Kone Elevator India P. Ltd. v. ITO

340 ITR 454High Court2012#1333 most cited

What is Kone Elevator India P. Ltd. v. ITO authority for?

When taxable income has escaped assessment, the assessee's plea that no fresh material is before the assessing officer to warrant reopening is not relevant.

86

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Kone Elevator India P. Ltd. v. ITO · 340 ITR 454 · reassessment · escaped assessment · section 147 · section 148 · fresh material for reopening · reopening assessment

Sections most often in play

Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153(3)Section 251(1)(a)Section 68

Issues it is cited on

recognised provident fundsection 50bsection 43b(f)approved gratuity fundsection 40a(9)section 211wholly and exclusively for businesssection 35dslump salesection 32(1)(ii)domestic companyfull value of consideration

Judgments citing Kone Elevator India P. Ltd. v. ITO

Varnam Exports, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3783/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle HariyaFor Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

…t. It is however to be noted that both the conditions must be fulfilled if the case falls within the ambit of the proviso to section 147. The case at hand is covered by the main provision and not the proviso.” In the case of Kone Elevator India P. Ltd. v. ITO 340 ITR 454 (Mad), CIT v. Ideal Garden Complex P. Ltd. 340 ITR 609 (Mad), it is held that in the case of return of income processed u/s 143(1), the only condition to be satisfied for reopening is taxable income has escaped assessment and the assessee’s plea that no fresh material before the AO warranting reopening, is not relevant. (A.Ys: 2008-09 to 2012-13…

Varman Exports, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3782/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle HariyaFor Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

…t. It is however to be noted that both the conditions must be fulfilled if the case falls within the ambit of the proviso to section 147. The case at hand is covered by the main provision and not the proviso.” In the case of Kone Elevator India P. Ltd. v. ITO 340 ITR 454 (Mad), CIT v. Ideal Garden Complex P. Ltd. 340 ITR 609 (Mad), it is held that in the case of return of income processed u/s 143(1), the only condition to be satisfied for reopening is taxable income has escaped assessment and the assessee’s plea that no fresh material before the AO warranting reopening, is not relevant. (A.Ys: 2008-09 to 2012-13…

Varnam Exports, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3781/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle HariyaFor Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

…t. It is however to be noted that both the conditions must be fulfilled if the case falls within the ambit of the proviso to section 147. The case at hand is covered by the main provision and not the proviso.” In the case of Kone Elevator India P. Ltd. v. ITO 340 ITR 454 (Mad), CIT v. Ideal Garden Complex P. Ltd. 340 ITR 609 (Mad), it is held that in the case of return of income processed u/s 143(1), the only condition to be satisfied for reopening is taxable income has escaped assessment and the assessee’s plea that no fresh material before the AO warranting reopening, is not relevant. (A.Ys: 2008-09 to 2012-13…

Shrenik Steel Co., Mumbai vs. ITO WD- 31(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, these appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 3605/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ravish Sood & Ita No.3604 & 3605/Mum/2018 Assessment Year-2009-10 & 2010-11 Shrenik Steel Co. Ito-31(3)(4), Brijwasi Industrial Estate, 408, C-13, 4Th Floor, बनाम/ I.B. Patel Road, Goregaon (E), Pratyakasha Kar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400062 Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051 Pan No.Aamfs3437K ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue)

Section 69C

…e as per law. ITA No.3604 & 3605/Mum/2018, 6 9. One ground raised by the assessee relates to interest under section 234B of the Act. On this issue learned counsel of the assessee has placed reliance upon following case laws: i. Vijay Kumar Saboo vs ACIT (340 ITR 382)(Karnataka) ii. CIT vs B. Lakshmikanthan (2011)(198 taxman 485)(Kerala) 10. For the proposition that interest u/s 234B is not calculated in accordance with the extant provision of section 234B(1) and 234B(3) of the Act. 11. Up on careful consideration we are of the opinion that interest under section 234B is consequential in nature as held by…

Shrenik Steel Co., Mumbai vs. ITO, WD- 31(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, these appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 3604/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ravish Sood & Ita No.3604 & 3605/Mum/2018 Assessment Year-2009-10 & 2010-11 Shrenik Steel Co. Ito-31(3)(4), Brijwasi Industrial Estate, 408, C-13, 4Th Floor, बनाम/ I.B. Patel Road, Goregaon (E), Pratyakasha Kar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400062 Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051 Pan No.Aamfs3437K ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue)

Section 69C

…e as per law. ITA No.3604 & 3605/Mum/2018, 6 9. One ground raised by the assessee relates to interest under section 234B of the Act. On this issue learned counsel of the assessee has placed reliance upon following case laws: i. Vijay Kumar Saboo vs ACIT (340 ITR 382)(Karnataka) ii. CIT vs B. Lakshmikanthan (2011)(198 taxman 485)(Kerala) 10. For the proposition that interest u/s 234B is not calculated in accordance with the extant provision of section 234B(1) and 234B(3) of the Act. 11. Up on careful consideration we are of the opinion that interest under section 234B is consequential in nature as held by…

A.J.M. and Company, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-15(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4567/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S A.J.M. & Co. 801, Dy. Cit-15(1)(1), Panchratna Opera House, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400004 Churchgate, Mumbai. Pan No. Aakfm0310R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Aarti Vissanji, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manish Kumar Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 08/03/2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 25/03/2019

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Manish Kumar Singh, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…t. It is however to be noted that both the conditions must be fulfilled if the case falls within the ambit of the proviso to section 147. The case at hand is covered by the main provision and not the proviso.” In the case of Kone Elevator India P. Ltd. v. ITO 340 ITR 454 (Mad), CIT v. Ideal Garden Complex P. Ltd. 340 ITR 609 (Mad), it is held that in the case of return of income processed u/s 143(1), the only condition to be satisfied for reopening is taxable income has escaped assessment and the assessee’s plea that no fresh material before the AO warranting reopening, is not relevant. M/s AJM & Co. 7 In view o…

Parisha C. Varia, Mumbai vs. ITO 16(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2139/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2006-07 & Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2008-09 Ms. Parisha C. Varia, 1401, The Income Tax Officer- 14Th Floor, 241, Keshwala Vs. 16(2)(2), Room No. 214, Garden View, Laxmibai Tardeo Road, Matru Jagmohandas Marg, Malbar Mandir, Mumbai- Hill, Mumbai-400006. 400007. Pan No. Abwpv8515C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Sanjay Parikh, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Abi Rama Kartikiyen, Dr Date Of Hearing : 18/02/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 25/02/2019

For Appellant: Mr. Sanjay Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Abi Rama Kartikiyen, DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…d u/s 143(1) of the Act. In the case of Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd. (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that intimation u/s 143(1)(a) is not an assessment and held valid the notice issued u/s 148. In the case of Kone Elevator India P. Ltd. v. ITO 340 ITR 454 (Mad), CIT v. Ideal Garden Complex P. Ltd. 340 ITR 609 (Mad), it is held that in the case of return of income processed u/s 143(1), the only condition to be satisfied for reopening is taxable income has escaped assessment and the assessee’s plea that no fresh material before the AO warranting reopening, is not relevant. In view of the above factu…

ITO 13(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Vulvan Traders P. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4137/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Years: 2008-09 Income Tax Officer-13(3)(3), M/S Vulvan Traders, 805, Room No.227,02Nd Floor, A Wingh, Corporate Avenue, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Sonawala Raod, Vs. M. K. Road, Goregaon East, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400063 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aaacv1603K Assessment Years: 2008-09 M/S Vulvan Traders, 805, Income Tax Officer-13(3)(3), A Wingh, Corporate Room No.227,02Nd Floor, बनाम/ Avenue, Sonawala Raod, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Goregaon East, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400063 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aaacv1603K

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…erala Financial Corporation v. Joint CIT [(2009) 308 ITR 434 (Ker)]; vi. Mavis Satcom Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [(2010) 325 ITR 428 (Mad)]; vii. CIT v. Madhya Bharat Energy Corporation Ltd. [(2011) 337 ITR 389 (Del)]; viii. Kone Elevator India P. Ltd. v. ITO [(2012) 340 ITR 454 (Mad)]; ix. Vijay Kumar Saboo v. Asst. CIT [(2012) 340 ITR 382 (Karn)]; x. Siemens Information Systems Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [(2012) 343 ITR 188 (Bom)]; xi. I.P. Patel & Co. v. Deputy CIT [(2012) 346 ITR 207 (Guj)]; xii. Dishman Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [(2012) 346 ITR 228 (Guj)]; xiii. Video Electronics Ltd. v. Joint CIT [(2013…

ACIT Non Corp Circle 1 (1) Formerly Known As Business Circle 1, Chennai vs. M/S Deolite Haskins & Sells, Chennai

ITA 2580/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mr.AR.V.Sreenivasan,JCIT,D.RFor Respondent: Mr.S.P.Chidambaram,Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…erala Financial Corporation v. Joint CIT [(2009) 308 ITR 434 (Ker)]; vi. Mavis Satcom Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [(2010) 325 ITR 428 (Mad)]; vii. CIT v. Madhya Bharat Energy Corporation Ltd. [(2011) 337 ITR 389 (Del)]; viii. Kone Elevator India P. Ltd. v. ITO [(2012) 340 ITR 454 (Mad)]; ix. Vijay Kumar Saboo v. Asst. CIT [(2012) 340 ITR 382 (Karn)]; x. Siemens Information Systems Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [(2012) 343 ITR 188 (Bom)]; xi. I.P. Patel & Co. v. Deputy CIT [(2012) 346 ITR 207 (Guj)]; ITA Nos.2578 to 2580/chny/2017 :- 48 -: C.O.Nos.47to 49/Chny/2018 M/s.Deloittee Haskins & Sells xii. Dishman Pharmaceuticals & Chemica…

ACIT Non Corp Circle 1 (1) Formerly Known As Business Circle 1, Chennai vs. M/S Deolite Haskins & Sells, Chennai

ITA 2579/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mr.AR.V.Sreenivasan,JCIT,D.RFor Respondent: Mr.S.P.Chidambaram,Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…erala Financial Corporation v. Joint CIT [(2009) 308 ITR 434 (Ker)]; vi. Mavis Satcom Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [(2010) 325 ITR 428 (Mad)]; vii. CIT v. Madhya Bharat Energy Corporation Ltd. [(2011) 337 ITR 389 (Del)]; viii. Kone Elevator India P. Ltd. v. ITO [(2012) 340 ITR 454 (Mad)]; ix. Vijay Kumar Saboo v. Asst. CIT [(2012) 340 ITR 382 (Karn)]; x. Siemens Information Systems Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [(2012) 343 ITR 188 (Bom)]; xi. I.P. Patel & Co. v. Deputy CIT [(2012) 346 ITR 207 (Guj)]; ITA Nos.2578 to 2580/chny/2017 :- 48 -: C.O.Nos.47to 49/Chny/2018 M/s.Deloittee Haskins & Sells xii. Dishman Pharmaceuticals & Chemica…

ACIT Non Corp Circle 1 (1) Formerly Known As Business Circle 1, Chennai vs. M/S Deolite Haskins & Sells, Chennai

ITA 2578/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mr.AR.V.Sreenivasan,JCIT,D.RFor Respondent: Mr.S.P.Chidambaram,Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…erala Financial Corporation v. Joint CIT [(2009) 308 ITR 434 (Ker)]; vi. Mavis Satcom Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [(2010) 325 ITR 428 (Mad)]; vii. CIT v. Madhya Bharat Energy Corporation Ltd. [(2011) 337 ITR 389 (Del)]; viii. Kone Elevator India P. Ltd. v. ITO [(2012) 340 ITR 454 (Mad)]; ix. Vijay Kumar Saboo v. Asst. CIT [(2012) 340 ITR 382 (Karn)]; x. Siemens Information Systems Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [(2012) 343 ITR 188 (Bom)]; xi. I.P. Patel & Co. v. Deputy CIT [(2012) 346 ITR 207 (Guj)]; ITA Nos.2578 to 2580/chny/2017 :- 48 -: C.O.Nos.47to 49/Chny/2018 M/s.Deloittee Haskins & Sells xii. Dishman Pharmaceuticals & Chemica…

Solo Hardware P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 5(3)(2), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1486/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 115JSection 139Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…erala Financial Corporation v. Joint CIT [(2009) 308 ITR 434 (Ker)]; vi. Mavis Satcom Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [(2010) 325 ITR 428 (Mad)]; vii. CIT v. Madhya Bharat Energy Corporation Ltd. [(2011) 337 ITR 389 (Del)]; viii. Kone Elevator India P. Ltd. v. ITO [(2012) 340 ITR 454 (Mad)]; ix. Vijay Kumar Saboo v. Asst. CIT [(2012) 340 ITR 382 (Karn)]; x. Siemens Information Systems Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [(2012) 343 ITR 188 (Bom)]; xi. I.P. Patel & Co. v. Deputy CIT [(2012) 346 ITR 207 (Guj)]; xii. Dishman Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [(2012) 346 ITR 228 (Guj)]; xiii. Video Electronics Ltd. v. Joint CIT [(2013…

Snehalata Ahnand Rane, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward 3(3), Kalyan

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1787/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

…erala Financial Corporation v. Joint CIT [(2009) 308 ITR 434 (Ker)]; vi. Mavis Satcom Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [(2010) 325 ITR 428 (Mad)]; vii. CIT v. Madhya Bharat Energy Corporation Ltd. [(2011) 337 ITR 389 (Del)]; viii. Kone Elevator India P. Ltd. v. ITO [(2012) 340 ITR 454 (Mad)]; ix. Vijay Kumar Saboo v. Asst. CIT [(2012) 340 ITR 382 (Karn)]; x. Siemens Information Systems Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [(2012) 343 ITR 188 (Bom)]; xi. I.P. Patel & Co. v. Deputy CIT [(2012) 346 ITR 207 (Guj)]; xii. Dishman Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [(2012) 346 ITR 228 (Guj)]; xiii. Video Electronics Ltd. v. Joint CIT [(2013…

Snehalata Ahnand Rane, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward 3(3), Kalyan

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1786/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

…erala Financial Corporation v. Joint CIT [(2009) 308 ITR 434 (Ker)]; vi. Mavis Satcom Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [(2010) 325 ITR 428 (Mad)]; vii. CIT v. Madhya Bharat Energy Corporation Ltd. [(2011) 337 ITR 389 (Del)]; viii. Kone Elevator India P. Ltd. v. ITO [(2012) 340 ITR 454 (Mad)]; ix. Vijay Kumar Saboo v. Asst. CIT [(2012) 340 ITR 382 (Karn)]; x. Siemens Information Systems Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [(2012) 343 ITR 188 (Bom)]; xi. I.P. Patel & Co. v. Deputy CIT [(2012) 346 ITR 207 (Guj)]; xii. Dishman Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [(2012) 346 ITR 228 (Guj)]; xiii. Video Electronics Ltd. v. Joint CIT [(2013…

Snehalata Ahnand Rane, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward 3(3), Kalyan

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1785/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

…erala Financial Corporation v. Joint CIT [(2009) 308 ITR 434 (Ker)]; vi. Mavis Satcom Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [(2010) 325 ITR 428 (Mad)]; vii. CIT v. Madhya Bharat Energy Corporation Ltd. [(2011) 337 ITR 389 (Del)]; viii. Kone Elevator India P. Ltd. v. ITO [(2012) 340 ITR 454 (Mad)]; ix. Vijay Kumar Saboo v. Asst. CIT [(2012) 340 ITR 382 (Karn)]; x. Siemens Information Systems Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [(2012) 343 ITR 188 (Bom)]; xi. I.P. Patel & Co. v. Deputy CIT [(2012) 346 ITR 207 (Guj)]; xii. Dishman Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [(2012) 346 ITR 228 (Guj)]; xiii. Video Electronics Ltd. v. Joint CIT [(2013…

Shri Dineshkumar C. Doshi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(1)(4), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1730/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148

…Corporation v. Joint CIT [(2009) 308 ITR 434 (Ker)]; Dinesh S. Jain vi. Mavis Satcom Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [(2010) 325 ITR 428 (Mad)]; vii. CIT v. Madhya Bharat Energy Corporation Ltd. [(2011) 337 ITR 389 (Del)]; viii. Kone Elevator India P. Ltd. v. ITO [(2012) 340 ITR 454 (Mad)]; ix. Vijay Kumar Saboo v. Asst. CIT [(2012) 340 ITR 382 (Karn)]; x. Siemens Information Systems Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [(2012) 343 ITR 188 (Bom)]; xi. I.P. Patel & Co. v. Deputy CIT [(2012) 346 ITR 207 (Guj)]; xii. Dishman Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [(2012) 346 ITR 228 (Guj)]; xiii. Video Electronics Ltd. v. Joint CIT [(2013…

ITO 6(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Jaydeep Profiles P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3236/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, बनाम/ Bhavan, M.K.Road, Darukhana, Reay Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai 400 086 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B Assessment Year: 2009-10 Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar बनाम/ Darukhana, Reay Road, Bhavan, M.K.Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 086 Mumbai 400 020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B 2 & 2698/Mum/2016

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148

…erala Financial Corporation v. Joint CIT [(2009) 308 ITR 434 (Ker)]; vi. Mavis Satcom Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [(2010) 325 ITR 428 (Mad)]; vii. CIT v. Madhya Bharat Energy Corporation Ltd. [(2011) 337 ITR 389 (Del)]; viii. Kone Elevator India P. Ltd. v. ITO [(2012) 340 ITR 454 (Mad)]; ix. Vijay Kumar Saboo v. Asst. CIT [(2012) 340 ITR 382 (Karn)]; x. Siemens Information Systems Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [(2012) 343 ITR 188 (Bom)]; xi. I.P. Patel & Co. v. Deputy CIT [(2012) 346 ITR 207 (Guj)]; xii. Dishman Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [(2012) 346 ITR 228 (Guj)]; xiii. Video Electronics Ltd. v. Joint CIT [(2013…

Jaydeep Profiles Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO WD 6 (3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2698/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, बनाम/ Bhavan, M.K.Road, Darukhana, Reay Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai 400 086 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B Assessment Year: 2009-10 Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar बनाम/ Darukhana, Reay Road, Bhavan, M.K.Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 086 Mumbai 400 020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B 2 & 2698/Mum/2016

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148

…erala Financial Corporation v. Joint CIT [(2009) 308 ITR 434 (Ker)]; vi. Mavis Satcom Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [(2010) 325 ITR 428 (Mad)]; vii. CIT v. Madhya Bharat Energy Corporation Ltd. [(2011) 337 ITR 389 (Del)]; viii. Kone Elevator India P. Ltd. v. ITO [(2012) 340 ITR 454 (Mad)]; ix. Vijay Kumar Saboo v. Asst. CIT [(2012) 340 ITR 382 (Karn)]; x. Siemens Information Systems Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [(2012) 343 ITR 188 (Bom)]; xi. I.P. Patel & Co. v. Deputy CIT [(2012) 346 ITR 207 (Guj)]; xii. Dishman Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [(2012) 346 ITR 228 (Guj)]; xiii. Video Electronics Ltd. v. Joint CIT [(2013…

Mohd Hasan Abdul Gafoor Momin, Thane vs. ITO WD 1(2), Kalyan

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3336/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 Mohd. Hasan Abdul Gafoor Momin, Income Tax Officer, 430/2, Kotwal Shah Dargha Ward-1(2), बनाम/ Road, Bhiwandi, District- Thane, 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza, Vs. Maharashtra-421308 Wayale Nagar, Kalyan ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aekpm0354F

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254

…CIT [(2009) 308 ITR 434 (Ker)]; vi. Mavis Satcom Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [(2010) 325 ITR 428 (Mad)]; vii. CIT v. Madhya Bharat Energy Corporation Ltd. [(2011) 337 ITR 389 (Del)]; 36 Mohd. Hasan Abdul Gafoor Momin viii. Kone Elevator India P. Ltd. v. ITO [(2012) 340 ITR 454 (Mad)]; ix. Vijay Kumar Saboo v. Asst. CIT [(2012) 340 ITR 382 (Karn)]; x. Siemens Information Systems Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [(2012) 343 ITR 188 (Bom)]; xi. I.P. Patel & Co. v. Deputy CIT [(2012) 346 ITR 207 (Guj)]; xii. Dishman Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [(2012) 346 ITR 228 (Guj)]; xiii. Video Electronics Ltd. v. Joint CIT [(2013…

M/S. Vedika Nut Craft Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed for Assessment Year 2010-11

ITA 5082/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri R.K.Panda & Smt. Beena A Pillai

For Appellant: S/Shri Gautam Jain, Piyush Kr. Kamal, AdvFor Respondent: Sri Vijay Kr. Jiwani, Sr. D.R
Section 154Section 234BSection 234B(1)Section 245

…orted in 259 ITR 449 and failed to appreciate the order of Settlement Commission in the case of Omax Autos Limited vs.CIT (Central), Gurgaon following the judgment of Karnataka High Court in the case of Vijay Kumar Saboo (HUF) and Another vs. ACIT reported in 340 ITR 382 and Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. B. Laxmikanthan reported in 198 Taxman 485. 4. That even otherwise the Ld.CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the issues were debatable and therefore no interest was otherwise leviable in an order u/s 154 of the Act. It is therefore, prayed that it be held that order framed under section 154 of the Ac…