M/s. Supersonic Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Delhi v. PCIT-8, New Delhi

69 ITR 585High Court2019#16047 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,001 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2022.

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing M/s. Supersonic Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Delhi v. PCIT-8, New Delhi

Pradeep Dattatraya Banginwar, Yavatmal vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Nagpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 28/NAG/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur01 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 28/Nag/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Pradeep Dattatraya Banginwar, At- Trimurti Sales, Datta Chowk, Yavatmal-445 001. Pan : Abcpb5111C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii, Nagpur. ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri P.M. Gandhi, Ca Revenue By : Shri Vitthal Bhosale, Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing :17.02.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of Pronouncement : 06.04.2022

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Gandhi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vitthal Bhosale, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…the Act is supported by the orders of the coordinate benches of the Tribunal in the case of, viz. (i). M/s Charbhuja Marmo (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. PCIT, ITA 4749/Del/2019; dated 31.12.2019 ; and (ii). M/s Supersonic Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. PCIT-8, New Delhi, 69 ITR 585 (Del). We, thus, in terms of our aforesaid observation that now when the very foundation of the impugned revisional proceedings i.e, the reassessment order passed by the AO under Sec. 143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act, dated 01.12.2018 is in itself based on an invalid assumption of jurisdiction by the AO and thus, not sustainable in the eyes of law, the…

M/s. Supersonic Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Delhi v. PCIT-8, New Delhi (69 ITR 585) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax