Paul John Delicious Cashew Company v. ITO

94 ITD 131Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2005#16245 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 344,197 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2024.

Issues it is cited on

erroneous and prejudicial section 263 section 26 section 143(2)section 148 section 147 company section 143(3)india total income document interest

Judgments citing Paul John Delicious Cashew Company v. ITO

ITO, Ward-6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Daniel Commodities Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 645/KOL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.645/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito, Ward-6(1), Kolkata………..…….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Daniel Commodities Pvt. Ltd…..........…..........................…..…..... Respondent 6, Lyons Range, Kolkata – 1. [Pan: Aaccd9344F] C.O. 4/Kol/2023 (A/O I.T.A. No.645/Kol/2020) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Daniel Commodities Pvt. Ltd…………….....................…..…..... Cross-Objector 6, Lyons Range, Kolkata – 1. [Pan: Aaccd9344F] Vs Ito, Ward-6(1), Kolkata …………….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 23, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 07, 2024

Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 263

…the assessment order passed under section 147/143(3) was itself illegal and void, Id. CIT(A) was having no justification to invoke jurisdiction under section 263 against such void or non est order. In the case of Paul John, Delicious Cashew Co. v. ITO [2005] 94 ITD 131, the Cochin Bench of the ITAT had considered the similar matter and has observed as under: "9. Section 263 empowers the Commissioner to call for the records and examined of any person and on examining if he I.T.A. No.645/Kol/2020 & C.O. 4/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s Daniel Commodities Pvt. Ltd forms an opinion that the order passed by…

Sunayana Commercial P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -City-3, Mumbai

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

ITA 900/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Promod Kumar ()And Ms. Suchitra Kamble () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sunayana Commercial Pvt. Ltd., Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 609, 6Th Floor, Inizio, Cardial Vs. City-3, Room No. 612, 6Th Floor, Gracious Road, Opp. P & G Plaza, Andheri (East), Aayakarbhavan, Maharshikarve Mumbai-400099. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aajcs 4896 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Prakash Jhunjhunwala, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Harendra Narayan Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 11/01/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/01/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Prakash Jhunjhunwala, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Harendra Narayan Singh, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 263Section 263d

…)] Sunayana Commercial Pvt. Ltd. 5 Gigabyte Technology (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT Tax Appeal No. 77 of 2015 Westlife Development Ltd. v. PCIT-5, 88 taxmann.com 439 (Mum-ITAT) Krishan Kumar Saraf v. CIT ITA No. 4562/Del/2011 Inder Kumar Bachani (HUF) v. ITO 94 ITD 131 (Coch-ITAT) CIT v. Shri Ram Singh (2008) 217 CTR 345 (Rajasthan-HC) CIT v Double Dot Finance Ltd. [2013] 31 taxammn.com 352 (Bom-HC) CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. [2010] 195 Taxman 117 (Bom-HC) 7. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Pr. CIT passed u/s 263. The Ld. DR submitted that the Assessing Officer has not verified the share transactions…

Mikado Realtors (P) Ltd, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT (Central), Gurugram

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 50/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Apr 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Adv. & Shri LalitFor Respondent: Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, CIT-D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153BSection 153CSection 153C(1)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.50/DEL/2021 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Mikado Realtors P. Ltd., vs. Pr. CIT(Central) Office No., 1121-A, Devika Gurugram. Tower, 12th Floor, 6, Nehru Place, New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AAECM7429E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Gautam Jain, Adv. & Shri Lalit Mohan, CA Respondent by: Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, CIT-D.R. Date of hearing: 18 03 2021 Date of pronouncement: 20 04 2021 O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, JM: The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee…

M/S.Baby Memorial Hospital Ltd, Kozhikkode vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1), Kozhikkode

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

ITA 420/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 115JSection 142Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36Section 37(1)

…he Assessing Officer has no power to pass an order on a particular issue, then Pr.CIT also has no power on that issue u/s 263 of the I.T. Act. In this context, the learned AR relied on the order of the Tribunal in the case of Paul John, Delicious Cashew Co. 94 ITD 131 (Cochin Tribunal), which was upheld by the Hon’ble High Court in the case reported in 200 Taxmann 154. In the case of Paul John, Delicious Cashew Co. (supra) considered by the Cochin Bench of the Tribunal, it was held that the completed assessment cannot be reopened by the A.O. It was further held by the Tribunal that if the Assessing Officer…

M/S.Sahyadri Agencies Ltd, Kandnassery, Thrissur vs. The ITO, WD-1(3), Thrissur

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

ITA 439/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Bomi Daruwala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Chandra Poojari, AM & Shri George George K, JM ITA No.439/Coch/2019 : Asst.Year 2014-2015 M/s.Sahyadri Agencies Ltd. The Income Tax Officer Moothedath House Vs. Ward 1(3) Kandanisseri Trichur. Thrissur – 680 102. PAN : AAICS5338J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Bomi Daruwala, Advocate Respondent by : Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR Date of Pronouncement : 05.11.2019 Date of Hearing : 15.10.2019 O R D E R Per George George K, JM This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against CIT’s order dated 29.03.2019 passed u/s 263…

Satya Narain Prakash Punj, New Delhi vs. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3259/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri N.K. Billaiyaassessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 263(2)

…bove reasons, we are of the opinion that no questions of law arise. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.” 4.2 We further find that similar view has been taken by the Cochin Bench of the ITAT in the case of Paul John Delicious Cashew Company vs. ITO (2005) 94 ITD 131 (Coch.) wherein, the Tribunal has held as under: “16. In the present case also the re-assessment proceedings have been initiated only for the purpose of verification and examination which is not the scope of reassessment proceedings. It would be the case of rather reasons to suspect rather than reasons to belief that there was escapement of inco…