Prakash Chand v. Dy. CIT

269 ITR 260Reported decision2004#24121 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2021.

Judgments citing Prakash Chand v. Dy. CIT

The ITO, Ward-1, Anand vs. M/S. Devraj Developers, Anand

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 1526/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1524 To 1526/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Shukla, Sr.DR
Section 142ASection 147

…of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs Darsan Singh [2005] 272 ITR 650 (P & H), the judgment of Madras High Court in CIT Vs V.T. Rajenderan [2007] 288 ITR 312 (Mad) and the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Prakash Chand Vs Dy. CIT [2004] 269 ITR 260 (M.P.) in which it was held that the notice of reassessment on the basis of report of the Valuation Officer is not valid. It was held that DVO's report is only an information and not the material on the basis of which the assessment may be reopened. Such a report cannot be an arithmetic appreciation of the materials used for constructions nor the…

The ITO, Ward-1, Anand vs. M/S. Devraj Developers, Anand

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 1525/AHD/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1524 To 1526/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Shukla, Sr.DR
Section 142ASection 147

…of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs Darsan Singh [2005] 272 ITR 650 (P & H), the judgment of Madras High Court in CIT Vs V.T. Rajenderan [2007] 288 ITR 312 (Mad) and the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Prakash Chand Vs Dy. CIT [2004] 269 ITR 260 (M.P.) in which it was held that the notice of reassessment on the basis of report of the Valuation Officer is not valid. It was held that DVO's report is only an information and not the material on the basis of which the assessment may be reopened. Such a report cannot be an arithmetic appreciation of the materials used for constructions nor the…

The ITO, Ward-1, Anand vs. M/S. Devraj Developers, Anand

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 1524/AHD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Jun 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1524 To 1526/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Shukla, Sr.DR
Section 142ASection 147

…of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs Darsan Singh [2005] 272 ITR 650 (P & H), the judgment of Madras High Court in CIT Vs V.T. Rajenderan [2007] 288 ITR 312 (Mad) and the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Prakash Chand Vs Dy. CIT [2004] 269 ITR 260 (M.P.) in which it was held that the notice of reassessment on the basis of report of the Valuation Officer is not valid. It was held that DVO's report is only an information and not the material on the basis of which the assessment may be reopened. Such a report cannot be an arithmetic appreciation of the materials used for constructions nor the…

Prakash Chand v. Dy. CIT (269 ITR 260) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax