P.R. Mukerjee v. CIT

30 ITR 555Reported decision#24359 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2017.

Judgments citing P.R. Mukerjee v. CIT

Gigaplex Estate P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT OSD II Cen RG 7, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1137/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Arvind SondeFor Respondent: Shri Alok Joshi
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…e knowledge of the assessee. The ld AR submitted that a fact which came into being after the assessment can not be a materials fact that ought to have been disclosed by the assessee and he cited a series of decisions in support namely (i) P.R. Mukerjee Vs CIT 30 ITR 555 Cal, (ii) RAi Singh Dev Singh Bist and Others Vs UOI and Others77 ITR 802 Delhi, (iii) ITO Vs Calcutta Chromotype Pvt Ltd 97 ITR 55 (Cal), (iv) CIT Vs Akbarali Jummabhai 198 ITR 69 Guj, (v) CIT Vs Satya Narayan Lohia 204 ITR 894(Cal). The ld AR contended that the assessment can only be re- opened u/s 147 of the Act after lapse of four years from t…

Gigaplex Estate P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT OSD II Cen RG 7, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1133/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Arvind SondeFor Respondent: Shri Alok Joshi
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…e knowledge of the assessee. The ld AR submitted that a fact which came into being after the assessment can not be a materials fact that ought to have been disclosed by the assessee and he cited a series of decisions in support namely (i) P.R. Mukerjee Vs CIT 30 ITR 555 Cal, (ii) RAi Singh Dev Singh Bist and Others Vs UOI and Others77 ITR 802 Delhi, (iii) ITO Vs Calcutta Chromotype Pvt Ltd 97 ITR 55 (Cal), (iv) CIT Vs Akbarali Jummabhai 198 ITR 69 Guj, (v) CIT Vs Satya Narayan Lohia 204 ITR 894(Cal). The ld AR contended that the assessment can only be re- opened u/s 147 of the Act after lapse of four years from t…

Gigaplex Estate P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT OSD II Cen RG 7, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1132/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Arvind SondeFor Respondent: Shri Alok Joshi
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…e knowledge of the assessee. The ld AR submitted that a fact which came into being after the assessment can not be a materials fact that ought to have been disclosed by the assessee and he cited a series of decisions in support namely (i) P.R. Mukerjee Vs CIT 30 ITR 555 Cal, (ii) RAi Singh Dev Singh Bist and Others Vs UOI and Others77 ITR 802 Delhi, (iii) ITO Vs Calcutta Chromotype Pvt Ltd 97 ITR 55 (Cal), (iv) CIT Vs Akbarali Jummabhai 198 ITR 69 Guj, (v) CIT Vs Satya Narayan Lohia 204 ITR 894(Cal). The ld AR contended that the assessment can only be re- opened u/s 147 of the Act after lapse of four years from t…

P.R. Mukerjee v. CIT (30 ITR 555) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax