Ltd. Vs PCIT (2016) 388 ITR 135/\n10. 290 CTR 283\n56-64\n11.\nCIT v. ICICI Bank Ltd.

305 CTR 314High Court2018#24393 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 346,713 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2025.

Judgments citing Ltd. Vs PCIT (2016) 388 ITR 135/\n10. 290 CTR 283\n56-64\n11.\nCIT v. ICICI Bank Ltd.

Shiv Vegpro Private Limited, Kota vs. PCIT-Udaipur, Udaipur

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

ITA 1014/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, (Adv.) &For Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, (CIT-DR)

Section 147Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…2 9. CIT vs. Rajkumar DeepchandPhade[249 ITR 520] 116 Taxman 783 (Bombay) 53-55 L.G. Electronics India (P.) Ltd. Vs PCIT (2016) 388 ITR 135/ 10. 290 CTR 283 56-64 11. CIT vs. ICICI Bank Ltd. (2012) 343 ITR 74/252 CTR 85 65-68 12. Indira Industries Vs. Pr. CIT 305 CTR 314(Mad) 69-74 7. The Id. AR of the assessee in addition to what has been stated in the written submission vehemently argued that the action of the Id. PCIT exercising the jurisdiction beyond two year is not permitted, as the ITR was filed 06.09.2017, intimation u/s.143(1) was issued on 16.10.2018 and notice us/. 148 was issued on 17.03.2020 and that…

Shir Bajrang Power and Ispat Ltd., Raipur vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 32/RPR/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N. K. Choudhryआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 32/Rpr/2021) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri R. K. Singh, CIT.DR

…der s.263 of the Act was invoked yet again on the same set of ground for which the case was reopened under s.147 of the Act. Such action of the PCIT was held to be impermissible in law by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Indira Industries vs. PCIT 305 CTR 314 (Mad.). ITA No. 32/RPR/2021 (Shri Bajrang Power and Ispat Ltd.vs. DC IT) A.Y. 2011-12 - 10 - 11.2 In this backdrop, the PCIT has raised strange issues in revisional order, such as, revised Form 10CCB (after amalgamation) was signed and verified after the due date specified under s.139(1) of the Act i.e. 30.09.2011 and consequently the assessee h…

Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. Prcit, Gurugram

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed on the issue of the impugned order passed beyond the prescribed time, other issues are left open

ITA 4607/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 May 2020AY 2009-10

For Appellant: ShriSalilKapoor, AdvFor Respondent: ShriRaman Chopra[CIT] –

Section 143Section 144CSection 147Section 263Section 263(2)Section 92C

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH „C‟ ”H-1”: NEW DELHI BEFORESHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & Shri K N CHARRY , JUDICIAL MEMBER Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. Pr. CIT, 12, BhikajiCama Place, Vs. Gurgaon. New Delhi – 110 029. PAN : AAACJ7097D (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by : ShriRaman Chopra[CIT] – DR Assessee by: ShriSalilKapoor, Adv.; ShriSunitLal; Ms. Chandani, Advs.; Ms. AnanyaKapoor, Adv. Date of Hearing 19/03/2020 Date of pronouncement 14/05/2020 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. : 01 This appeal is filed by assessee, M/s Jindal steel and Power Ltd ( Assessee , Appellant) against…