PCIT & Anr. v. H. Nagraja

406 ITR 242High Court2018#12763 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

Judgments citing PCIT & Anr. v. H. Nagraja

Anshit Builders & Home Fin Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr, CIT Delhi-1, New Delhi

ITA 1168/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON'BLE (Vice President), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Pratap Mall, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…2 of the JPB). iii. M/s Vision Habitate & Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. Pr.CIT (ITA No.214/CTK/2019) (Page 42-54 of the JPB); iv. CWT vs. Sampathmal Chordia, Executor to the Estate of Late Neni Kavur Bai [2002] 256 ITR 440 (Madras); v. Pr. CIT vs. H. Nagaraja [2018] 406 ITR 242 (Karnataka); vi. S.K. Jain v. Commissioner of Income-tax [2010] 127 ITD 217 (Agra) (TM) 3.5 Ld. DR on the contrary has relied the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of EIMCO K.C.P. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax 3 [2000] 242 ITR 659 (SC) but same is resisted by Ld. AR as not applicable by submitting that since the assessment ye…

Smt. Niti Nitinkumar Didwania, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT, Emtra; - 3, Mumbai

ITA 284/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Nov 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh F. JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 68

…T had no jurisdiction to exercise his revisional powers qua any such matter that had been considered and decided in appeal. Also, a similar view can be traced in the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of PCIT & Anr. Vs. H. Nagraja (2018) 406 ITR 242 (Kar). In its said order, it was observed by the Hon‟ble High Court, that the CIT in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 cannot once again examine the very same issue so as to disallow certain expenses that had been considered by the CIT(A), as the order of assessment made by the A.O got merged with the order of the appellate commissi…

Shri Nitin Kumar Didwania, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT, Central-3, Mumbai

ITA 281/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh F. JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 68

…T had no jurisdiction to exercise his revisional powers qua any such matter that had been considered and decided in appeal. Also, a similar view can be traced in the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of PCIT & Anr. Vs. H. Nagraja (2018) 406 ITR 242 (Kar). In its said order, it was observed by the Hon‟ble High Court, that the CIT in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 cannot once again examine the very same issue so as to disallow certain expenses that had been considered by the CIT(A), as the order of assessment made by the A.O got merged with the order of the appellate commissi…

Smt. Niti Nitin Kumar Didwania, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT, Central-3, Mumbai

ITA 280/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh F. JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 68

…T had no jurisdiction to exercise his revisional powers qua any such matter that had been considered and decided in appeal. Also, a similar view can be traced in the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of PCIT & Anr. Vs. H. Nagraja (2018) 406 ITR 242 (Kar). In its said order, it was observed by the Hon‟ble High Court, that the CIT in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 cannot once again examine the very same issue so as to disallow certain expenses that had been considered by the CIT(A), as the order of assessment made by the A.O got merged with the order of the appellate commissi…

Shri Nitin Kumar Didwania, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT, Central-3, Mumbai

ITA 278/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh F. JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 68

…T had no jurisdiction to exercise his revisional powers qua any such matter that had been considered and decided in appeal. Also, a similar view can be traced in the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of PCIT & Anr. Vs. H. Nagraja (2018) 406 ITR 242 (Kar). In its said order, it was observed by the Hon‟ble High Court, that the CIT in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 cannot once again examine the very same issue so as to disallow certain expenses that had been considered by the CIT(A), as the order of assessment made by the A.O got merged with the order of the appellate commissi…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dsl Software Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3723/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 80HSection 90

…• Oil India Ltd vs CIT: 138 ITR 836 (Cal HC) • CIT vs Shashi Theatre (P) Ltd: 248 ITR 126 (Guj HC) • CIT vs Mehsana District Co-op Mil Producers Union Ltd: 263 ITR 546 (Guj HC) • CIT vs Nirma Chemicals Works Pvt Ltd: 309 ITR 67 (Guj HC) • PCIT vs H Nagaraja: 406 ITR 242 (Kar HC) • CIT vs SRA Systems Ltd: [2019] 410 ITR 392 (Mad HC) – 10A issue In that view of the matter, reassessment initiated u/s 147/ 148 of the Act has been rightly quashed by the CIT(A) at the outset.” 6. We have heard the submissions of both the parties and have gone through the entire material available on record and we do not find any infi…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dsl Software Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3722/DEL/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2019AY 2002-03

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 80HSection 90

…• Oil India Ltd vs CIT: 138 ITR 836 (Cal HC) • CIT vs Shashi Theatre (P) Ltd: 248 ITR 126 (Guj HC) • CIT vs Mehsana District Co-op Mil Producers Union Ltd: 263 ITR 546 (Guj HC) • CIT vs Nirma Chemicals Works Pvt Ltd: 309 ITR 67 (Guj HC) • PCIT vs H Nagaraja: 406 ITR 242 (Kar HC) • CIT vs SRA Systems Ltd: [2019] 410 ITR 392 (Mad HC) – 10A issue In that view of the matter, reassessment initiated u/s 147/ 148 of the Act has been rightly quashed by the CIT(A) at the outset.” 6. We have heard the submissions of both the parties and have gone through the entire material available on record and we do not find any infi…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dsl Software Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2310/DEL/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 80HSection 90

…• Oil India Ltd vs CIT: 138 ITR 836 (Cal HC) • CIT vs Shashi Theatre (P) Ltd: 248 ITR 126 (Guj HC) • CIT vs Mehsana District Co-op Mil Producers Union Ltd: 263 ITR 546 (Guj HC) • CIT vs Nirma Chemicals Works Pvt Ltd: 309 ITR 67 (Guj HC) • PCIT vs H Nagaraja: 406 ITR 242 (Kar HC) • CIT vs SRA Systems Ltd: [2019] 410 ITR 392 (Mad HC) – 10A issue In that view of the matter, reassessment initiated u/s 147/ 148 of the Act has been rightly quashed by the CIT(A) at the outset.” 6. We have heard the submissions of both the parties and have gone through the entire material available on record and we do not find any infi…

PCIT & Anr. v. H. Nagraja (406 ITR 242) — Cited in 8 Judgments | BharatTax