Mahadeva v. CIT

404 ITR 747High Court2018#13091 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2019.

Judgments citing Mahadeva v. CIT

TUMKUR DCC BANK LIMITED ,TUMKUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , TUMKUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2012-13 to 2014-15 are dismissed and the appeal filed for AY

ITA 1/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Shri P.K Gadale

For Appellant: Shri S Ramasubramanian, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Smarak Swain, JCIT (DR)
Section 37(1)

…has reopened the assessment in order to carry out further investigation in the matters and to verify the details. Accordingly the ld AR submitted that reopening is not valid. In this regard he placed reliance on the following case law. a) CM Mahadeva Vs. CIT, 404 ITR 747 (Kar) b) Nive Trading Ltd., Vs. UOI, 375 ITR 308 (Bom) 42. We have heard ld DR and perused the record. We have noticed that the return of income filed by the assessee was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. From the reasons recorded by the AO, which is extracted in the assessment order, we noticed that the assessee has claimed certain deductions wh…

AMIT PACHAURI,BULANDSHAHR vs. ITO, WARD- 1, BULANDSHAHR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6488/DEL/2018[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Sh. N. S. Sainiita No. 6488/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2003-04 Amit Pachauri, Vs Income Tax Officer, S/O Nand Kumar, Kothiyat, Ward-1, Court Road, Near Church, Bulandshahr, Bulandshahr, Uttar Pradesh (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ajzpp8114A Assessee By : Sh. Anoop Sharma, Adv. & Sh. Sanjay Prashar, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S. L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 07.02.2019 Order This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A), Ghaziabad Dated 31.08.2018. 2. Ground No. 1 Of The Appeal Of The Assessee Reads As Under: “1. That The Ld. Cit(A), Erred Both On Facts & In Law In Holding That The Case Of The Apex Court In Gkn Drive Shaft India Ltd. Did Not Apply To The Facts In The Present Case Thereby Over-Looking The Crucial Aspect That The Assessee Had, In Fact, Moved Two Applications Dated 13.01.2010 & 30.06.2010 For Conveying Reasons, So Much So, Impugned Notice U/S 148 Of I.T. Act Dated 03.12.2009 In Blanket Format Also Lacked Vital Information Of Income Alleged To Have Been Escaped Assessment.” 3. The Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That This Is The Third Round Of Appeal Before The Tribunal. He Submitted That In The First Round Of Appeal, The Tribunal In Ita No. 6491/Del/2014, Order Dated 08.09.2015 Restored The Matter Back To The File Of 2 Amit Pachauri The Cit(A) Observing That The Cit(A) Has Not Adjudicated All The Issues Raised Before Him & Therefore, Directed The Cit(A) To Pass De-Novo Order In Accordance With Law On Merits After Allowing Reasonable Opportunity Of Hearing To Both The Parties.

For Appellant: Sh. Anoop Sharma, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. S. L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148

…umar Chhangia. In my considered opinion for making such an inquiry recourse cannot be taken by the AO to reopening of the concluded assessment. For this I am supported by the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of C. M. Mahadeva Vs CIT (2018) 404 ITR 747 where it was held that Sections 147 & 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are not meant for reopening an already concluded assessment by first issuing notice and then proceeding to investigate to find out if there was any lacuna in the accounts. If such further investigation, by reopening concluded assessment, is permitted, it would give rise to fish…

EPSILON ADVISORS P. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result, penalty appeal of the assessee is allowed and penalty appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1608/BANG/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

For Appellant: Shri S. Parthasarathi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Arvind, Standing Counsel
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271

…garding the reasons recorded by the AO for reopening, he submitted that the same are reproduced by the AO in Para 3 of the assessment order. He placed reliance on a judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of C. M. Mahadeva as reported in 404 ITR 747.He also placed reliance on another judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Chaitanya Properties Pvt. Ltd. as reported in 240 taxman 659. In particular, our attention was drawn to Para 22 of this judgment. Learned DR of the revenue supported the orders of the lower authorities. He also submitted that none of the ju…

EPSILON ADVISORS P. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result, penalty appeal of the assessee is allowed and penalty appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1607/BANG/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

For Appellant: Shri S. Parthasarathi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Arvind, Standing Counsel
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271

…garding the reasons recorded by the AO for reopening, he submitted that the same are reproduced by the AO in Para 3 of the assessment order. He placed reliance on a judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of C. M. Mahadeva as reported in 404 ITR 747.He also placed reliance on another judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Chaitanya Properties Pvt. Ltd. as reported in 240 taxman 659. In particular, our attention was drawn to Para 22 of this judgment. Learned DR of the revenue supported the orders of the lower authorities. He also submitted that none of the ju…

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S EPSILON ADVISORS PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, penalty appeal of the assessee is allowed and penalty appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1600/BANG/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

For Appellant: Shri S. Parthasarathi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Arvind, Standing Counsel
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271

…garding the reasons recorded by the AO for reopening, he submitted that the same are reproduced by the AO in Para 3 of the assessment order. He placed reliance on a judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of C. M. Mahadeva as reported in 404 ITR 747.He also placed reliance on another judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Chaitanya Properties Pvt. Ltd. as reported in 240 taxman 659. In particular, our attention was drawn to Para 22 of this judgment. Learned DR of the revenue supported the orders of the lower authorities. He also submitted that none of the ju…

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S EPSILON ADVISORS PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, penalty appeal of the assessee is allowed and penalty appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1569/BANG/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

For Appellant: Shri S. Parthasarathi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Arvind, Standing Counsel
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271

…garding the reasons recorded by the AO for reopening, he submitted that the same are reproduced by the AO in Para 3 of the assessment order. He placed reliance on a judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of C. M. Mahadeva as reported in 404 ITR 747.He also placed reliance on another judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Chaitanya Properties Pvt. Ltd. as reported in 240 taxman 659. In particular, our attention was drawn to Para 22 of this judgment. Learned DR of the revenue supported the orders of the lower authorities. He also submitted that none of the ju…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. BASANTI HOSIERY PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed and the cross objection of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2147/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Nov 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm ] I.T.A No. 2147/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Dcit, Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Basanti Hosiery Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aadcb 3168 J] (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 98/Kol/2018 (Arising Out Of I.T.A No. 2147/Kol/2017) Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Basanti Hosiery Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aadcb 3168 J] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri C.J. Singh, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Agarwal, Sr. Advocate
Section 133(6)Section 142(3)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

…annot be made for conducting roving enquiries as held by Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of ITO vs. Electrosteel Castings reported in [2003] 264 ITR 410 (Cal) page 427 and the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of M. Mahadeva vs. CIT reported in 404 ITR 747 (Kar)at page 751 paragraph nos. 12 and 13. In our view this is not the case of the assessing officer involving in roving and fishing enquiries. The case law cited do not apply to the facts of this case. Mr. Agarwal has objected to the use of the word “some” of the group companies and “some” of the jamakharchi companies and submitted that the reas…

DCIT CIR 6(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. KARGWAL CONSTRUCTION P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and the cross- objection by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 7108/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Acit Cir-6(3)(2), Room No. M/S Kargwal 522, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, 107, First Floor, Mumbai-400020. Runwal Omkar Esquare, Off Eastern Exp. Highway, Sion, Mumbai-400022 Pan No. Aadck1853D Appellant Respondent Co No. 75/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 7108/Mum/2016) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Kargwal Construction Acit Cir-6(3)(2), Pvt. Ltd. 107, First Floor, Room No. 522, 5Th Vs. Runwal Omkar Esquare, Off Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Eastern Exp. Highway, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Mumbai-400022 400020. Pan No. Aadck1853D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Dharmesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Mr. M. Naveen, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…(Guj.), (v) Gas & Power Investments Co. Ltd. v. ITO [ITA No. 1118/Mum/2014] dated M/s Kargwal Construction 5 ITA No. 7108/Mum/2016 & CO No. 75/Mum/2018 05.02.2016 (Mum-Trib), (vi) German Remedies Ltd. v. DCIT [285 ITR 26] (Bom.), (vii) C.M. Mahadeva v. CIT [404 ITR 747] (Karn.), (viii) CIT v. Maniben Valji Shah [283 ITR 453] (Bom.), (ix) CIT v. Batra Bhatta Company [220 CTR 531] (Del.), (x) Krupesh Ghanshyambhai Thakkar v. DCIT [77 taxmann.com 293] (Guj.), (xi) Khubchandani Healthparks Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO & Ors [384 ITR 322] (Bom.), (xii) Vodafone India Services Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors [368 ITR 1] (Bom.). Rel…