Rabo India Finance Ltd. v. DCIT

352 ITR 549High Court2013#4024 most cited

What is Rabo India Finance Ltd. v. DCIT authority for?

If an Assessing Officer fails to dispose of objections filed by an assessee regarding reopening of assessment, the subsequent assessment order is invalid.

30

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Rabo India Finance Ltd v DCIT · Vishwanath Engineers v ACIT · reopening of assessment · disposal of objections · assessment bad in law · section 148 · section 147 · final assessment order · void ab initio

Sections most often in play

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

Issues it is cited on

reopening of assessmentescapement of incomefinal assessment orderspeaking ordersection 131accommodation entryindiasection 250nfac

Judgments citing Rabo India Finance Ltd. v. DCIT

RITA DAS,HOOGHLY vs. I.T.O., WARD - 23(1), HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1389/KOL/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jan 2026AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1388 & 1389/Kol/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-2012) Rita Das, Vs Acit, Cc-23 (1), Hooghly C/O S.N.Ghosh & Associates, Advocates, 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata,Wb-700001 Pan No. :Arhpd 6149 D

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Altaf Hussain, Sr. DR

…off by the AO. Thus the completion of assessment without disposal of these objections, makes the assessment bad in law as held in the case of Rabo India Finance Ltd. vs. DCIT (2012) 346 ITR 528 (Bombay) and in the case of Vishwanath Engineers vs. ACIT (2013) 352 ITR 549 (Gujarat). Thus this finding of the ld. CIT(A) has to be upheld. 16. Even otherwise Section 151 of the Act mandates recording of satisfaction by the approving authority. In this case the satisfaction was mechanical and in fact a rubber stamp was used to state "Yes I am satisfied". The revenue could not and cannot controvert the above factual find…

RITA DAS,HOOGHLY vs. I.T.O., WARD - 23(1), HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1388/KOL/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jan 2026AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1388 & 1389/Kol/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-2012) Rita Das, Vs Acit, Cc-23 (1), Hooghly C/O S.N.Ghosh & Associates, Advocates, 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata,Wb-700001 Pan No. :Arhpd 6149 D

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Altaf Hussain, Sr. DR

…off by the AO. Thus the completion of assessment without disposal of these objections, makes the assessment bad in law as held in the case of Rabo India Finance Ltd. vs. DCIT (2012) 346 ITR 528 (Bombay) and in the case of Vishwanath Engineers vs. ACIT (2013) 352 ITR 549 (Gujarat). Thus this finding of the ld. CIT(A) has to be upheld. 16. Even otherwise Section 151 of the Act mandates recording of satisfaction by the approving authority. In this case the satisfaction was mechanical and in fact a rubber stamp was used to state "Yes I am satisfied". The revenue could not and cannot controvert the above factual find…

DHARMIL ANIL BODANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-19(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal grounds

ITA 648/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…assessment is Rs.3,9817,137/-. If assessee files objection, then it is mandatory for the AO to dispose of the objections and this principle has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the following judgments:  Rabo India Finance Ltd. v DCIT [2012] 346 ITR 81 (Bombay HC)  Bayer Material Science v DCIT [2016] 66 taxmann.com 335 (Bombay HC) 9. Thus, it has been held that if AO has not disposed of the objections, then he cannot proceed further and pass the assessment order and consequently the order of reassessment is invalid. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid three grounds, the impugned notice u/s.1…

I.T.O.,WARD-43(2), KOLKATA vs. CHAMPALAL OMPRAKASH, KOLKATA

ITA 1546/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Judical Member & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. Nos.1168&1169/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Champalal Omprakash......................................................................Appellant 49, Madan Mohan Burman Street, Kolkata-700007. [Pan:Aabfc8279L] Vs. Ito, Ward-43(2), Kolkata................................................................Respondent I.T.A. Nos.1545&1546/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Ito, Ward-43(2), Kolkata................................................................ Respondent Vs. Champalal Omprakash..........................................................................Appellant 49, Madan Mohan Burman Street, Kolkata-700007. [Pan:Aabfc8279L] Appearances By: Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 13, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 15, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Are Cross-Appeals Preferred By The Assessee As Well As By The Department Against The Impugned Common Order Dated 19.03.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since Common Issues Involved

Section 131Section 250

…off by the AO. Thus the completion of assessment without disposal of these objections, makes the assessment bad in law as held in the case of Rabo India Finance Ltd. vs. DCIT (2012) 346 ITR 528 (Bombay) and in the case of Vishwanath Engineers vs. ACIT (2013) 352 ITR 549 (Gujarat). Thus this finding of the ld. CIT (A) has to be upheld.” 9. In view of above discussion, the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer held to be bad in law and therefore, the consequential additions made by the Assessing Officer in the reopened assessment are not sustainable. 10. Since, we have decided the legal issue in favour of th…

I.T.O.,WARD-43(2), KOLKATA vs. CHAMPALAL OMPRAKASH, KOLKATA

ITA 1545/KOL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Judical Member & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. Nos.1168&1169/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Champalal Omprakash......................................................................Appellant 49, Madan Mohan Burman Street, Kolkata-700007. [Pan:Aabfc8279L] Vs. Ito, Ward-43(2), Kolkata................................................................Respondent I.T.A. Nos.1545&1546/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Ito, Ward-43(2), Kolkata................................................................ Respondent Vs. Champalal Omprakash..........................................................................Appellant 49, Madan Mohan Burman Street, Kolkata-700007. [Pan:Aabfc8279L] Appearances By: Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 13, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 15, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Are Cross-Appeals Preferred By The Assessee As Well As By The Department Against The Impugned Common Order Dated 19.03.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since Common Issues Involved

Section 131Section 250

…off by the AO. Thus the completion of assessment without disposal of these objections, makes the assessment bad in law as held in the case of Rabo India Finance Ltd. vs. DCIT (2012) 346 ITR 528 (Bombay) and in the case of Vishwanath Engineers vs. ACIT (2013) 352 ITR 549 (Gujarat). Thus this finding of the ld. CIT (A) has to be upheld.” 9. In view of above discussion, the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer held to be bad in law and therefore, the consequential additions made by the Assessing Officer in the reopened assessment are not sustainable. 10. Since, we have decided the legal issue in favour of th…

CHAMPALAL OMPRAKASH,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-43(2), KOLKATA

ITA 1169/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Judical Member & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. Nos.1168&1169/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Champalal Omprakash......................................................................Appellant 49, Madan Mohan Burman Street, Kolkata-700007. [Pan:Aabfc8279L] Vs. Ito, Ward-43(2), Kolkata................................................................Respondent I.T.A. Nos.1545&1546/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Ito, Ward-43(2), Kolkata................................................................ Respondent Vs. Champalal Omprakash..........................................................................Appellant 49, Madan Mohan Burman Street, Kolkata-700007. [Pan:Aabfc8279L] Appearances By: Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 13, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 15, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Are Cross-Appeals Preferred By The Assessee As Well As By The Department Against The Impugned Common Order Dated 19.03.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since Common Issues Involved

Section 131Section 250

…off by the AO. Thus the completion of assessment without disposal of these objections, makes the assessment bad in law as held in the case of Rabo India Finance Ltd. vs. DCIT (2012) 346 ITR 528 (Bombay) and in the case of Vishwanath Engineers vs. ACIT (2013) 352 ITR 549 (Gujarat). Thus this finding of the ld. CIT (A) has to be upheld.” 9. In view of above discussion, the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer held to be bad in law and therefore, the consequential additions made by the Assessing Officer in the reopened assessment are not sustainable. 10. Since, we have decided the legal issue in favour of th…

CHAMPALAL OMPRAKASH,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-43(2), KOLKATA

ITA 1168/KOL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Judical Member & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. Nos.1168&1169/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Champalal Omprakash......................................................................Appellant 49, Madan Mohan Burman Street, Kolkata-700007. [Pan:Aabfc8279L] Vs. Ito, Ward-43(2), Kolkata................................................................Respondent I.T.A. Nos.1545&1546/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Ito, Ward-43(2), Kolkata................................................................ Respondent Vs. Champalal Omprakash..........................................................................Appellant 49, Madan Mohan Burman Street, Kolkata-700007. [Pan:Aabfc8279L] Appearances By: Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 13, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 15, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Are Cross-Appeals Preferred By The Assessee As Well As By The Department Against The Impugned Common Order Dated 19.03.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since Common Issues Involved

Section 131Section 250

…off by the AO. Thus the completion of assessment without disposal of these objections, makes the assessment bad in law as held in the case of Rabo India Finance Ltd. vs. DCIT (2012) 346 ITR 528 (Bombay) and in the case of Vishwanath Engineers vs. ACIT (2013) 352 ITR 549 (Gujarat). Thus this finding of the ld. CIT (A) has to be upheld.” 9. In view of above discussion, the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer held to be bad in law and therefore, the consequential additions made by the Assessing Officer in the reopened assessment are not sustainable. 10. Since, we have decided the legal issue in favour of th…

SH. VIPIN SHARMA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 7027/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sidhant Arora, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 2(22)(e)

…Act, then the AO is bound to dispose of the said objections by a comprehensive order, but in this case the AO has not done this, which is against the mandate of the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Vishwanath Engineers vs. ACIT (2013) 352 ITR 549 wherein, the Hon’ble High Court has relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts vs ITO reported in 259 ITR 19. We find that the Apex Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO [2003] 259 ITR 19/ [2002] 125 has observed as under:- “19. Apart from the aforesaid fact, in case of GKN Drioeshafts (India)…

KISHORE H AJMERA (HUF),MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed as indicated above

ITA 7371/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Department by Shri Brajendra Kumar
Section 147Section 68Section 69

…while passing the Assessment Order itself. 7. Ld. Counsel for the assessee also placed reliance on the following decisions in support of her contentions: - (i) Bayer Materials Science (P.) Ltd., v. DCIT [382 ITR 333 (Bom.)] (ii) Vishwanth Engineers v. ACIT [352 ITR 549 (Guj.)] (iii) General Motors India P. Ltd. v. DCIT [354 ITR 244 (Guj.) (iv) Smt. Kamlesh Sharma v. ITO [287 ITR 337 (Del.)] (v) Hotel Regal International & Anr.v. ITO & Anr. [37 DTR (Cal) 360] (vi) Bharat Jayantilal Patel v. UOI [378 ITR 596 (BOm)] (vii) Dynacraft Air Controls v. Smt. Sneha Joshi & Ors. [358 ITR 102 (BOM). (viii) Ankita A. Chokse…

KISHORE H AJMERA (HUF),MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed as indicated above

ITA 7370/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Department by Shri Brajendra Kumar
Section 147Section 68Section 69

…while passing the Assessment Order itself. 7. Ld. Counsel for the assessee also placed reliance on the following decisions in support of her contentions: - (i) Bayer Materials Science (P.) Ltd., v. DCIT [382 ITR 333 (Bom.)] (ii) Vishwanth Engineers v. ACIT [352 ITR 549 (Guj.)] (iii) General Motors India P. Ltd. v. DCIT [354 ITR 244 (Guj.) (iv) Smt. Kamlesh Sharma v. ITO [287 ITR 337 (Del.)] (v) Hotel Regal International & Anr.v. ITO & Anr. [37 DTR (Cal) 360] (vi) Bharat Jayantilal Patel v. UOI [378 ITR 596 (BOm)] (vii) Dynacraft Air Controls v. Smt. Sneha Joshi & Ors. [358 ITR 102 (BOM). (viii) Ankita A. Chokse…

JASMIN K AJMERA (HUF),MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 2 (2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed as indicated above

ITA 7368/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Department by Shri Brajendra Kumar
Section 147Section 68Section 69

…while passing the Assessment Order itself. 7. Ld. Counsel for the assessee also placed reliance on the following decisions in support of her contentions: - (i) Bayer Materials Science (P.) Ltd., v. DCIT [382 ITR 333 (Bom.)] (ii) Vishwanth Engineers v. ACIT [352 ITR 549 (Guj.)] (iii) General Motors India P. Ltd. v. DCIT [354 ITR 244 (Guj.) (iv) Smt. Kamlesh Sharma v. ITO [287 ITR 337 (Del.)] (v) Hotel Regal International & Anr.v. ITO & Anr. [37 DTR (Cal) 360] (vi) Bharat Jayantilal Patel v. UOI [378 ITR 596 (BOm)] (vii) Dynacraft Air Controls v. Smt. Sneha Joshi & Ors. [358 ITR 102 (BOM). (viii) Ankita A. Chokse…

JASMIN K AJMERA (HUF),MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 2 (2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed as indicated above

ITA 7367/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Department by Shri Brajendra Kumar
Section 147Section 68Section 69

…while passing the Assessment Order itself. 7. Ld. Counsel for the assessee also placed reliance on the following decisions in support of her contentions: - (i) Bayer Materials Science (P.) Ltd., v. DCIT [382 ITR 333 (Bom.)] (ii) Vishwanth Engineers v. ACIT [352 ITR 549 (Guj.)] (iii) General Motors India P. Ltd. v. DCIT [354 ITR 244 (Guj.) (iv) Smt. Kamlesh Sharma v. ITO [287 ITR 337 (Del.)] (v) Hotel Regal International & Anr.v. ITO & Anr. [37 DTR (Cal) 360] (vi) Bharat Jayantilal Patel v. UOI [378 ITR 596 (BOm)] (vii) Dynacraft Air Controls v. Smt. Sneha Joshi & Ors. [358 ITR 102 (BOM). (viii) Ankita A. Chokse…

JITEN K AJMERA (HUF),MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 2 (2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed as indicated above

ITA 7366/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Department by Shri Brajendra Kumar
Section 147Section 68Section 69

…while passing the Assessment Order itself. 7. Ld. Counsel for the assessee also placed reliance on the following decisions in support of her contentions: - (i) Bayer Materials Science (P.) Ltd., v. DCIT [382 ITR 333 (Bom.)] (ii) Vishwanth Engineers v. ACIT [352 ITR 549 (Guj.)] (iii) General Motors India P. Ltd. v. DCIT [354 ITR 244 (Guj.) (iv) Smt. Kamlesh Sharma v. ITO [287 ITR 337 (Del.)] (v) Hotel Regal International & Anr.v. ITO & Anr. [37 DTR (Cal) 360] (vi) Bharat Jayantilal Patel v. UOI [378 ITR 596 (BOm)] (vii) Dynacraft Air Controls v. Smt. Sneha Joshi & Ors. [358 ITR 102 (BOM). (viii) Ankita A. Chokse…

SHRI MANOJ KANHAIYALAL AGARWAL,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-17(2), MUMBAI

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

ITA 5993/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 5993/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Manoj Kanhaiyalal Agarwal बिधम/ Acit, Circle-17(2) 100-104, D. G. Chambers, Room No.123A, Aayakar Vs. 2Nd Floor, Nanik Motwani Bhavan, Mumbai-400020. Marg, Fort, Mumbai- 400023. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpa3100A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K. Shivaram (Ar) Revenue By: Shri Bharat Andhale (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/01/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 01/03/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 18.07.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-28, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2010-11. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. Reopening Is Bad In Law 1. The Learned Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That The Notice U/S.148 Dtd.31/03/2016 Was Issued On The Basis Of Information Received From Investigation Wing, Ahmedabad, Thus There Was No Independent Application Of Mind By The A.O. It Is Simply Based On Borrowed Satisfaction Of Some

For Appellant: Shri K. Shivaram (AR)For Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…nvestments Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 93 taxmann.com 153 (Bom). It is also argued that the objection raised by assessee was not disposed of by AO, therefore, the reopening is not justifiable in view of the decision in the case of Rabo India Finance Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2012) 346 ITR 81 (Bom), Bayer Materials Science Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT 382 ITR 333 (Bom) & KSS Petron Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, ITA. No.224 of 2014 dated 03.10.2016. However, on the other hand, the Ld. Representative of the Department has refuted the said contention. The copy of assessment order dated 23.12.2016 speaks about the reopening of the case of the assessee u/s 147…

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-5(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S SAMBUDDHA TRACON PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 181/KOL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Aug 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey)

Section 147Section 148Section 250

…off by the AO. Thus the completion of assessment without disposal of these objections, makes the assessment bad in law as held in the case of Rabo India Finance Ltd. vs. DCIT [2012] 346 ITR 528 (Bombay) and in the case of Vishwanath Engineers vs. ACIT [2013] 352 ITR 549 (Gujarat). Thus this finding of the ld. CIT(A) has to be upheld. 16. Even otherwise Section 151 of the Act mandates recording of satisfaction by the approving authority. In this case the satisfaction was mechanical and in fact a rubber stamp was used to state “Yes I am satisfied”. Thus the assessment is bad in law for want of recording proper san…

AERO DEALCOMM PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-4(3), KOLKATA

ITA 2484/KOL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 May 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble) Assessment Years: 2009-10 Aereo Dealcomm Pvt. Ltd………….………...........................................................……………….…......Appellant C/O. S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates 2, Garstin Place 2Nd Floor Suite No. 203 Off Hare Street Kolkata West Bengal – 700 001 [Pan : Aacca 5934 G] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3), Kolkata…………………..……………….............….……....…....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate & Shri M. Jhawar, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Jayanta Khanra, Jcit Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 26Th, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 29Th, 2020 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

…ified” 10.3. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Vishwanath Engineers vs. ACIT The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Vishwanath Engineers vs. ACIT The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Vishwanath Engineers vs. ACIT reported in [2013] 352 ITR 549 (Guj.) held as follows: reported in [2013] 352 ITR 549 (Guj.) held as follows:- “Thereafter, Assessing Officer issued notice under section 148 on ground that “Thereafter, Assessing Officer issued notice under section 148 on ground that “Thereafter, Assessing Officer issued notice under section 148 on ground that assessee was only a work contracto…

REESHU GOEL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 34(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1691/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Patwari, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr.D.R
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…submitted that such a non-disposal of objection leads to quashing of the I.T.A. No.1691/DEL/2019 4 entire proceedings u/s.147. In support, he strongly relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High court in the case of Vishwanath Engineers vs. ACIT, (2013) 352 ITR 549 (Guj.); and also relied upon the judgment of ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Shri Aman Sharma vs. Asst.CIT, in ITA No.7026/Del/2014. He further relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of KSS Petron Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO, in ITA No.224 of 2014, wherein the Hon’ble High Court upheld the quashing of the assessment passed in the…

SMT JANAKI AMMA ,SHIVAMOGGA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 , SHIVAMOGGA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11 is allowed and the other appeals for Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2013-14

ITA 2810/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. P. Renugadevi, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54FSection 80C

…) was upheld. 6.3 In rejoinder, the learned AR of the assessee submitted that mere rejection of the SLP does not amount to law declared by the Hon’ble Apex Court and that there are other judgments of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Rabo India Finance Ltd., (346 ITR 81) and Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Pushpak Bullion Pvt. Ltd., Vs. DCIT (371 ITR 81) (Guj.) which have decided the issue in favour of the assessee. It was pleaded that the aforesaid decisions (supra) should be followed. 6.4 I have considered the rival submissions / contentions and perused the material on record, and am inclined to hold that the fa…

SMT JANAKI AMMA ,SHIVAMOGGA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 , SHIVAMOGGA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11 is allowed and the other appeals for Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2013-14

ITA 2809/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. P. Renugadevi, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54FSection 80C

…) was upheld. 6.3 In rejoinder, the learned AR of the assessee submitted that mere rejection of the SLP does not amount to law declared by the Hon’ble Apex Court and that there are other judgments of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Rabo India Finance Ltd., (346 ITR 81) and Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Pushpak Bullion Pvt. Ltd., Vs. DCIT (371 ITR 81) (Guj.) which have decided the issue in favour of the assessee. It was pleaded that the aforesaid decisions (supra) should be followed. 6.4 I have considered the rival submissions / contentions and perused the material on record, and am inclined to hold that the fa…

SMT JANAKI AMMA ,SHIVAMOGGA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 , SHIVAMOGGA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11 is allowed and the other appeals for Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2013-14

ITA 2808/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. P. Renugadevi, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54FSection 80C

…) was upheld. 6.3 In rejoinder, the learned AR of the assessee submitted that mere rejection of the SLP does not amount to law declared by the Hon’ble Apex Court and that there are other judgments of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Rabo India Finance Ltd., (346 ITR 81) and Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Pushpak Bullion Pvt. Ltd., Vs. DCIT (371 ITR 81) (Guj.) which have decided the issue in favour of the assessee. It was pleaded that the aforesaid decisions (supra) should be followed. 6.4 I have considered the rival submissions / contentions and perused the material on record, and am inclined to hold that the fa…

Showing 1–20 of 30 · Page 1 of 2