Kunal Structure (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT

422 ITR 482High Court2020#20836 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2023.

Read the full judgment

Judgments citing Kunal Structure (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT

Shri. Venkatesh Prasad, Mysore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Mysore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 193/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Venkatesh Prasad, Vs. Ito, Balaji Niwas, 2Nd Main Road, Ward - 1(2), H. D. Kote – 571 114. Mysore. Pan : Acqph 3972 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. S. Lokanath, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Revenue. Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2023

For Appellant: Shri. S. Lokanath, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Revenue

Section 139(1)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69C

…ence, it was contended that the notice issued under section 143(2) of the Act is barred by limitation. In this context, the learned AR relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Kunal Structure (India) Pvt Ltd Vs. DCIT reported in 422 ITR 482. The learned AR submitted that the SLP filed against the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court was dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in [2021] TMI 622. The learned AR also relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Prime Securities Vs. ACIT reported in 317 ITR 27. 6. The learned Standing Counsel, on the…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 8, Pune vs. Kishor Shankar Garve, Pune

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed

ITA 2286/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri V.L. JainFor Respondent: S/Shri J.P. Chandraker & M.G. Jasnani

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80I

…eliance can be placed on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 90 ITR 236 (Allahabad), Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Kunal Structure (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT reported in 422 ITR 482 (Gujarat) and the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Atul Projects India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. UOI reported in 422 ITR 478 (Bombay). If we are, to accept the contention of assessee that the revised return was not filed on account of any omissions found in the original return, it should be construed to mean that the revised return was filed to cu…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 8, Pune vs. Kishor Shankar Garve, Pune

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed

ITA 1869/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri V.L. JainFor Respondent: S/Shri J.P. Chandraker & M.G. Jasnani

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80I

Rite Developers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 13(3) (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5849/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Rite Developers, Dcit-13(3)(1), Room No. 202, 2Nd Floor, S.S. House, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Csl, Opp. Adarsh Petrol Pump, Mumbai-400020. Nehru Road, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057. Pan No. Aaccr 2173 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Satish Mody, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Bharat Andhale, DR

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…be bad in law. 9. With regard to rectification of defect in the RoI filed u/s 139(1) and limitation period to issue notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court held in the case of Kunal Structure (India) Private Limited v. DCIT [2020] 422 ITR 482 (Guj) as below: “A study of the provisions of section 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 shows that under sub-section (1) thereof, an assessee is required to file return on or before the due date. If one looks at the language employed in sub-sections (1), (3) and (5) of section 139, a common thread in all the sub-sections is that the assessee is re…