Price Water House v. ACIT

92 Taxmann.com 278Reported decision2018#21737 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 10(23C)Section 11 Section 11(5)Section 12 Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(15)Section 25

Judgments citing Price Water House v. ACIT

POWER LOOM DEVELOPMENT AND EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEM) WARD 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1060/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 11Section 12Section 143(2)Section 2(15)Section 25

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. No.1060/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Powerloom Development Vs. Income Tax Officer, And Export Promotion (Exemption) Council MTNL Telephone Ex. No. GC-2, Gundecha Building, Cumballa Onclave, Ground Floor, Hills, Peddar Road, Kherani Road, Sakinaka, Mumbai 400026. Andheri (East), Mumbai 400072. PAN: AAATP0271E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri. S.L. Jain a/w Shri. Satish Jain Respondent by Shri. Mukesh Thakwani, SR. D.R. Date of Hearing 24.03.2…

SYAMA PRASAD MOOKERJEE PORT TRUST,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-5, KOLKATA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for AY 2015-16 is allowed and for AY 2016-17 is dismissed

ITA 170/KOL/2021[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata06 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Sri Manish Borad

Section 139(1)Section 244ASection 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 37

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice President & Sri Manish Borad, Accountant Member I.T.A. Nos.: 169 & 170/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Syma Prasad Mookerjee Port Trust..........................Appellant [PAN: AAAJK 0361 L] Vs. PCIT-5, Kolkata....................................................Respondent Appearances by: Sh. K. Meenatchi Sundaram, CA, appeared on behalf of the Assessee. Md. Ghayas Uddin, CIT(D/R), appeared on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : March 23rd, 2022 Date of pronouncing the order : June 6th, 20…

SYAMA PRASAD MOOKERJEE PORT TRUST,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-5, KOLKATA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for AY 2015-16 is allowed and for AY 2016-17 is dismissed

ITA 169/KOL/2021[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata06 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Sri Manish Borad

Section 139(1)Section 244ASection 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 37

SHRI. SURENDRA KEDIA,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2183/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Sept 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015–16

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…een admitted and recorded by Ld.Pr.CIT in para 6 of impugned order. He submitted that, Ld.Pr.CIT is now seeking to review order passed by Ld.AO. He placed reliance on decision of Hon’ble Kolkota Tribunal in case of Price Water House vs ACIT reported in (2018) 92 Taxmann.com 278. 8. On the contrary, Ld.CIT.DR submitted that, Ld.AO during assessment proceedings only chose to enquire about long-term Page 5 of 8 capital gain earned by assessee on sale of penny stock viz., M/s.PS IT Infrastructure and Services Ltd., He submitted that, there are 3 more issues which Ld.AO did not enquire and investigate. Ld.CIT.DR ref…