Rahul Kumar Bajat v. Income Tax Officer

69 ITD 1Income Tax Appellate Tribunal1999#21253 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 344,197 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2018.

Judgments citing Rahul Kumar Bajat v. Income Tax Officer

Mmodal Global Services P Ltd vs. The Income Tax Officer

ITA/641/2016HC Karnataka02 Jul 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 260

…1/15 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY 2018 PRESENT THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI AND THE HON’BLE Mrs.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA I.T.A.Nos.641/2016 & 19/2018 BETWEEN: MMODAL GLOBAL SERVICES P. LTD. (FORMERLY C BAY STSTEMS (IND.) PVT. LTD.) (AS A SUCCESSOR TO SPHERIS INDIA PVT. LTD.) ANJANEYA TECHNO PARK, 147 4TH FLOOR, KODIHALLI AIRPORT ROAD, BENGALURU-560 008 REP. HEREIN BY ITS DIRECTOR Mr. AGNELO RODRIGUES. …APPELLANT (By Ms. TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR & Mr. PARAS SAVLA, ADVS.) AND: 1. THE INCOME-…

ITO, New Delhi vs. Sh. Harbans Lal, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the Cross

ITA 2458/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. P.K. Bansal & Sh. C.M. Gargassessment Year: 2007-08 Vs. Harbans Lal, A-40, Panchvati, Income Tax Officer, Ward-19(4), Room No. D-217, Vikas Azadpur, New Delhi Bhawan, New Delhi Pan : Aaapl0068R (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No. 202/Del/2011 [In Ita No. 2458/Del/2011] Assessment Year: 2007-08 Harbans Lal, A-40, Panchvati, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-19(4), Azadpur, New Delhi Room No. D-217, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi Pan : Aaapl0068R (Appellant) (Respondent) Department By Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr.Dr Assessee By Sh. Achin Garg, Advocate & Sh. Sachin Kumar, Ca Date Of Hearing 26.12.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 27.12.2016 Order Per P.K. Bansal, A.M.: The Appeal As Well As The Cross Objections Has Been Filed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xxii

Section 124Section 124(3)Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)

…of Income Tax (Appeals), annulling the assessment, therefore, in our opinion, other grounds taken by the Revenue does not require any adjudication, in view of the decision of Special Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Rahul Kumar Bajaj Vs. CIT, reported in 69 ITD 1 (Nagpur). 8. Coming to the Cross Objection filed by the assessee, since we have already dismissed the appeal of the Revenue and confirmed the 6 & C.O. No. 202/Del/2011 AY: 2007-08 action of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) annulling the assessment, therefore, the Cross Objection filed by the assessee, which is supportive to the order…

M/S. Lairy Distributors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees stand allowed on legal grounds Nos

ITA 6947/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ramesh Chandra, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 153C

…the jurisdictional issue has been argued and heard by the Hon’ble Tribunal, there is no requirement/necessity to decide the other issues on merits, as had also been held by Hon’ble 1TAT Special Bench Nagpur in the case of Rahul Kumar Bajaj vs ITO reported in 69 ITD 1. If however, the Hon’ble Bench is of the view, that the appeal of the assessee needs to be decided on merits, then, in that case an opportunity of hearing may be granted to the assessee - appellant and the case of the assessee - appellant be heard on merits.” 9. It is relevant and pertinent to mention that during the arguments of the assessee, Shri…

ITO, Bangalore vs. M/S Offshore Analytics India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 737/BANG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri. N. V. Vasudevan & Shri. Abraham P. George

For Appellant: Shri. Sachin Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri.Sunil Kumar Agarwala, JCIT

Section 10ASection 1OSection 40

…n of the written submission is a mistake apparent from the record and the same has to be rectified. For the above proposition the learned Counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rahul Kumar Bajat v. Income Tax Officer (1999) 69 ITD 1 (Nag Tribunal SB). 7. The learned DR present was duly heard. 8. We have heard the rival submissions.and perused the materia! on record. As rightly pointed out by the learned AR non con sideration of the written submission is a mistake apparent from the record and can be rectified. Moreover as per Rule 24 of the ITAT Rules 1962 the Tribunal has to ne…