Peter Vaz v. CIT

436 ITR 616High Court2021#2513 most cited

What is Peter Vaz v. CIT authority for?

The restriction under Section 124(3) of the Income-tax Act on an assessee to object to an Assessing Officer's jurisdiction is triggered only when the dispute concerns the territorial jurisdiction vested under Section 120(1) or (2).

46

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Peter Vaz v. CIT · Section 124 Income Tax Act · objection to AO jurisdiction · territorial jurisdiction · Section 120 Income Tax Act · validity of jurisdiction · assessment procedure · Income Tax Act 1961 Section 124(3) · Bombay High Court 2021

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 144BSection 151ASection 124(3)Section 153ASection 132Section 144
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 144(b)section 115whsection 115wfsection 124(3)(a)section 115wdsection 115wesection 124(3)section 124section 120section 147ofsection 151asection 33(4)

Judgments citing Peter Vaz v. CIT

No 368 Kolakaluru Primary Agricultural Co Operative Credit Society Limited, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tenali

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee society is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 456/VIZ/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.456/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2019-20) No.368 Kolakaluru Primary Vs. Income Tax Officer, Agricultural Cooperative Ward-1, Credit Society Limited, Tenali. Tenali. Pan: Aaban6994Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 04/11/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 05/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Society Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 08/07/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…erative Credit Society Limited vs. ITO 19. At this stage, we may herein refer to certain judicial pronouncements that had in the past held the field on the aforesaid issue. The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Peter Vaz & Ors. Vs, CIT & Ors. (2021) 436 ITR 616(Bom) and the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ramesh D. Patel [2014] 42 taxmann.com 540/225 Taxman 411/362 ITR 492 (Gujarat), had held that as Section 124 of the Act pertains to territorial jurisdiction vested with an AO under sub-section (1) or sub- section (2) of Section 120, therefore, the provisions o…

Venkata Ramanamma Sakamuri, Marripadu, Nellore vs. ITO., Ward-1, Nellore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 299/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Us:

Section 144Section 148Section 148A

…iction by the A.O, and not otherwise. 19. At this stage, we may herein refer to certain judicial pronouncements that had in the past held the field on the aforesaid issue. The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Peter Vaz & Ors. Vs, CIT & Ors. (2021) 436 ITR 616(Bom) and the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ramesh D. Patel [2014] 42 taxmann.com 540/225 Taxman 411/362 ITR 492 (Gujarat), had held that as Section 124 of the Act pertains to territorial jurisdiction vested with an AO under sub-section (1) or sub- section (2) of Section 120, therefore, the provisions o…

ITO, Ward-2(3)(2), Surat vs. Kishor Bhanubhai Asodaria, Surat

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 1245/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Bijayananda Pruseth (Accountant Member)

Section 10(38)Section 143Section 147Section 68Section 69

…nd raised is purely legal in nature affecting the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer and does not require any further facts other than the ones which are on record for its adjudication. Reliance is placed on the judgement/order in Peter Vaz v. CIT - (2021) 436 ITR 616 (Bom) and ACIT v. M/s. Jyoti Ltd. - ITA No. 433/Ahd/2022 (copy attached herewith). 1. Notice issued u/s 148 as well as consequential reassessment order passed u/s 147, for A.Y. 2015-16, are bad in law on account of being time barred, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI v. Rajeev Bansal - (2024) 469 ITR 46 (SC)…

Bms Tradewings Pvt. Ltd., Jagdalpur vs. ACIT-1(1), Raipur

In the result appeal of the assessee stands allowed, in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 539/RPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 539/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"Assessment Year: 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri R. B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…hout jurisdiction. Reliance on: -  ACIT vs. Rajdhani Jewellers and Gems Pvt. Ltd. in ITA no. 79/RPR/2020 vide order dt. 24.01.2024, relevant finding at para no. 13.  Ashok Devichand Jain vs Union of India (2023) 452 ITR 43 (Born.).  Peter Vaz vs CIT (2021) 436 ITR 616 (Born.), relevant para no. 44.  CIT vs Ramesh D. Patel (2014) 362 ITR 492 (Guj.). Jurisdiction wrongly assumed. Consequent assessment order illegal and unsustainable. Reliance on: -  Ashok Devichand Jain vs. Union of India (2023) 452 ITR 43 (Bom.).  Pr. CIT vs Shree Shoppers Ltd. ITAT no. 39 of 2023 dated 15.03.2023 of Calcutta High Court 9…

DCIT, Central Circle-30, New Delhi vs. Gurpreet Kochar, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 940/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Dcit Vs. Harpreet Kochar Central Circle-30, Room 5, Kg Marg, No. 320, E-2 Ara Centre, New Delhi Jhandewalan Extension, Pan: Aaipk4656N New Delhi Appellant Respondent Dcit Vs. Gurmeet Kochar Central Circle-30, Room 5, Kg Marg, No. 320, E-2 Ara Centre, New Delhi Jhandewalan Extension, Pan: Aaipk4654Q New Delhi Appellant Respondent Dcit Vs. Gurpreet Kochar Central Circle-30, Room 5, Kg Marg, No. 320, E-2 Ara Centre, New Delhi Jhandewalan Extension, Pan: Aizpk6763F New Delhi Appellant Respondent C.O No. 46/Del/2023 In Ita No. 938/Del/2020 (A.Y. 2015-16) Harpreetkochar Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-30, Room No. 5, Kg Marg, 320, E-2 Ara Centre, Jhandewalan New Delhi Extension, New Delhi Pan: Aaipk4656N Appellant Respondent C.O No. 49/Del/2023 In Ita No. 939/Del/2020 (A.Y. 2015-16) Gurmeet Kochar Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-30, Room No. 5, Kg Marg, 320, E-2 Ara Centre, Jhandewalan New Delhi Extension, New Delhi Pan: Aaipk4654Q Appellant Respondent C.O Nos. 46, 47 & 49/Del/2020 Dcit Vs. Harpreetkochar

Section 132Section 153ASection 47Section 54F

…. CIT) ii) 129 ITR 475 (All) Moralia& Sons vs. CIT iii) 220 ITR 398 (Ker) CIT vs. Cochin Refineries Ltd. iv) 176 CTR 406 (Gau) Assam Company (I) Ltd vs. CIT v) 102 ITD 189 (Del) ITO vs. Gurvinder Kaur vi) 284 ITR 80 (SC) CIT V. Varas International P.Ltd. vii) 436 ITR 616 (Bombay) Peter VazvsCIT In view of the above discussion and by following the settled principals of law laid down by the various Courts (supra), we permit the Assessee to urge the legal ground which has not been decided by the Ld. CIT(A). 11. During the search and seizure operation conducted u/s 132 of the Act dated 22/10/2016 on Sukhija Group o…

DCIT Central Circle-30, New Delhi vs. Gurmeet Kochar, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 939/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Dcit Vs. Harpreet Kochar Central Circle-30, Room 5, Kg Marg, No. 320, E-2 Ara Centre, New Delhi Jhandewalan Extension, Pan: Aaipk4656N New Delhi Appellant Respondent Dcit Vs. Gurmeet Kochar Central Circle-30, Room 5, Kg Marg, No. 320, E-2 Ara Centre, New Delhi Jhandewalan Extension, Pan: Aaipk4654Q New Delhi Appellant Respondent Dcit Vs. Gurpreet Kochar Central Circle-30, Room 5, Kg Marg, No. 320, E-2 Ara Centre, New Delhi Jhandewalan Extension, Pan: Aizpk6763F New Delhi Appellant Respondent C.O No. 46/Del/2023 In Ita No. 938/Del/2020 (A.Y. 2015-16) Harpreetkochar Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-30, Room No. 5, Kg Marg, 320, E-2 Ara Centre, Jhandewalan New Delhi Extension, New Delhi Pan: Aaipk4656N Appellant Respondent C.O No. 49/Del/2023 In Ita No. 939/Del/2020 (A.Y. 2015-16) Gurmeet Kochar Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-30, Room No. 5, Kg Marg, 320, E-2 Ara Centre, Jhandewalan New Delhi Extension, New Delhi Pan: Aaipk4654Q Appellant Respondent C.O Nos. 46, 47 & 49/Del/2020 Dcit Vs. Harpreetkochar

Section 132Section 153ASection 47Section 54F

…. CIT) ii) 129 ITR 475 (All) Moralia& Sons vs. CIT iii) 220 ITR 398 (Ker) CIT vs. Cochin Refineries Ltd. iv) 176 CTR 406 (Gau) Assam Company (I) Ltd vs. CIT v) 102 ITD 189 (Del) ITO vs. Gurvinder Kaur vi) 284 ITR 80 (SC) CIT V. Varas International P.Ltd. vii) 436 ITR 616 (Bombay) Peter VazvsCIT In view of the above discussion and by following the settled principals of law laid down by the various Courts (supra), we permit the Assessee to urge the legal ground which has not been decided by the Ld. CIT(A). 11. During the search and seizure operation conducted u/s 132 of the Act dated 22/10/2016 on Sukhija Group o…

DCIT Central Circle-30, New Delhi vs. Harpreet Kochar, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 938/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Dcit Vs. Harpreet Kochar Central Circle-30, Room 5, Kg Marg, No. 320, E-2 Ara Centre, New Delhi Jhandewalan Extension, Pan: Aaipk4656N New Delhi Appellant Respondent Dcit Vs. Gurmeet Kochar Central Circle-30, Room 5, Kg Marg, No. 320, E-2 Ara Centre, New Delhi Jhandewalan Extension, Pan: Aaipk4654Q New Delhi Appellant Respondent Dcit Vs. Gurpreet Kochar Central Circle-30, Room 5, Kg Marg, No. 320, E-2 Ara Centre, New Delhi Jhandewalan Extension, Pan: Aizpk6763F New Delhi Appellant Respondent C.O No. 46/Del/2023 In Ita No. 938/Del/2020 (A.Y. 2015-16) Harpreetkochar Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-30, Room No. 5, Kg Marg, 320, E-2 Ara Centre, Jhandewalan New Delhi Extension, New Delhi Pan: Aaipk4656N Appellant Respondent C.O No. 49/Del/2023 In Ita No. 939/Del/2020 (A.Y. 2015-16) Gurmeet Kochar Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-30, Room No. 5, Kg Marg, 320, E-2 Ara Centre, Jhandewalan New Delhi Extension, New Delhi Pan: Aaipk4654Q Appellant Respondent C.O Nos. 46, 47 & 49/Del/2020 Dcit Vs. Harpreetkochar

Section 132Section 153ASection 47Section 54F

…. CIT) ii) 129 ITR 475 (All) Moralia& Sons vs. CIT iii) 220 ITR 398 (Ker) CIT vs. Cochin Refineries Ltd. iv) 176 CTR 406 (Gau) Assam Company (I) Ltd vs. CIT v) 102 ITD 189 (Del) ITO vs. Gurvinder Kaur vi) 284 ITR 80 (SC) CIT V. Varas International P.Ltd. vii) 436 ITR 616 (Bombay) Peter VazvsCIT In view of the above discussion and by following the settled principals of law laid down by the various Courts (supra), we permit the Assessee to urge the legal ground which has not been decided by the Ld. CIT(A). 11. During the search and seizure operation conducted u/s 132 of the Act dated 22/10/2016 on Sukhija Group o…

DCIT, Central Circle-2, Faridabad vs. Peakwood Reality Pvt.Ltd., Gurgaon

ITA 89/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dy. Cit Central Circle-Ii, M/S Peakwood Reality Pvt. Ltd., New Cgo Complex, Block- ‘B’, 3Rd Shop No. 6, 2Nd Floor, Jagdamba Vs. Floor, Nh-Iv, Faridabad, Palace, Near Gurgaon Dreamz Mall, Haryana-121001. Old Railway Road, Gurgaon-122001. Pan No. Aacce 1245 J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Gautam Jain (Virtually Present)For Respondent: Mr. R.A. Dhyani, CIT-DR

…9 (Del) ITO vs. Gurvinder Kaur 102 ITD 189 (Del) ITO vs. Gurvinder Kaur 102 ITD 189 (Del) ITO vs. Gurvinder Kaur  284 ITR 80 (SC) CIT V. Varas International 284 ITR 80 (SC) CIT V. Varas International 284 ITR 80 (SC) CIT V. Varas International P.Ltd. P.Ltd.  436 ITR 616 (Bombay) Peter Vaz vs CIT 436 ITR 616 (Bombay) Peter Vaz vs CIT 3.3 However, we find that we have alrea However, we find that we have already rejected the grounds dy rejected the grounds raised by the Revenue on merit and therefore, the grounds raised by raised by the Revenue on merit and therefore, the grounds raised by raised by the Revenue on…

Madurai Tuticorin Expressways Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle - 5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, all three appeals of the assesssee, i

ITA 1143/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

…iction by the A.O, and not otherwise. 19. At this stage, we may herein refer to certain judicial pronouncements that had in the past held the field on the aforesaid issue. The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Peter Vaz & Ors. Vs, CIT & Ors. (2021) 436 ITR 616(Bom) and the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ramesh D. Patel [2014] 42 taxmann.com 540/225 Taxman 411/362 ITR 492 (Gujarat), had held that as Section 124 of the Act pertains to territorial jurisdiction vested with an AO under sub-section (1) or sub- section (2) of Section 120, therefore, the provisions o…

Cyient Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our above observation

ITA 913/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.913/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Ankit Jain Vs. Acit Hyderabad Central Circle 1(2) Pan:Agwpa4459K Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri V. Ravish Bhatt, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: : Shri V. Ravish Bhatt, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151A(1)Section 292CSection 69

…diction by the A.O, and not otherwise. 19. At this stage, we may herein refer to certain judicial pronouncements that had in the past held the field on the aforesaid issue. The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Peter Vaz & Ors. Vs, CIT & Ors. (2021) 436 ITR 616(Bom) and the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ramesh D. Patel [2014] 42 taxmann.com 540/225 Taxman 411/362 ITR 492 (Gujarat), had held that as Section 124 of the Act pertains to territorial jurisdiction vested with an AO under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of Section 120, therefore, the provisions of…

ACIT, Central Circle- 30, New Delhi vs. Rajnil Sales Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 4050/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2012-13 Acit, Vs Rajnil Sales Pvt. Ltd., Room No.91, 4Th Floor, Central Circle-30, New Delhi. 2B Grant Lane, Kolkata, West Bengal. Pan: Aabcr3491C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Advocate & Ms Ragini Handa, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Pitambar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 31.03.2017 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or In Short Ld. ‘Faa’) In Appeal No.320/15-16/2297 Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Dated 31.03.2015 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By The Acit, Central Circle-30, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao).

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Pitambar Das, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…der section 143(3) of the Act is invalid and void ab initio.” ACIT vs. Rajnil Sales Pvt. Ltd. 4. As with regard to the admissibility of the legal ground raised by assessee we are guided by the decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in Peter Vaz vs CIT, [2021] 436 ITR 616 (Bom) where the following additional substantial question of law was framed by the Hon’ble Court:- "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it was open to the appellant/assessee to have supported the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals), based on the ground that the jurisdictional parameters prescribed under section 153C of th…

ACIT, Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad vs. Incredible India Projects Private Limited, Secunderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for the assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19 are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 604/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad14 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.604 & 605/Hyd/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19) Acit Vs. Incredible India Projects Central Circle-2(4) Private Limited Hyderabad Secunderabad [Pan : Aabci9355A] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Sandeep Goel, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri B.Bala Krishna, Cit, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of 19/09/2024 Hearing: घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 14/11/2024 आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: These Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Separate, But Identical Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Learned Cit(A)]-12, Hyderabad, Both Dated 30/08/2022, Pertaining To A.Y.2017-18 & 2018-19. Since The Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Goel, ARFor Respondent: : Shri B.Bala Krishna, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 270ASection 270A(2)Section 270A(9)(d)Section 271ASection 274

…decided against the assessee and that the assessee was entitled to canvass the said issue before the Tribunal without independently filing the appeal in the light of Rule 27 of ITAT Rules, 1963. Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Peter Vaz and Others Vs. CIT [2021] 436 ITR 616 (Bom.) also considered very similar issue and held that Rule 27 of ITAT Rules, 1963 gives a right to the respondent in an appeal before the Tribunal to support the order appealed against on any of the grounds decided against him, even though he may not have appealed against the order. For supporting the order, it is not necessary for the responde…

DCIT Circle-3(4), Mumbai vs. Union Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3652/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Ankush Kapoor, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. S Ananthan

…the decision AT. The Counsel for the assessee referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Peter Vaz v. CIT Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Peter Vaz v. CIT Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Peter Vaz v. CIT (2016) 436 ITR 616 (Bombay (2016) 436 ITR 616 (Bombay) and submitted that assessee has ) and submitted that assessee has raised a ground by way of application under Rule 27 of the Income raised a ground by way of application under Rule 27 of the Income raised a ground by way of application under Rule 27 of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 (in short ‘th…

DCIT -3(4), Mum vs. M/S. Union Bank of India (Erstwhile Corporation Bank), Mum

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed for statistical purposes as not maintainable

ITA 3090/MUM/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit-3(4), M/S Union Bank Of India (Erstwhile 29Th Floor, Centre-1, Corporation Bank) Vs. World Trade Centre, Central Accounts Dept. 6Th Floor, Cuffe Parade, Union Bank Bhavan 239, Vidhan Mumbai-400 005. Bhavan Marg Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aaacu 0564 G (Erstwhile Pan No. Aaacc7245E) Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. S Ananthan/Ms. LalithaFor Respondent: Mr. Ankush Kapoor, CIT-DR
Section 154Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)

…ITAT. The Counsel for the before Mumbai Bench of ITAT. The Counsel for the referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Hon’ble Bombay High assessee referred to the decision of the Court in the case of Pete Court in the case of Peter Vaz v. CIT (2016) 436 ITR 616 r Vaz v. CIT (2016) 436 ITR 616 (Bombay) and submitted that assessee has raised ) and submitted that assessee has raised a a ground by way of application under Rule 27 of the Income of application under Rule 27 of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 (in short ‘the Rules’) Rules, 1963 (in short ‘the Rules’) which i…

DCIT Central Circle-2(4), Mumbai vs. Ronak Gems Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical

ITA 1496/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit Central Circle- 2(4) M/S Ronak Gems Pvt Ltd Room No. 802, 8Th Floor, 311, Mehta Bhavan, Shop No. Vs. Prathishtha Bhavan, M.K. 5, Opp. Charni Road, Road Churchgate, Mumbai- 400 004 Mumbai- 400020 Pan No. Aabcr 7550 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Nishit Gandhi, Ms. Madhuri Tambe & Aishwarya Wanikar Revenue By : Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 09/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 15/11/2023

For Appellant: Mr. Nishit Gandhi, Ms. MadhuriFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 153A

…the assessee challenging the assessment objection has been filed by the assessee challenging the assessment proceedings u/s 153A of the order proceedings u/s 153A of the order. We find in the case of Peter Vaz . We find in the case of Peter Vaz v/s CIT (2016) 436 ITR 616(Bombay) before the Hon’ble Bombay v/s CIT (2016) 436 ITR 616(Bombay) before the Hon’ble Bombay v/s CIT (2016) 436 ITR 616(Bombay) before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court question was raised whether ITAT was correct in High Court question was raised whether ITAT wa High Court question was raised whether ITAT wa rejecting the cross objection filed by…

D.C.I.T. - 15(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Sadguru Management Consultancy P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result ground of appeal filed by the assessee under rule 27 of ITAT Rule is allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6323/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Aby T Vakery & Shri Amarjit Singhdy. Commissioner Of Vs. Sadguru Management Income Tax- 15(3)(2) Consultancy Pvt. Ltd Room No. 451, 4 Th Floor, 7, Gagangiri, Plot No. 47, Aayakar Bhavan, Sector 17, Vashi, Navi Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai- 400703 Mumbai- 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aamcs1626F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandhi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Suresh D. Gaikwad, DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 148Section 250Section 68

…assessee is not valid as per law. The Ld. Counsel has placed reliance on the judicial pronouncement of the Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Ghanshyam K. Khabrani vs ACIT (2012) 346 ITR 443 (Bombay), Peter V and CIT, Central Circle Bangalore (2021) 436 ITR 616 (Bombay) also ITAT Mumbai in the case of ITO vs Watermark Systems Pvt Ltd. dated 27.02.2023. On the other hand the Ld. DR could not brought any material contrary to the report of the AO dated 23.03.2023 stating that approval taken u/s 151 of the Act was not available on record. 10. Heard both the side and perused the material on record. Regardin…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1, Kolhapur vs. Grasim Industries Ltd., (As A Successor to Soktas India Pvt.Ltd, Kolhapur

In the result, Cross Objection appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 206/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.206/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2015-16 The Asst. Commissioner Of Soktas India Private Income Tax, Cicle-1, V Limited, Plot No.T-8, Kolhapur. S Kagal Five Star, M.I.D.C, Kolhapur – 416003. Pan: Aakcs 5899 J Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee

Section 115JSection 143(3)

…e Export Incentive is revenue receipt or Capital receipt is a question of fact. Therefore, all the facts have to be on the records of the lower authorities. 12. The assessee has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Peter Vaz 436 ITR 616 (Bom). In the case of Peter Vaz the issue of Jurisdiction u/s.153C was raised for the first time. In that case all the facts were on record. Whereas, in the case of the assessee, the details of Export incentives were admittedly never filed before the ITA No.206/PUN/2019 & C.O.No.23/PUN/2021 Soktas India Private Limited (Grasim Industries Limited)…

ACIT Central Circle-2(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. G Trade and Capital Venture Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, application

ITA 3211/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 3033 To 3038/Mum/2022 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2019-2020 Asstt. Cit Central Circle-2(1), M/S Gm Modular Pvt. Ltd., Old Cgo Building, 804, 8Th 8/9 Bokadia Industrial Vs. Floor, M.K. Road, Estate Waliv, Sativali Road, Mumbai-400020. Vasai East Vasai Palghar-401 208. Pan No. Aabcg 3313 Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Asstt. Cit Central Circle-2(1), M/S G Trade & Capital Old Cgo Building, 804, 8Th Venture Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Floor, M.K. Road, 6 G Laxmi Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400020. New Linking Road, Andheri (West) Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aadcg 7583 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Naresh Jain a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…e assessee has referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the cases of Peter Vaz v. CIT, [2021] 436 ITR 616 (Bom.) Peter Vaz v. CIT, [2021] 436 ITR 616 (Bom.) Peter Vaz v. CIT, [2021] 436 ITR 616 (Bom.) wherein following substantial ques following substantial question of law was raised before the Hon’ble tion of law was raised before the Hon’ble High Court : "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it was "Whether in the facts and…

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Central-Circle-2(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Gm Modular Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, application

ITA 3038/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 3033 To 3038/Mum/2022 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2019-2020 Asstt. Cit Central Circle-2(1), M/S Gm Modular Pvt. Ltd., Old Cgo Building, 804, 8Th 8/9 Bokadia Industrial Vs. Floor, M.K. Road, Estate Waliv, Sativali Road, Mumbai-400020. Vasai East Vasai Palghar-401 208. Pan No. Aabcg 3313 Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Asstt. Cit Central Circle-2(1), M/S G Trade & Capital Old Cgo Building, 804, 8Th Venture Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Floor, M.K. Road, 6 G Laxmi Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400020. New Linking Road, Andheri (West) Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aadcg 7583 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Naresh Jain a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…e assessee has referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the cases of Peter Vaz v. CIT, [2021] 436 ITR 616 (Bom.) Peter Vaz v. CIT, [2021] 436 ITR 616 (Bom.) Peter Vaz v. CIT, [2021] 436 ITR 616 (Bom.) wherein following substantial ques following substantial question of law was raised before the Hon’ble tion of law was raised before the Hon’ble High Court : "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it was "Whether in the facts and…

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Central-Circle-2(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Gm Modular Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, application

ITA 3037/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 3033 To 3038/Mum/2022 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2019-2020 Asstt. Cit Central Circle-2(1), M/S Gm Modular Pvt. Ltd., Old Cgo Building, 804, 8Th 8/9 Bokadia Industrial Vs. Floor, M.K. Road, Estate Waliv, Sativali Road, Mumbai-400020. Vasai East Vasai Palghar-401 208. Pan No. Aabcg 3313 Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Asstt. Cit Central Circle-2(1), M/S G Trade & Capital Old Cgo Building, 804, 8Th Venture Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Floor, M.K. Road, 6 G Laxmi Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400020. New Linking Road, Andheri (West) Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aadcg 7583 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Naresh Jain a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…e assessee has referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the cases of Peter Vaz v. CIT, [2021] 436 ITR 616 (Bom.) Peter Vaz v. CIT, [2021] 436 ITR 616 (Bom.) Peter Vaz v. CIT, [2021] 436 ITR 616 (Bom.) wherein following substantial ques following substantial question of law was raised before the Hon’ble tion of law was raised before the Hon’ble High Court : "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it was "Whether in the facts and…