Likewise, in CIT v. Hindustan Tools & Forgings P. Ltd.

306 ITR 209Reported decision2008#4191 most cited

What is Likewise, in CIT v. Hindustan Tools & Forgings P. Ltd. authority for?

Reassessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 147(b) are valid when an assessee has been allowed a deduction in regular assessment that is more than what is actually allowable. This applies even if the excess deduction was granted under provisions like section 80HHC.

28

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2019.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Hindustan Tools & Forgings P. Ltd. · 306 ITR 209 · reassessment · section 147 · section 147(b) · section 80HHC · excess deduction · invalid reassessment

Judgments citing Likewise, in CIT v. Hindustan Tools & Forgings P. Ltd.

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

…ty drawback and DEPB under section 80-IB was wrongly granted to the assessee, for which it was not entitled. Therefore, reassessment proceedings to withdraw the deduction were held to be valid. Likewise, in CIT v. Hindustan Tools & Forgings P. Ltd., (2008) 306 ITR 209 (P & H), where, the assessee in the regular assessment had been allowed deduction more than actually allowable under section 80HHC. Therefore, the action initiated by the AO for reassessment under section 147(b) could not be held to be invalid. 2.15. In the case of Markanda Vanaspati Mills Ltd. v. CIT, (2006) 280 ITR 503 (P & H), wherein, the…

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)

…t entitled. Therefore, reassessment proceedings to withdraw the deduction were held ITA Nos.2578 to 2580/chny/2017 :- 34 -: C.O.Nos.47to 49/Chny/2018 M/s.Deloittee Haskins & Sells to be valid. Likewise, in CIT v. Hindustan Tools & Forgings P. Ltd., (2008) 306 ITR 209 (P & H), where, the assessee in the regular assessment had been allowed deduction more than actually allowable under section 80HHC. Therefore, the action initiated by the AO for reassessment under section 147(b) could not be held to be invalid. 5.12. In the case of Markanda Vanaspati Mills Ltd. v. CIT, (2006) 280 ITR 503 (P & H), wherein, th…

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)

…t entitled. Therefore, reassessment proceedings to withdraw the deduction were held ITA Nos.2578 to 2580/chny/2017 :- 34 -: C.O.Nos.47to 49/Chny/2018 M/s.Deloittee Haskins & Sells to be valid. Likewise, in CIT v. Hindustan Tools & Forgings P. Ltd., (2008) 306 ITR 209 (P & H), where, the assessee in the regular assessment had been allowed deduction more than actually allowable under section 80HHC. Therefore, the action initiated by the AO for reassessment under section 147(b) could not be held to be invalid. 5.12. In the case of Markanda Vanaspati Mills Ltd. v. CIT, (2006) 280 ITR 503 (P & H), wherein, th…

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)

…t entitled. Therefore, reassessment proceedings to withdraw the deduction were held ITA Nos.2578 to 2580/chny/2017 :- 34 -: C.O.Nos.47to 49/Chny/2018 M/s.Deloittee Haskins & Sells to be valid. Likewise, in CIT v. Hindustan Tools & Forgings P. Ltd., (2008) 306 ITR 209 (P & H), where, the assessee in the regular assessment had been allowed deduction more than actually allowable under section 80HHC. Therefore, the action initiated by the AO for reassessment under section 147(b) could not be held to be invalid. 5.12. In the case of Markanda Vanaspati Mills Ltd. v. CIT, (2006) 280 ITR 503 (P & H), wherein, th…

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

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ,जी,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “G”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, उपा"य" एवं "ी रिमत कोचर, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, VICE PRESIDENT, and Shri Ramit Kochar, Accountant Member ITA NOs.1485 & 1486/Mum/2017 Assessment Years: 2010-11& 2011-12 M/s Solo Hardware Private ACIT, Limited, Circle-5(3)(2), बनाम/ Shop No.03, Shastri Nagar, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Opp. Pant Nagar Police M. K. Road, Station, Ghatkopar (East), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400075 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.AAJCS0760R None "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Chaudhary…

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

…uty drawback and DEPB under section 80-IB was wrongly granted to the assessee, for which it was not entitled. Therefore, reassessment proceedings to withdraw the deduction were held to be valid. Likewise, in CIT v. Hindustan Tools & Forgings P. Ltd., (2008) 306 ITR 209 (P & H), where, the assessee in the regular assessment had been allowed deduction more than actually allowable under section 80HHC. Therefore, the action initiated by the AO for reassessment under section 147(b) could not be held to be invalid. 2.14. In the case of Markanda Vanaspati Mills Ltd. v. CIT, (2006) 280 ITR 503 (P & H), wherein, the…

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

…uty drawback and DEPB under section 80-IB was wrongly granted to the assessee, for which it was not entitled. Therefore, reassessment proceedings to withdraw the deduction were held to be valid. Likewise, in CIT v. Hindustan Tools & Forgings P. Ltd., (2008) 306 ITR 209 (P & H), where, the assessee in the regular assessment had been allowed deduction more than actually allowable under section 80HHC. Therefore, the action initiated by the AO for reassessment under section 147(b) could not be held to be invalid. 2.14. In the case of Markanda Vanaspati Mills Ltd. v. CIT, (2006) 280 ITR 503 (P & H), wherein, the…

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

…uty drawback and DEPB under section 80-IB was wrongly granted to the assessee, for which it was not entitled. Therefore, reassessment proceedings to withdraw the deduction were held to be valid. Likewise, in CIT v. Hindustan Tools & Forgings P. Ltd., (2008) 306 ITR 209 (P & H), where, the assessee in the regular assessment had been allowed deduction more than actually allowable under section 80HHC. Therefore, the action initiated by the AO for reassessment under section 147(b) could not be held to be invalid. 2.14. In the case of Markanda Vanaspati Mills Ltd. v. CIT, (2006) 280 ITR 503 (P & H), wherein, the…

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

…ty drawback and DEPB under section 80-IB was wrongly granted to the assessee, for which it was not entitled. Therefore, reassessment proceedings to withdraw the deduction were held to be valid. Likewise, in CIT v. Hindustan Tools & Forgings P. Ltd., (2008) 306 ITR 209 (P & H), where, the assessee in the regular assessment had been allowed deduction more than actually allowable under section 80HHC. Therefore, the action initiated by the AO for reassessment under section 147(b) could not be held to be invalid. Dinesh S. Jain 4.13. In the case of Markanda Vanaspati Mills Ltd. v. CIT, (2006) 280 ITR 503 (P & H)…

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

…ty drawback and DEPB under section 80-IB was wrongly granted to the assessee, for which it was not entitled. Therefore, reassessment proceedings to withdraw the deduction were held to be valid. Likewise, in CIT v. Hindustan Tools & Forgings P. Ltd., (2008) 306 ITR 209 (P & H), where, the assessee in the regular assessment had been allowed deduction more than actually allowable under section 80HHC. Therefore, the action initiated by the AO for reassessment under section 147(b) could not be held to be invalid. 18 & 2698/Mum/2016 Jaydeep Profiles P.Ltd 4.13. In the case of Markanda Vanaspati Mills Ltd. v. CIT,…

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

…ty drawback and DEPB under section 80-IB was wrongly granted to the assessee, for which it was not entitled. Therefore, reassessment proceedings to withdraw the deduction were held to be valid. Likewise, in CIT v. Hindustan Tools & Forgings P. Ltd., (2008) 306 ITR 209 (P & H), where, the assessee in the regular assessment had been allowed deduction more than actually allowable under section 80HHC. Therefore, the action initiated by the AO for reassessment under section 147(b) could not be held to be invalid. 18 & 2698/Mum/2016 Jaydeep Profiles P.Ltd 4.13. In the case of Markanda Vanaspati Mills Ltd. v. CIT,…

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

…ty drawback and DEPB under section 80-IB was wrongly granted to the assessee, for which it was not entitled. Therefore, reassessment proceedings to withdraw the deduction were held to be valid. Likewise, in CIT v. Hindustan Tools & Forgings P. Ltd., (2008) 306 ITR 209 (P & H), where, the assessee in the regular assessment had been allowed deduction more than actually allowable under section 80HHC. Therefore, the action initiated by the AO for reassessment under section 147(b) could not be held to be invalid. 3.15. In the case of Markanda Vanaspati Mills Ltd. v. CIT, (2006) 280 ITR 503 (P & H), wherein, the…

IDHASOFT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 15(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 5139/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Idhasoft Ltd. Dcit-15(2)(1), 3, Narayan Building, Room No.357, 3Rd Floor बनाम/ 23 L. N. Road, Dadar East, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400014 M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aabci6090G Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit-15(2)(1), M/S Idhasoft Ltd. Room No.357, 3Rd Floor 3, Narayan Building, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 23 L. N. Road, Dadar East, Vs. M. K. Road, Mumbai-400014 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aabci6090G

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

…ty drawback and DEPB under section 80-IB was wrongly granted to the assessee, for which it was not entitled. Therefore, reassessment proceedings to withdraw the deduction were held to be valid. Likewise, in CIT v. Hindustan Tools & Forgings P. Ltd., (2008) 306 ITR 209 (P & H), where, the assessee in the regular assessment had been allowed deduction more than actually allowable under section 80HHC. Therefore, the action initiated by the AO for reassessment under section 147(b) could not be held to be invalid. 2.18. In the case of Markanda Vanaspati Mills Ltd. v. CIT, (2006) 280 ITR 503 (P & H), wherein, t…

ITO 19(2)(3), MUMBAI vs. MEENAKSHI N SHAH, MUMBAI

ITA 7082/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit 5(2)(2) Meridian Chem Bond Mumbai Purchase Ltd., बनाम/ 903 Raheja Centre, Free Vs. Press Journal Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. Aaacr1789G

Section 68

…itled. Therefore, reassessment proceedings to withdraw the deduction were held to be valid. Likewise, in CIT v. Hindustan 49 Meridian Chem Bond P Ltd. & Meenakshi N Shah ITA No.7385 & 7082/Mum/2016 & C.O. No.86 & 85/Mum/2018 Tools & Forgings P. Ltd., (2008) 306 ITR 209 (P & H), where, the assessee in the regular assessment had been allowed deduction more than actually allowable under section 80HHC. Therefore, the action initiated by the AO for reassessment under section 147(b) could not be held to be invalid. 7.15. In the case of Markanda Vanaspati Mills Ltd. v. CIT, (2006) 280 ITR 503 (P & H), wherein, t…

VIPUL IMPEX & INFRABUILD LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-4(2), MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3006/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

…hich it was not entitled. Therefore, reassessment proceedings to withdraw the ITA Nos.2313 to 2315 and 3004 to 18 3006/Mum/2016 M/s Vipul Impex & Infrabuild Ltd. deduction were held to be valid. Likewise, in CIT v. Hindustan Tools & Forgings P. Ltd., (2008) 306 ITR 209 (P & H), where, the assessee in the regular assessment had been allowed deduction more than actually allowable under section 80HHC. Therefore, the action initiated by the AO for reassessment under section 147(b) could not be held to be invalid. 2.14. In the case of Markanda Vanaspati Mills Ltd. v. CIT, (2006) 280 ITR 503 (P & H), wherein, the…

VIPUL IMPEX & INFRABUILD LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-4(2), MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3005/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

…hich it was not entitled. Therefore, reassessment proceedings to withdraw the ITA Nos.2313 to 2315 and 3004 to 18 3006/Mum/2016 M/s Vipul Impex & Infrabuild Ltd. deduction were held to be valid. Likewise, in CIT v. Hindustan Tools & Forgings P. Ltd., (2008) 306 ITR 209 (P & H), where, the assessee in the regular assessment had been allowed deduction more than actually allowable under section 80HHC. Therefore, the action initiated by the AO for reassessment under section 147(b) could not be held to be invalid. 2.14. In the case of Markanda Vanaspati Mills Ltd. v. CIT, (2006) 280 ITR 503 (P & H), wherein, the…

VIPUL IMPEX & INFRABUILD LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-4(2), MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3004/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

…hich it was not entitled. Therefore, reassessment proceedings to withdraw the ITA Nos.2313 to 2315 and 3004 to 18 3006/Mum/2016 M/s Vipul Impex & Infrabuild Ltd. deduction were held to be valid. Likewise, in CIT v. Hindustan Tools & Forgings P. Ltd., (2008) 306 ITR 209 (P & H), where, the assessee in the regular assessment had been allowed deduction more than actually allowable under section 80HHC. Therefore, the action initiated by the AO for reassessment under section 147(b) could not be held to be invalid. 2.14. In the case of Markanda Vanaspati Mills Ltd. v. CIT, (2006) 280 ITR 503 (P & H), wherein, the…

DCIT CIR. 4(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. VIPUL IMPEX & INFRABUILD LTD., MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2315/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

…hich it was not entitled. Therefore, reassessment proceedings to withdraw the ITA Nos.2313 to 2315 and 3004 to 18 3006/Mum/2016 M/s Vipul Impex & Infrabuild Ltd. deduction were held to be valid. Likewise, in CIT v. Hindustan Tools & Forgings P. Ltd., (2008) 306 ITR 209 (P & H), where, the assessee in the regular assessment had been allowed deduction more than actually allowable under section 80HHC. Therefore, the action initiated by the AO for reassessment under section 147(b) could not be held to be invalid. 2.14. In the case of Markanda Vanaspati Mills Ltd. v. CIT, (2006) 280 ITR 503 (P & H), wherein, the…

DCIT CIR. 4(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. VIPUL IMPEX & INFRABUILD LTD., MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2314/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

…hich it was not entitled. Therefore, reassessment proceedings to withdraw the ITA Nos.2313 to 2315 and 3004 to 18 3006/Mum/2016 M/s Vipul Impex & Infrabuild Ltd. deduction were held to be valid. Likewise, in CIT v. Hindustan Tools & Forgings P. Ltd., (2008) 306 ITR 209 (P & H), where, the assessee in the regular assessment had been allowed deduction more than actually allowable under section 80HHC. Therefore, the action initiated by the AO for reassessment under section 147(b) could not be held to be invalid. 2.14. In the case of Markanda Vanaspati Mills Ltd. v. CIT, (2006) 280 ITR 503 (P & H), wherein, the…

DCIT CIR. 4(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. VIPUL IMPEX & INFRABUILD LTD., MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2313/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

…hich it was not entitled. Therefore, reassessment proceedings to withdraw the ITA Nos.2313 to 2315 and 3004 to 18 3006/Mum/2016 M/s Vipul Impex & Infrabuild Ltd. deduction were held to be valid. Likewise, in CIT v. Hindustan Tools & Forgings P. Ltd., (2008) 306 ITR 209 (P & H), where, the assessee in the regular assessment had been allowed deduction more than actually allowable under section 80HHC. Therefore, the action initiated by the AO for reassessment under section 147(b) could not be held to be invalid. 2.14. In the case of Markanda Vanaspati Mills Ltd. v. CIT, (2006) 280 ITR 503 (P & H), wherein, the…

Showing 1–20 of 28 · Page 1 of 2

Likewise, in CIT v. Hindustan Tools & Forgings P. Ltd. (306 ITR 209) — Cited in 28 Judgments | BharatTax