N.S. Dhingra v. CIT

90 ITR 110High Court1973#21698 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2017.

Judgments citing N.S. Dhingra v. CIT

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. ASHOK MITTAL, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed, the

ITA 3743/DEL/2013[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2017AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2001-02 Shri Ashok Mittal, Ito, Ward- 24(3), 42, Sainik Farms, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan : Aaspm6882C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2001-02 Acit, Circle- 24(1), Shri Ashok Mittal, New Delhi. Vs. 42, Sainik Farms, New Delhi. Pan : Aaspm6882C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R. C. Dande, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)

…is admitted. This is despite the noting on 30.3.2006 on the order sheet that any PA No. found wrong or where the PA No. is not furnished, addition would be made. It is settled law that consent does not confer jurisdiction as held in N.S. Dhingra v CIT (1973) 90 ITR 110 (Delhi), Hira Lal patni Kali v Kali Nath AIR 1962 SC 199 etc. The very fact that the assessee is in appeal fortifies this aspect. “21. In the submission as given above, it is evident that the assessee has written off the amount of Rs.48,45,000/- in the case of M/s. Oson Construction Pvt. Ltd. This is an un-disputed fact. The additional evidence as…

SH. ASHOK MITTAL,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed, the

ITA 3307/DEL/2013[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2017AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2001-02 Shri Ashok Mittal, Ito, Ward- 24(3), 42, Sainik Farms, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan : Aaspm6882C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2001-02 Acit, Circle- 24(1), Shri Ashok Mittal, New Delhi. Vs. 42, Sainik Farms, New Delhi. Pan : Aaspm6882C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R. C. Dande, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)

…is admitted. This is despite the noting on 30.3.2006 on the order sheet that any PA No. found wrong or where the PA No. is not furnished, addition would be made. It is settled law that consent does not confer jurisdiction as held in N.S. Dhingra v CIT (1973) 90 ITR 110 (Delhi), Hira Lal patni Kali v Kali Nath AIR 1962 SC 199 etc. The very fact that the assessee is in appeal fortifies this aspect. “21. In the submission as given above, it is evident that the assessee has written off the amount of Rs.48,45,000/- in the case of M/s. Oson Construction Pvt. Ltd. This is an un-disputed fact. The additional evidence as…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ASHOK MITTAL, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed, the

ITA 2997/DEL/2009[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2017AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2001-02 Shri Ashok Mittal, Ito, Ward- 24(3), 42, Sainik Farms, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan : Aaspm6882C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2001-02 Acit, Circle- 24(1), Shri Ashok Mittal, New Delhi. Vs. 42, Sainik Farms, New Delhi. Pan : Aaspm6882C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R. C. Dande, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)

…is admitted. This is despite the noting on 30.3.2006 on the order sheet that any PA No. found wrong or where the PA No. is not furnished, addition would be made. It is settled law that consent does not confer jurisdiction as held in N.S. Dhingra v CIT (1973) 90 ITR 110 (Delhi), Hira Lal patni Kali v Kali Nath AIR 1962 SC 199 etc. The very fact that the assessee is in appeal fortifies this aspect. “21. In the submission as given above, it is evident that the assessee has written off the amount of Rs.48,45,000/- in the case of M/s. Oson Construction Pvt. Ltd. This is an un-disputed fact. The additional evidence as…

ASHOK MITTAL vs. ITO, WARD-24(3),,

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed, the

ITA 3764/DEL/2004[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2017AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2001-02 Shri Ashok Mittal, Ito, Ward- 24(3), 42, Sainik Farms, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan : Aaspm6882C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2001-02 Acit, Circle- 24(1), Shri Ashok Mittal, New Delhi. Vs. 42, Sainik Farms, New Delhi. Pan : Aaspm6882C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R. C. Dande, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)

…is admitted. This is despite the noting on 30.3.2006 on the order sheet that any PA No. found wrong or where the PA No. is not furnished, addition would be made. It is settled law that consent does not confer jurisdiction as held in N.S. Dhingra v CIT (1973) 90 ITR 110 (Delhi), Hira Lal patni Kali v Kali Nath AIR 1962 SC 199 etc. The very fact that the assessee is in appeal fortifies this aspect. “21. In the submission as given above, it is evident that the assessee has written off the amount of Rs.48,45,000/- in the case of M/s. Oson Construction Pvt. Ltd. This is an un-disputed fact. The additional evidence as…

N.S. Dhingra v. CIT (90 ITR 110) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax