Lok Housing & Construction Ltd. v. DCIT

348 ITR 335High Court2012#20579 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2021.

Read the full judgment

Judgments citing Lok Housing & Construction Ltd. v. DCIT

M/S Bhartiya Samruddhi Finance Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 6022/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Mahavir Prasad

For Appellant: Shri KVSR. Krishna, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…nce Ltd., New Delhi. 3. Gita Education Society vs. ITO (2019) 56 CCH 0064 (D3I) (Trib.) “G” Bench. 4. Bharti Infratel Limited vs. DCIT (2019) 411 ITR 0403 (Delhi) (HC) 5. Lok Housing and Construction Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (OSD) (2012) 348 ITR 335 (Bom) (HC). 6. Sun Investment Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (2012) 344 ITR 0001 (Del) (HC). 7. Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. vs. CIT (2009) 308 ITR 38 (Delhi). 8. CIT vs. Purolator India Ltd. [2012] 343 ITR 155 (Del) (HC). 9. BLB Limited vs. ACIT [2012] 343 ITR 129 (Del) (HC). 10. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.…

M/S Marmon Food & Beverage Technologies India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-11(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1811/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Dec 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav

For Appellant: Shri. Tata Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. M. Rajasekhar, Addl. CIT

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 144ASection 147Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)(b)

…dentical proposition as laid down in the aforesaid decisions. We are not making a reference to those decisions. We would, however, make a reference to the recent decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High court in the case of Lok Housing & Construction Ltd. v. DCIT, 348 ITR 335 (Bom), wherein it was observed as follows:- "The power of the Assessing Officer to reopen beyond a period of four years is even more restricted than when the reopening takes place within a period of four years of the end of the relevant assessment year. In the case of the assessee, the condition precedent to the invocation of the jurisdiction was…

M/S Marmon Food & Beverage Technologies India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-11(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1810/BANG/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Dec 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav

For Appellant: Shri. Tata Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. M. Rajasekhar, Addl. CIT

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 144ASection 147Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)(b)

Sh. Surinder Singh Sethi, Prop., Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4942/DEL/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Kohli, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sujit Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: “F” New Delhi BEFORE SHRI J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No: 4942/Del/2011 AY: - 2004-05 Surinder Singh Sethi, Prop. vs. ITO M/s. M.D. Automotives, Ward-2-(2) 1240/15, Bara Bazar, New Delhi. Kashmere Gate Delhi – 110 006 PAN ANDPS5101L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri G.S. Kohli, CA Respondent by : Shri Sujit Kumar, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 10.09.2015 Date of pronouncement : .11.2015 O R D E R PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA JUDICIAL MEMBER This is assessee’s appeal directed agains…