Pr.CIT-15 v. Binod Kumar Singh

178 DTR 49High Court2019#19572 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 346,713 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2022.

Also reported as

310 CTR 243

Issues it is cited on

undisclosed foreign income and assetssection 149(1)(c)section 39section 5(2)substantive assessmentnon application of mindbusiness connectionsection 149(1)kelvinatorlive linkchildassessee in default

Judgments citing Pr.CIT-15 v. Binod Kumar Singh

The Dy CIT (It)-Circle-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Manish Vijay Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the learned Assessing Officer and CO of the assessee for both the years are dismissed

ITA 494/MUM/2021[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, DR
Section 148

…ts of the present case. On the aspect of reopening, reopening was upheld as Assessee had filed ROI in India as a resident. It was not a case of nonresident. Also the above decision do not rely upon Bombay High decision in Pr.CIT-15 v Binod Kumar Singh (2019) 178 DTR 49 / 264 Taxman 335/ 310 CTR 243 (Bom.)(HC) which specifically deal with taxability in the hands of Non residents. Similarly decision in Rahul R Parikh AYS 2003-04 to 2008-09 & anr. Dated: 01/06/2018 (Mumbai ITAT) is not applicable in the facts of the present case. Assessee did not challenge the reopening before ITAT. There was a finding of fact th…

The Dy CIT (It)-Circle-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Manish Vijay Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the learned Assessing Officer and CO of the assessee for both the years are dismissed

ITA 493/MUM/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, DR
Section 148

…ts of the present case. On the aspect of reopening, reopening was upheld as Assessee had filed ROI in India as a resident. It was not a case of nonresident. Also the above decision do not rely upon Bombay High decision in Pr.CIT-15 v Binod Kumar Singh (2019) 178 DTR 49 / 264 Taxman 335/ 310 CTR 243 (Bom.)(HC) which specifically deal with taxability in the hands of Non residents. Similarly decision in Rahul R Parikh AYS 2003-04 to 2008-09 & anr. Dated: 01/06/2018 (Mumbai ITAT) is not applicable in the facts of the present case. Assessee did not challenge the reopening before ITAT. There was a finding of fact th…

The Dy CIT (It)-Circle-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Urvi Manish Mehra, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the learned Assessing Officer and CO of the assessee for both the years are dismissed

ITA 492/MUM/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, DR
Section 148

…he aspect of reopening, reopening was upheld as Assessee had filed ROI in India as a resident. It was not a case of nonresident. Also the above decision do not rely upon Bombay High decision in Pr.CIT-15 v Binod Kumar Singh (2019) 178 DTR 49 / 264 Taxman 335/ 310 CTR 243 (Bom.)(HC) which specifically deal with taxability in the hands of Non residents. Similarly decision in Rahul R Parikh AYS 2003-04 to 2008-09 & anr. Dated: 01/06/2018 (Mumbai ITAT) is not applicable in the facts of the present case. Assessee did not challenge the reopening before ITAT. There was a finding of fact that the assessee and Kalpesh J…

The Dy CIT (It)-Circle-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Urvi Manish Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the learned Assessing Officer and CO of the assessee for both the years are dismissed

ITA 491/MUM/2021[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, DR
Section 148

…he aspect of reopening, reopening was upheld as Assessee had filed ROI in India as a resident. It was not a case of nonresident. Also the above decision do not rely upon Bombay High decision in Pr.CIT-15 v Binod Kumar Singh (2019) 178 DTR 49 / 264 Taxman 335/ 310 CTR 243 (Bom.)(HC) which specifically deal with taxability in the hands of Non residents. Similarly decision in Rahul R Parikh AYS 2003-04 to 2008-09 & anr. Dated: 01/06/2018 (Mumbai ITAT) is not applicable in the facts of the present case. Assessee did not challenge the reopening before ITAT. There was a finding of fact that the assessee and Kalpesh J…

Pr.CIT-15 v. Binod Kumar Singh (178 DTR 49) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax