITAT 88 taxman.com 644 (Del) (e) Presidency Talkies Ltd Vs ITO 25 ITR 447 (Mad.) 7. We have considered the rival submissions in the light of case laws relied upon by both the parties and order granting Approval dated 26.03.2015 passed under section 153-D of the Act, which has been obtained by the assessee under the Right to Information Act, 2005 reproduced as above. 8. The Revenue on the face of order dated 18.09.2018…

Hakmans Financial Services & Securities P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 39, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 4364/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 4364/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08)

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Sharma
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 69

…ssment cannot be invalidated on the ground that the reasons for reopening the assessment were not disclosed to the assessee. While coming to this conclusion, the Hon'ble Tribunal relied on the judicial pronouncements/precedents reported in 63 ITR 219 (SC) and 25 ITR 447 (Mad.).” 14. After considering the detailed order passed by CIT(A), we are of the considered view that the assessee was not only aware of the reasons recorded by the AO for reopening the assessment but had also availed of the opportunity to file objections to the issuance of notice u/s.148, therefore, it cannot be presumed that the reasons reco…

ACIT CC 39, Mumbai vs. Hakmans Financial Services & Securities P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 3035/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 4364/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08)

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Sharma
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 69

…ssment cannot be invalidated on the ground that the reasons for reopening the assessment were not disclosed to the assessee. While coming to this conclusion, the Hon'ble Tribunal relied on the judicial pronouncements/precedents reported in 63 ITR 219 (SC) and 25 ITR 447 (Mad.).” 14. After considering the detailed order passed by CIT(A), we are of the considered view that the assessee was not only aware of the reasons recorded by the AO for reopening the assessment but had also availed of the opportunity to file objections to the issuance of notice u/s.148, therefore, it cannot be presumed that the reasons reco…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5611/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2016AY 2004-05

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

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CA and Shri Satyajeet Goel, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nandita Kanchan, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 264Section 80I

…nction of the CIT who must be satisfied that the action under s. 34 was justified. There is no which induced the CIT to accord sanction to proceed under s. 34 must also be communicated to the assessee. In The Presidency Talkies Ltd. vs. First Addl. ITO (1954) 25 ITR 447 (Mad): TC51R.597 the Madras High Court has expressed a similar view and we consider that that view is correct. We accordingly reject the argument of the appellant on this aspect of the case." THE PRESIDENCY TALKIES LTD, VS. FIRST ADDL. ITO HIGH COURT OF MADRAS, Jan 22, 1954, (1954) 25 ITR 0447, Sections 147,151(1), Art. 226 Head Note Reassessment…

M/S. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5581/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2016AY 2004-05

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

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CA and Shri Satyajeet Goel, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nandita Kanchan, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 264Section 80I

…nction of the CIT who must be satisfied that the action under s. 34 was justified. There is no which induced the CIT to accord sanction to proceed under s. 34 must also be communicated to the assessee. In The Presidency Talkies Ltd. vs. First Addl. ITO (1954) 25 ITR 447 (Mad): TC51R.597 the Madras High Court has expressed a similar view and we consider that that view is correct. We accordingly reject the argument of the appellant on this aspect of the case." THE PRESIDENCY TALKIES LTD, VS. FIRST ADDL. ITO HIGH COURT OF MADRAS, Jan 22, 1954, (1954) 25 ITR 0447, Sections 147,151(1), Art. 226 Head Note Reassessment…

K.M Bansal Vs CIT 195 ITR 247 (Allahabad) (d) PCIT v. ITAT (25 ITR 447) — Cited in 7 Judgments | BharatTax