Karnataka in H. Noronha v. Income Tax Officer

133 ITR 199Reported decision#11065 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 344,197 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2022.

Judgments citing Karnataka in H. Noronha v. Income Tax Officer

D.C.I.T., Circle-6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S G.K.Ispat Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross objection of the different assessees are also dismissed

ITA 2408/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar] "ी संजय गग" "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य के सम"

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ‘सी’, कोलकाता [Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member ] "ी संजय गग" "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य के सम" I.T.A. No. 2408/Kol/2019 Assessment Year : 2011-12 DCIT, Circle-6(1), Kolkata Vs. M/s G.K. Ispat Pvt. Ltd. (PAN: AACCG 5067 A) Appellant / (अपीलाथ") Respondent / (!"यथ") C.O. No. 55/Kol/2019 (Arising out of I.T.A. No. 2408/Kol/2019) Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/s G.K. Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Circle-6(1), Kolkata (PAN: AACCG 5067 A) Cross-objector Respondent / (!"यथ"…

DCIT, Circle - 6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Gaurav Rose Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross objection of the different assessees are also dismissed

ITA 2407/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar] "ी संजय गग" "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य के सम"

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ‘सी’, कोलकाता [Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member ] "ी संजय गग" "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य के सम" I.T.A. No. 2408/Kol/2019 Assessment Year : 2011-12 DCIT, Circle-6(1), Kolkata Vs. M/s G.K. Ispat Pvt. Ltd. (PAN: AACCG 5067 A) Appellant / (अपीलाथ") Respondent / (!"यथ") C.O. No. 55/Kol/2019 (Arising out of I.T.A. No. 2408/Kol/2019) Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/s G.K. Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Circle-6(1), Kolkata (PAN: AACCG 5067 A) Cross-objector Respondent / (!"यथ"…

Shri.J M Vrushabendraiah, Hospet vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bellary

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 299/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Srihari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Narayana K.R., D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250

…eason of the omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts and the notice issued by him would be liable to be struck down as invalid”. q. The Hon’ble High court of Karnataka in H. Noronha V. Income Tax Officer [133 ITR 199] has held that mere suspicion would not be sufficient for re-opening of the case unless there existed some other prima facie evidence to warrant re-opening. r. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chhugamal Rajpal V. S. P. Chaliha And Others [79 ITR 603 ] has held that : “Before issuing a notice under section 148, the Income-tax Officer must have either…

M/S Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust, Mysore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(4), Mysore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1764/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Manjeet Singh, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2

…on of the omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts and the notice issued by him would be liable to be struck down as invalid". [v]. The Hon'ble High court of Karnataka in H. Noronha V. Income Tax Officer [133 ITR 199] has held that mere suspicion would not be sufficient for re-opening of the case unless there existed some other prima facie evidence to warrant reopening. [vi] The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chhugamal Rajpal V. S. P. Chaliha And Others [79 ITR 603 ] has held that : "Before issuing a notice under section 148, the Income-tax Officer must have eithe…

M/S Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust, Mysore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(4), Mysore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1763/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Manjeet Singh, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2

…on of the omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts and the notice issued by him would be liable to be struck down as invalid". [v]. The Hon'ble High court of Karnataka in H. Noronha V. Income Tax Officer [133 ITR 199] has held that mere suspicion would not be sufficient for re-opening of the case unless there existed some other prima facie evidence to warrant reopening. [vi] The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chhugamal Rajpal V. S. P. Chaliha And Others [79 ITR 603 ] has held that : "Before issuing a notice under section 148, the Income-tax Officer must have eithe…

M/S Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust, Mysore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(4), Mysore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1762/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Manjeet Singh, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2

…on of the omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts and the notice issued by him would be liable to be struck down as invalid". [v]. The Hon'ble High court of Karnataka in H. Noronha V. Income Tax Officer [133 ITR 199] has held that mere suspicion would not be sufficient for re-opening of the case unless there existed some other prima facie evidence to warrant reopening. [vi] The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chhugamal Rajpal V. S. P. Chaliha And Others [79 ITR 603 ] has held that : "Before issuing a notice under section 148, the Income-tax Officer must have eithe…

M/S Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust, Mysore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(4), Mysore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1766/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Manjeet Singh, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2

…on of the omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts and the notice issued by him would be liable to be struck down as invalid". [v]. The Hon'ble High court of Karnataka in H. Noronha V. Income Tax Officer [133 ITR 199] has held that mere suspicion would not be sufficient for re-opening of the case unless there existed some other prima facie evidence to warrant reopening. [vi] The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chhugamal Rajpal V. S. P. Chaliha And Others [79 ITR 603 ] has held that : "Before issuing a notice under section 148, the Income-tax Officer must have eithe…

M/S Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust, Mysore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(4), Mysore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1765/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Manjeet Singh, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2

…on of the omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts and the notice issued by him would be liable to be struck down as invalid". [v]. The Hon'ble High court of Karnataka in H. Noronha V. Income Tax Officer [133 ITR 199] has held that mere suspicion would not be sufficient for re-opening of the case unless there existed some other prima facie evidence to warrant reopening. [vi] The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chhugamal Rajpal V. S. P. Chaliha And Others [79 ITR 603 ] has held that : "Before issuing a notice under section 148, the Income-tax Officer must have eithe…

M/S Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust, Mysore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(4), Mysore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1761/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Manjeet Singh, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2

…on of the omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts and the notice issued by him would be liable to be struck down as invalid". [v]. The Hon'ble High court of Karnataka in H. Noronha V. Income Tax Officer [133 ITR 199] has held that mere suspicion would not be sufficient for re-opening of the case unless there existed some other prima facie evidence to warrant reopening. [vi] The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chhugamal Rajpal V. S. P. Chaliha And Others [79 ITR 603 ] has held that : "Before issuing a notice under section 148, the Income-tax Officer must have eithe…

Karnataka in H. Noronha v. Income Tax Officer (133 ITR 199) — Cited in 9 Judgments | BharatTax