Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Capstone Securities Analysis Pvt. Ltd.

457 ITR 775High Court2023#25047 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2024 to 2025.

Judgments citing Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Capstone Securities Analysis Pvt. Ltd.

Arun Bhardwaj, Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 1, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1190/JPR/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jan 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250

…Pvt. Ltd. vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle1(1), Pune [2017] 85 taxmann.com 270 (Pune – Trib.) (supra) which has been confirmed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs Capstone Securities Analysis Pvt. Ltd. [2023] 457 ITR 775 (Bombay) (supra). 16. In the case of Abdul AzeezHaroon (supra), the assessee was a nonresident Indian. After the assessment was completed in respect of the relevant year, Commissioner (International Taxation) issued a reopening notice against the assessee at his address at Madurai (Tamil Nadu). The assessee contended that he was residing at Madur…

Kishori Capital Markets Pvt. Ltd., Bbd Bagh (East) vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Patna, Lok Nayak Bhawan

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 249/PAT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna06 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 250

…conferred only by notification issued u/ s 120(1) and 120(2) of the Act.” 4.1. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has also filed a decision passed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT v. Capstone Securities Analysis Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2023) 457 ITR 775 (Bom)(HC) and Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of ACIT vs. U V Realtors Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 6033/DEL/2016 order dated 17.05.2021. 4.2. We have gone through the disposal of objection with regard to the jurisdiction passed by ITO, Ward-2(1), Patna that reflects that the issue of jurisdiction has been denied only on this ground that earlier ju…

Jeeri Keerthana Reddy, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward- 19(2)(4), Mumbai

ITA 3224/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaran: A.Y : 2017-18 Jeeri Keerthana Reddy Vs. Income Tax Officer, 382, 1St Cross Road, Koramangala Ward 19(2)(4), 4Th Block, Bengaluru – 560 008. Mumbai (Respondent) Pan : Allpj0661L (Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta &For Respondent: Smt. Vranda U. Matkari

Section 120Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54

…lysis Pvt. Ltd. vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune [2017] 85 taxmann.com 270 (Pune – Trib.) which has been confirmed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs Capstone Securities Analysis Pvt. Ltd. [2023] 457 ITR 775 (Bombay). 8. The learned CIT-DR has submitted that PAN of the assessee was transferred/migrated to Bangalore on 26.02.2021 and current jurisdiction over the assessee lies with ITO Ward (2)(2)(5) at Bangalore. Insofar as the objection raised by assessee on territorial jurisdiction of the AO is concerned, it is submitted that the AO vide letter…