Maxpak Investments Ltd. v. Asst. CIT

13 SOT 67Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2007#22473 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2019.

Judgments citing Maxpak Investments Ltd. v. Asst. CIT

SMT. SHARDABEN B. PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-5,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1026/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R

Section 143(3)Section 263

…ow: “9. In the case of Synergy Enterprises Solutions Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT (ITA No 2076/Mum/2010; order dated 31" March 2011], a coordinate bench had an occasion to deal with a materially identical situation. As held in this decision, following Maxpack Investments 13 SOT 67 (Del), G.K. Kabra 211 ITR 336 (AP) and Jagadhri Electric Supply 140 ITR 490 (P&H), if a ground of revision is not mentioned in the show-cause notice, it cannot be made the basis of the order for the reason that the assessee would have had no opportunity to meet the point . While learned Departmental Representative does not dispute this position and…

M/S TIRUPATI CONSTRUCTION,HOOGHLY vs. CIT-XX, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1186/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2016AY 2009-2010

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri S.M Surana, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: None appeared

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 194C(3)Section 194ISection 263Section 40

…its of UTI, 1964, etc., as per details discussed hereinbefore ; and (ii) with regard to the dividend income on such units of UTI as discussed and decided in earlier paragraphs of this order.” • In the case of Maxpak Investment Ltd Vs. ACIT reported in (2007) 13 SOT 67(Delhi), wherein it has been held: “………..CIT v. G.K. Kabra [1995] 211 ITR 336 the Andhra Pradesh High Court was dealing with an _ - n seeking reference 'under section 256(2), inter alia, of the following question: “Whether , on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the commissi…

VANDANA SHARAD DHAKTODE,THANE vs. CIT I, THANE

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

ITA 3363/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Pawan Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3363/Mum/2014 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year:2009-10) Smt.Vandana Sharad Dhaktode, बनाम/ Commissioner Of Income Tax-I 101, Sharayu, Thane. Vs. Old Ayre Road, Dombivali (E), Dist. Thane-421201 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

…bunal in the case of B.S.Sangwan (supra), which had followed the decision rendered by other benches of Tribunal in the case of Synergy Entrepreneur Solutions (P) Ltd (2011)(46 SOT 111)(Delhi) and also in the case of Maxpak Investments Ltd Vs. Asst. CIT (2003)(13 SOT 67)(Delhi). Hence the revision order is liable to be quashed on this ground alone. 7. A casual perusal of the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act would show that the AO “may” direct that the assessee shall pay by way of penalty….. The use of word “May” gives discretion to the AO not to initiate penalty proceedings. Hence, the Commissioner, und…