OHM Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

351 ITR 443High Court2013#12673 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2023.

Read the full judgment

Judgments citing OHM Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

Eci Engineering & Construction Company Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2), Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 968/HYD/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 May 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2006-07 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Eci Engineering & Income Tax, Construction Co., Ltd., Circle 17(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita 968/Hyd/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 M/S. Eci Engineering & Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Construction Co., Ltd., Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy. Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.05.2023 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Respectively, Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 5, Hyderabad Dated 30.03.2016 For The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The Abridged Grounds Raised By The Assessee In Ita No.968/Hyd/2016 Read As Under : “1. The Order Of Ld.Cit(A) - 5 Is Erroneous In Law In Facts & In Law. 2. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Decision Of The Ld.Ao In Treating Sale Of Partly Paid Up Shares As Fully Paid & Confirming The Addition Of Rs.50,14,625/- As Long Term Capital Gain. 3. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.27,69,422/- Towards Difference In Interest. 4. Further, The Ld.Cit(A) Failed To Observe That The Notes To Financial Statements Clearly Mentioned The Interest Income Which Pertained To The Previous Year & Accordingly Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Ld.Ao In Assessing The Difference In Interest Of Rs.27,69,422/-. 5. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Difference Of Prior Period Income Of Rs.1,26,71,371/-.”

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40

…Primary . Dealership Ltd. (348 ITR 299) (SC) iv. Ganga Saran & Sons (P.) Ltd. v. ITO 1 [(1981) 130 ITR 1] (SC) v. Kohinoor Hatcheries (P.) 1 Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [2016] 76 taxmann.com 150 (AP.HC) vi. OHM Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. v. 1 CIT (351 ITR 443) (bom.HC) vii. Runwal Realty (P.) Ltd.v.DCIT 1 (107 taxmann.com 284) (bom.HC) viii. Arvind Remedies (378 ITR 547) (Mad.HC) ix. Indian Bank(63 taxmann.com 145)(Mad HC) x. Godrej Agrovet Ltd. v. DCIT[2015] 56 taxmann.com 141(Bom.HC) xi. Paladiya Brothers & CO.v.ACIT[2015] 61 tamxann.com 26(Guj.) xii. NTPC Ltd. DCIT[2013] 32 taxmann.com 343 (Del.) x…

DCIT, Circle-17(1), Hyd, Hyderabad vs. Eci Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 930/HYD/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 May 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2006-07 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Eci Engineering & Income Tax, Construction Co., Ltd., Circle 17(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita 968/Hyd/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 M/S. Eci Engineering & Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Construction Co., Ltd., Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy. Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.05.2023 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Respectively, Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 5, Hyderabad Dated 30.03.2016 For The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The Abridged Grounds Raised By The Assessee In Ita No.968/Hyd/2016 Read As Under : “1. The Order Of Ld.Cit(A) - 5 Is Erroneous In Law In Facts & In Law. 2. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Decision Of The Ld.Ao In Treating Sale Of Partly Paid Up Shares As Fully Paid & Confirming The Addition Of Rs.50,14,625/- As Long Term Capital Gain. 3. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.27,69,422/- Towards Difference In Interest. 4. Further, The Ld.Cit(A) Failed To Observe That The Notes To Financial Statements Clearly Mentioned The Interest Income Which Pertained To The Previous Year & Accordingly Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Ld.Ao In Assessing The Difference In Interest Of Rs.27,69,422/-. 5. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Difference Of Prior Period Income Of Rs.1,26,71,371/-.”

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40

…Primary . Dealership Ltd. (348 ITR 299) (SC) iv. Ganga Saran & Sons (P.) Ltd. v. ITO 1 [(1981) 130 ITR 1] (SC) v. Kohinoor Hatcheries (P.) 1 Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [2016] 76 taxmann.com 150 (AP.HC) vi. OHM Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. v. 1 CIT (351 ITR 443) (bom.HC) vii. Runwal Realty (P.) Ltd.v.DCIT 1 (107 taxmann.com 284) (bom.HC) viii. Arvind Remedies (378 ITR 547) (Mad.HC) ix. Indian Bank(63 taxmann.com 145)(Mad HC) x. Godrej Agrovet Ltd. v. DCIT[2015] 56 taxmann.com 141(Bom.HC) xi. Paladiya Brothers & CO.v.ACIT[2015] 61 tamxann.com 26(Guj.) xii. NTPC Ltd. DCIT[2013] 32 taxmann.com 343 (Del.) x…

Gmr Air Cargo & Aerospace Engineering Ltd(Successor to Gmr Hyderabad Air Cargo & Logistics Pvt Ltd), Shamshabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 183/HYD/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 Gmr Air Cargo & Vs. Ito,Ward-2(3) Aerospace Engineering Signature Towers Ltd.(Successor To Gmr Kondapur, Kothaguda Hyderabad Air Cargo & Opp. Botanical Gardens Logistics Pvt Ltd.) R.R.District Rajiv Gandhi International Hyderabad-500 084 Airport, Samshabad Hyderabad-500 409

For Appellant: Shri K.C.DevdasFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, Sr.AR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 37

…Primary . Dealership Ltd. (348 ITR 299) (SC) iv. Ganga Saran & Sons (P.) Ltd. v. ITO 1 [(1981) 130 ITR 1] (SC) v. Kohinoor Hatcheries (P.) 1 Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [2016] 76 taxmann.com 150 (AP.HC) vi. OHM Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. v. 1 CIT (351 ITR 443) (bom.HC) vii. Runwal Realty (P.) Ltd.v.DCIT 1 (107 taxmann.com 284) (bom.HC) viii. Arvind Remedies (378 ITR 547) (Mad.HC) ix. Indian Bank(63 taxmann.com 145)(Mad HC) x. Godrej Agrovet Ltd. v. DCIT[2015] 56 taxmann.com 141(Bom.HC) xi. Paladiya Brothers & CO.v.ACIT[2015] 61 tamxann.com 26(Guj.) xii. NTPC Ltd. DCIT[2013] 32 taxmann.com 343 (Del.) x…

M/S. Vaibhav Global (Gems) Ltd., Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-5, Jaipur

In the result, appeals for the A

ITA 1348/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Aug 2020AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma &For Respondent: Shri K.C. Gupta (JCIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149

…e is no failure on the part of assessee to furnish fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of OHM Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT (2013) 351 ITR 443 (Bom) as well as decision of this Tribunal dated 17/12/2019 in the case of M/s Zari Silk India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT in ITA No. 1103/JP/2019. The ld. AR has also relied upon series of decisions of the Hon’ble High Court as well as Supreme Court on the point that the A.O. has no power to exercise U/s 147 of the Act to review its own decision when ther…

M/S. Vaibhav Global (Gems) Ltd., Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-5, Jaipur

In the result, appeals for the A

ITA 1347/JPR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Aug 2020AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma &For Respondent: Shri K.C. Gupta (JCIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149

…e is no failure on the part of assessee to furnish fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of OHM Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT (2013) 351 ITR 443 (Bom) as well as decision of this Tribunal dated 17/12/2019 in the case of M/s Zari Silk India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT in ITA No. 1103/JP/2019. The ld. AR has also relied upon series of decisions of the Hon’ble High Court as well as Supreme Court on the point that the A.O. has no power to exercise U/s 147 of the Act to review its own decision when ther…

M/S. Vaibhav Global (Gems) Ltd., Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-5, Jaipur

In the result, appeals for the A

ITA 1346/JPR/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Aug 2020AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma &For Respondent: Shri K.C. Gupta (JCIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149

…e is no failure on the part of assessee to furnish fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of OHM Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT (2013) 351 ITR 443 (Bom) as well as decision of this Tribunal dated 17/12/2019 in the case of M/s Zari Silk India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT in ITA No. 1103/JP/2019. The ld. AR has also relied upon series of decisions of the Hon’ble High Court as well as Supreme Court on the point that the A.O. has no power to exercise U/s 147 of the Act to review its own decision when ther…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Kota vs. M/S Shiv Vegpro Pvt. Ltd., Kota

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 739/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jul 2020AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

…of assessment under section 143(3) of the Act. On this short count alone the impugned notice is liable to be quashed and set aside.” 31 M/s. Shiv Vegpro Pvt. Ltd., Kota. Further, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of OHM Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, 351 ITR 443 (Bom.) has held in para 7 to 9 as under :- 7. Under the proviso to Section 147, where an assessment has been completed under Section 143(3), the validity of a reopening beyond four years of the end of the relevant year is pre conditioned by the requirement that there is a failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose material f…

DCIT 14(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Idea Cellular Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4395/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhdcit-14(2)(1) M/S Idea Cellular Ltd. 432, 4Th Floor, (Successor To M/S. Spice Communications Ltd.), 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. M.K. Road, East Wing, Windsor Off. Cst Mumbai 400020 Road, Kalina, Near Vidya Nagari, Kalina, Santacruz (West), Mumbai 400 098 Pan – Aagcs6070H Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Ms. Pooja Swaroop With Shri M.K. Singh (Dr) Respondent By : Ms. Krupa Gandhi With Vidhi Doshi (Ar)

For Appellant: Ms. Pooja Swaroop with Shri M.K. Singh (DR)For Respondent: Ms. Krupa Gandhi with Vidhi Doshi (AR)
Section 127Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 254(1)Section 37

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER DCIT-14(2)(1) M/s Idea Cellular Ltd. 432, 4th Floor, (Successor to M/s. Spice Communications Ltd.), 5th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. M.K. Road, East Wing, Windsor Off. CST Mumbai 400020 Road, Kalina, Near Vidya Nagari, Kalina, Santacruz (West), Mumbai 400 098 PAN – AAGCS6070H Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Ms. Pooja Swaroop with Shri M.K. Singh (DR) Respondent by : Ms. Krupa Gandhi with Vidhi Doshi (AR) Date of Hearing : 05.09.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 18.09.2019 ORDERUNDE…

OHM Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (351 ITR 443) — Cited in 8 Judgments | BharatTax