P.V. Doshi v. CIT

113 ITR 22High Court1978#536 most cited

What is P.V. Doshi v. CIT authority for?

The lack of jurisdiction to initiate reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148 cannot be waived and can be challenged at a later stage, even if not raised initially. An invalid reassessment due to such jurisdictional defects cannot sustain subsequent penalty proceedings.

179

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2026.

Also referred to as

P.V. Doshi v. CIT · 113 ITR 22 · jurisdiction reassessment · section 147 · section 148 · waiver of jurisdiction · challenge jurisdiction later stage · invalid assessment · penalty proceedings · section 271D · reopening of assessment · Gujarat High Court

Sections most often in play

Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 10(38)Section 115BBESection 127(2)(b)

Issues it is cited on

section 2(7)section 120(4)(b)section 120(1)section 163section 2(7a)section 115jasection 120section 16mere change of opinionsection 156section 127interest under section 234b

Judgments citing P.V. Doshi v. CIT

DDIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Worldspan L.P. Usa, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue ITA No

ITA 6500/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri K. N Chary

For Appellant: Shri Kanchan Kaushal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR
Section 260ASection 9(1)(i)

…e find that the date of assessment order is in the body of the assessment order itself and, therefore, the evidentiary facts are very much available on record. 22. Similar view was taken by the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of P.V. Doshi Vs. CIT 113 ITR 22. The relevant findings of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat read as under: “16. Even the alternative ground of finality of this order of the Tribunal suffers from the same infirmity, as the Tribunal has failed to notice this material distinction between a mere procedural provision which could be waived and such jurisdictional provision or a manda…

DDIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Worldspan L.P. Usa, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue ITA No

ITA 6499/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri K. N Chary

For Appellant: Shri Kanchan Kaushal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR
Section 260ASection 9(1)(i)

…e find that the date of assessment order is in the body of the assessment order itself and, therefore, the evidentiary facts are very much available on record. 22. Similar view was taken by the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of P.V. Doshi Vs. CIT 113 ITR 22. The relevant findings of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat read as under: “16. Even the alternative ground of finality of this order of the Tribunal suffers from the same infirmity, as the Tribunal has failed to notice this material distinction between a mere procedural provision which could be waived and such jurisdictional provision or a manda…

DDIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Travelport L.P. Usa, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue ITA No

ITA 1480/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri K. N Chary

For Appellant: Shri Kanchan Kaushal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR
Section 260ASection 9(1)(i)

…e find that the date of assessment order is in the body of the assessment order itself and, therefore, the evidentiary facts are very much available on record. 22. Similar view was taken by the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of P.V. Doshi Vs. CIT 113 ITR 22. The relevant findings of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat read as under: “16. Even the alternative ground of finality of this order of the Tribunal suffers from the same infirmity, as the Tribunal has failed to notice this material distinction between a mere procedural provision which could be waived and such jurisdictional provision or a manda…

Income Tax 11(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Sonu Synthetic Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is also dismissed

ITA 5291/MUM/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2006-07 Income Tax Officer – M/S. Sonu Synthetics 11(2)(3), Ltd., Room No.425, 131/B, Sanjay Bldg. Aayakar Bhavan, No.6, Vs. M.K. Road, Mittal Indl. Estate, Mumbai - 400020 Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri East, Mumbai – 400 059 Pan: Aadcs5012J (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.42/M/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.5291/M/2017) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Income Tax Officer – M/S. Sonu Synthetics 11(2)(3), Ltd., Room No.425, 131/B, Sanjay Bldg. Aayakar Bhavan, No.6, Vs. M.K. Road, Mittal Indl. Estate, Mumbai - 400020 Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri East, Mumbai – 400 059 Pan: Aadcs5012J (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Dharmesh Shah, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Sandeep Raj, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 22.09.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.10.2020 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar: The Above Titled Appeal By The Revenue & Cross Objection By The Assessee Have Been Preferred Against The Order Dated

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Raj, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 254

…said that the appellant was not entitled to challenge the issue of the reopening before the AO now . In any case, the appellant has relied upon the decision in the case of Inventors Industrial Corporation Ltd. v/s CIT 194 ITR 548 (Bom.) and P.V.Doshi v/s. CIT 113 ITR 22 (Guj.) wherein it has been held that there cannot be any waiver to examine validity of the jurisdiction of the Assessing, an assessee is entitled to raise the jurisdictional issue at any stage. Hence, even the appellant is entitled to challenge the reopening is held in the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble High Courts. Before me , the appellant h…

Smt. Rashmi Jalan, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T.Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 326/KOL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Sept 2020AY 2013-14
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271ASection 274

…relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of P.V. Doshi Vs. CIT (Guj) reported in (1978) 113 ITR 22 (Guj) reported in (1978) 113 ITR 22 (Guj). 8. We have heard rival contentions. On careful consideration of the facts and We have heard rival contentions. On careful consideration of the facts and We have heard rival contentions. On careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, perusal of the papers on record, orders of the aut…

Addl CIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. Tata Sons Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 4893/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji, ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, CIT-DR
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…iate reference in this regard can be made on the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Inventors Industrial Corporation Limited Vs. CIT 194 ITR 548 (Bombay). Similar view was taken by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of P.V. Doshi Vs. CIT 113 ITR 22 (Gui). Recently Hon'ble Delhi High Court handled a similar situation in the case of Valvoline Cummins Ltd 307 ITR 103 (Del) wherein challenge was made to the jurisdiction of Additional Commissioner of Income Tax who had passed the assessment order. It was contended on behalf of the Revenue that challenge of jurisdiction must be made within the sti…

Tata Sons Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl.C.I.T. 2(3), Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 4543/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji, ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, CIT-DR
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…iate reference in this regard can be made on the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Inventors Industrial Corporation Limited Vs. CIT 194 ITR 548 (Bombay). Similar view was taken by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of P.V. Doshi Vs. CIT 113 ITR 22 (Gui). Recently Hon'ble Delhi High Court handled a similar situation in the case of Valvoline Cummins Ltd 307 ITR 103 (Del) wherein challenge was made to the jurisdiction of Additional Commissioner of Income Tax who had passed the assessment order. It was contended on behalf of the Revenue that challenge of jurisdiction must be made within the sti…

Snowhill Agencies Pvt. Ltd (Merged With Gallops Motors P. Ltd), Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-2, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1775/AHD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1775/Ahd/2019 Asstt.Year : 2012-13 Snowhill Agencies P.Ltd. Pr.Cit, Kolkata-4 (Merged With Gallops Motors P.Ltd.) Vs Pr.Cit-2, Survey No.220P Ahmedabad) Nr.Amin Jcb Equipments S.G. Highway Sarkhej, Ahmedabad. Pan: Aaqcs 1535 F (Snowhill) Pan: Aaccg 2492 F)(Gallops)

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…issioner having jurisdiction over Gallops for taking any action under section 263 of the Act, if any such ground is available. It is pertinent to observe that long back on 3.8.1977, Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of PV Doshi vs. CIT reported in 113 ITR 22 has observed that consent will not infuse jurisdiction in an authority. In other words, if an assessee gave consent for assumption of jurisdiction in the AO in passing an assessment order to Commissioner for exercising power under section 263 then also such jurisdiction will not be construed as valid jurisdiction. Jurisdiction deserves to be flowe…

Addl CIT 1(3), Mumbai vs. Tata Communications Ltd ( Formerly Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4452/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am Additional Commissioner Vs. M/S. Tata Communications Of Income Tax, Range – Limited (Formerly Known As 1(3) Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited) Mumbai Videsh Sanchar Bhavan Room No.540/564, 5 Th M.G.Road, Fort Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 001 Maharshi Karve Road, New Marine Linmes Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaacv2808C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & M/S. Tata Communications Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly Known As Income Tax, Range – 1(3) Videsh Sanchar Nigam Mumbai Limited) Room No.540, Aayakar Videsh Sanchar Bhavan Bhavan, Maharshi Karve M.G.Road, Fort Road Mumbai – 400 001 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaacv2808C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) M/S. Tata Communications Ltd.

Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(3)Section 263

…iate reference in this regard can be made on the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Inventors Industrial Corporation Limited Vs. CIT 194 ITR 548 (Bombay). Similar view was taken by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of P.V. Doshi Vs. CIT 113 ITR 22 (Gui). Recently Hon'ble Delhi High Court handled a similar situation in the case of Valvoline Cummins Ltd 307 ITR 103 (Del) wherein challenge was made to the jurisdiction of Additional Commissioner of Income Tax who had passed the assessment order. It was contended on behalf of the Revenue that challenge of jurisdiction must be made within the sti…

Hukam Singh, Rewari vs. ITO, Ward-1, Rewari

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the respective assesses are allowed

ITA 375/DEL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Nov 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr. DR
Section 54F

…act, he had casually observed that the proceedings under section 148 of the Act had been validly initiated but, wrongly applied the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sun Engineering Works P. Ltd. (supra). "In the case of P. V. Doshi [1978J 113 ITR 22 this High Court in almost identical fact situation held that the conditions prescribed for initiating reassessment proceedings are mandatory and, therefore, there could never be a waiver of a mandatory provision. That jurisdiction could not be conferred on the authority by mere consent, but only on fulfillment on the conditions precedent for the e…

Essar Shipping Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 5, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

ITA 3156/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Blem/S. Essar Shipping Limited V. Pr. Cit-5 Essar House, 11, K.K. Marg Room No. 501 Mahalaxmi, Mumbai – 400 034 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400 020 Pan: Aacce3707D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta Department By : Shri D.G. Pansari

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri D.G. Pansari
Section 143(1)Section 144C(1)Section 263Section 92C

…as put into operation was that jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent or agreement where it did not exist, nor can the lack of jurisdiction be waived. 8.6. These judgments were subsequently noticed by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of P. V. Doshi 113 ITR 22(Gujrat). This case arose under the Income Tax Act with reference to the provisions of Section 147 dealing with re- assessment. The facts were that the assessment was sought to be reopened under Section 147 and notice under section 148 was issued. Validity of reopening was not challenged upto Tribunal and additions were challenged on merits only. T…

Sabras Investment & Trading Co. Ltd ( Now Merged With Tata Chemicals Ltd), Mumbai vs. ACIT 2(2), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 872/MUM/2013[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2019AY 1999-00

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 915/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 916/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 917/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 918/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 869/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 870/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 871/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 872/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi &For Respondent: Shri R Manjunatha Swamy, DR
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(3)

…iate reference in this regard can be made on the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Inventors Industrial Corporation Limited Vs. CIT 194 ITR 548 (Bombay). Similar view was taken by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of P.V. Doshi Vs. CIT 113 ITR 22 (Gui). Recently Hon'ble Delhi High Court handled a similar situation in the case of Valvoline Cummins Ltd 307 ITR 103 (Del) wherein challenge was made to the jurisdiction of Additional Commissioner of Income Tax who had passed the assessment order. It was contended on behalf of the Revenue that challenge of jurisdiction must be made within the sti…

Sabras Investment & Trading Co. Ltd ( Now Merged With Tata Chemicals Ltd), Mumbai vs. JCIT Sp RG, 1, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 871/MUM/2013[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2019AY 1998-99

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 915/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 916/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 917/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 918/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 869/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 870/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 871/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 872/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi &For Respondent: Shri R Manjunatha Swamy, DR
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(3)

…iate reference in this regard can be made on the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Inventors Industrial Corporation Limited Vs. CIT 194 ITR 548 (Bombay). Similar view was taken by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of P.V. Doshi Vs. CIT 113 ITR 22 (Gui). Recently Hon'ble Delhi High Court handled a similar situation in the case of Valvoline Cummins Ltd 307 ITR 103 (Del) wherein challenge was made to the jurisdiction of Additional Commissioner of Income Tax who had passed the assessment order. It was contended on behalf of the Revenue that challenge of jurisdiction must be made within the sti…

Sabras Investment & Trading Co. Ltd ( Now Merged With Tata Chemicals Ltd), Mumbai vs. JCIT Sp RG, 1, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 870/MUM/2013[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2019AY 1997-98

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 915/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 916/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 917/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 918/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 869/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 870/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 871/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 872/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi &For Respondent: Shri R Manjunatha Swamy, DR
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(3)

…iate reference in this regard can be made on the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Inventors Industrial Corporation Limited Vs. CIT 194 ITR 548 (Bombay). Similar view was taken by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of P.V. Doshi Vs. CIT 113 ITR 22 (Gui). Recently Hon'ble Delhi High Court handled a similar situation in the case of Valvoline Cummins Ltd 307 ITR 103 (Del) wherein challenge was made to the jurisdiction of Additional Commissioner of Income Tax who had passed the assessment order. It was contended on behalf of the Revenue that challenge of jurisdiction must be made within the sti…

Sabras Investment & Trading P.Ltd ( Now Merged With Tata Chemicals Ltd), Mumbai vs. JCIT Sp RG, 1, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 869/MUM/2013[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2019AY 1996-97

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 915/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 916/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 917/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 918/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 869/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 870/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 871/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 872/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi &For Respondent: Shri R Manjunatha Swamy, DR
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(3)

…iate reference in this regard can be made on the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Inventors Industrial Corporation Limited Vs. CIT 194 ITR 548 (Bombay). Similar view was taken by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of P.V. Doshi Vs. CIT 113 ITR 22 (Gui). Recently Hon'ble Delhi High Court handled a similar situation in the case of Valvoline Cummins Ltd 307 ITR 103 (Del) wherein challenge was made to the jurisdiction of Additional Commissioner of Income Tax who had passed the assessment order. It was contended on behalf of the Revenue that challenge of jurisdiction must be made within the sti…

Sabras Investment & Trading Co. Ltd ( Now Merged With Tata Chemical Ltd), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 2(2), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 918/MUM/2012[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2019AY 1999-00

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 915/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 916/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 917/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 918/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 869/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 870/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 871/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 872/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi &For Respondent: Shri R Manjunatha Swamy, DR
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(3)

…iate reference in this regard can be made on the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Inventors Industrial Corporation Limited Vs. CIT 194 ITR 548 (Bombay). Similar view was taken by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of P.V. Doshi Vs. CIT 113 ITR 22 (Gui). Recently Hon'ble Delhi High Court handled a similar situation in the case of Valvoline Cummins Ltd 307 ITR 103 (Del) wherein challenge was made to the jurisdiction of Additional Commissioner of Income Tax who had passed the assessment order. It was contended on behalf of the Revenue that challenge of jurisdiction must be made within the sti…

Addl CIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. Tata Sons Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 5572/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri G. Manjunatha, Am Tata Sons Limited Vs. Addl.Cit-2(3) Bombay House Room No.556 Homi Mody Street Aaykar Bhawan Mumbai-400 001 M.K.Road Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaact4060A Appellant) .. Respondent) & Addl.Cit-2(3) Vs. Tata Sons Limited Room No.552, 5Th Floor Bombay House Aaykar Bhawan Homi Mody Street M.K.Road Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaact4060A Appellant) .. Respondent) Assessee By Aarti Vissanji Revenue By R.Manjunatha Swamy

Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…ate reference in this regard can be made on the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Inventors Industrial Corporation Limited Vs. CIT 19 4 ITR 548 (Bombay). Similar view was taken by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of P.V. Doshi Vs. CIT 113 ITR 22 (Guj) . Recently Hon’ble Delhi High Court handled a similar situation in the case of Valvoline Cummins Ltd 307 ITR 103 (Del) wherein challenge was made to the jurisdiction of Additional Commissioner of Income Tax who had passed the assessment order. It was contended on behalf of the Revenue that challenge of jurisdiction must be made within the st…

Tata Sons Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 2(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5090/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri G. Manjunatha, Am Tata Sons Limited Vs. Addl.Cit-2(3) Bombay House Room No.556 Homi Mody Street Aaykar Bhawan Mumbai-400 001 M.K.Road Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaact4060A Appellant) .. Respondent) & Addl.Cit-2(3) Vs. Tata Sons Limited Room No.552, 5Th Floor Bombay House Aaykar Bhawan Homi Mody Street M.K.Road Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaact4060A Appellant) .. Respondent) Assessee By Aarti Vissanji Revenue By R.Manjunatha Swamy

Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…ate reference in this regard can be made on the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Inventors Industrial Corporation Limited Vs. CIT 19 4 ITR 548 (Bombay). Similar view was taken by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of P.V. Doshi Vs. CIT 113 ITR 22 (Guj) . Recently Hon’ble Delhi High Court handled a similar situation in the case of Valvoline Cummins Ltd 307 ITR 103 (Del) wherein challenge was made to the jurisdiction of Additional Commissioner of Income Tax who had passed the assessment order. It was contended on behalf of the Revenue that challenge of jurisdiction must be made within the st…

Smt. Pragnaben N. Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 411/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Jul 2019AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Tushar P. Hemani, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Somogyan Pal, Sr.DR
Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)Section 37(1)Section 57

…the fact that the disallowance was agreed by the assessee before the authorities below. In this regard we find support Page 6 of 7 Asstt. Year 2012-13 and guidance from the judgement of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of PV Doshi Vs. CIT reported in 113 ITR 22 wherein it was held as under: The question framed before the Hon’ble Court reads as under: (3) Whether, on the facts, the assessee was justified at this late stage in re-agitating the matter whether the case was rightly reopened (which is purely a legal matter going to the very root of the jurisdiction), after having raised and not pressed the po…

Rina S. Mehta, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3120/MUM/2015[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2019AY 1995-96

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 1995-96

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. P. Daniel, (Spl. Counsel for Deptt.)
Section 144Section 147Section 234ASection 234B

…the Ld. CIT(A), it would not preclude the assessee from raising the ground before the Tribunal. The Ld. A.R. relied on a couple of decisions namely; 4 Rina S. Mehta (i) Inventors Industrial Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT (194 ITR 548) (ii) P.V. Doshi vs. CIT (1978)113 ITR 22. 8. The Ld. Counsel submitted that in both these decisions it has been held that even though the issue is not pressed before the Ld. CIT(A) during appellate proceedings regarding the validity of reassessment proceedings, the same can be raised before the Tribunal. 9. After hearing both the parties and perusing the material on record, we observe t…