PCIT v. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.

408 ITR 517High Court2018#17871 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2022.

Read the full judgment

Judgments citing PCIT v. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.

DCIT 13(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Pebble Bay Developers P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes, is allowed for statistical purposes, whereas the application of the assessee under rule 27 is ...

ITA 5744/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2008-09 Dy. Commissioner Of Income- M/S Pebble Bay Developers Tax-13(1)(2), Pvt. Ltd., 2Nd Floor, Room No. 218, Vs. Raheja Chambers, Linking Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Road, Main Avenue Santacruz Mumbai-400020. (West), Mumbai-400054. Pan No. Aaccg 1645 E Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Ms. Vranda Matkari, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Nishit Gandhi, Ar Date Of Hearing : 26/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/10/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Nishit Gandhi, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda Matkari, DR

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 69C

…rt of the contention support of the contention, the Ld. Counsel, relied on the decision of the relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in the case of High Court in the case of PCIT v. Sun pharmaceutical Sun pharmaceutical industries Ltd (2018) 408 ITR 517 (Gujarat) industries Ltd (2018) 408 ITR 517 (Gujarat) and decision of Hon’ble nd decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Sundaram & company (1964) 52 Sundaram & company (1964) 52 ITR 763 (Madras). 2.3 In view of above, the In view of above, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that petiti…

The DCIT, Circle-1, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. M/S. Kishore Projects Pvt. Ltd., Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 213/RJT/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Sept 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Ms. Bhavna Yashroy, Ld. CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld. AR

Section 40Section 801A(4)Section 80I

…respect of grounds decided against it. Therefore, no separate appeal or cross objection to be filed. Ld. AR relied upon the decision of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Dahod Sahakari Kharid Vechan Sangh, 282 ITR 321 and Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, 408 ITR 517. 6. The Ld. DR submitted that the contention of the Ld. AR that application under Rule 27 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules to be decided first as the assessee’s case was reopened on the very same issue which were originally decided under Section 143(3) of the Act. Ld. DR submitted that the reopening of the issue raised was valid under S…

The DCIT, Circle-1, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. M/S. Kishore Projects Pvt. Ltd., Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 212/RJT/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Sept 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Ms. Bhavna Yashroy, Ld. CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld. AR

Section 40Section 801A(4)Section 80I

DCIT 12(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Amba Enterprised Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, application filed by the assessee u/s 27 is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6326/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit 12(1)(1), M/S. Amba Enterprises Room No.223, Ltd., 2Nd Floor, 430, 4Th Floor, Blue Rose Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Industries, M.K. Road, Near Metro Bazar, Mumbai - 400020 W.E. Highway, Mumbai – 400 066 Pan: Aafca6033R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Nishit Gandhi, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Michael Jerald, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 05.03.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.05.2020 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Michael Jerald, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…seeks to challenge the jurisdiction to frame the assessment under the Act by the AO and prayed before this Bench for its indulgence to allow the necessary relief in this regard to the assessee. In the case of PCIT vs. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. (2018) 408 ITR 517 (Guj.) ,the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court has affirmed the order of the Tribunal wherein it allowed the application of the assessee under rule 27 challenging the reopening of assessment by the AO. Similarly, in the case of Ld. CIT(A) vs. Sundaram & Co. (1964) 52 ITR 763 (Mad.) the Hon’ble Madras High Court 4 M/s. Amba Enterprises Ltd. upheld the or…

DCIT 10(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Jyothy Laboratories Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 7283/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri S.E. Dastur, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar, D.R

Section 1Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147

…eal before the Tribunal can support the order appealed against on any of the grounds even without filing an appeal. 4. The Ld. A.R. placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Sun Pharma Industries Ltd. (2018) 408 ITR 517 wherein the Hon’ble Court has affirmed the view that rule 27 of the Rules entitles the respondent to defend the order before Tribunal on all grounds including the ground which may be against him even though the order appealed against him had otherwise been decided in his favour. The Ld. A.R. referred to the affidavit of the assessee filed CO Nos.…