Rajoo Engineers Ltd. v. DCIT

218 CTR 53High Court2008#23791 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2020.

Judgments citing Rajoo Engineers Ltd. v. DCIT

INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S.LAFIT LIGHTING PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 698/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Sept 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Naveen Kumar Mishra-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Michael Gerald-Ld.DR

Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 292B

…Tribunal in ACIT V/s Blue Star Ltd. (6a Taxmann.com 248) clearly supports the case of the assessee wherein reassessments proceedings were held to be bad under similar factual matrix. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Rajoo Engineers Ltd. V/s DCIT (218 CTR 53) quashed notice u/s 148 since mandatory requirements of recording of reasons before issuance of notice were not complied with. 6. Therefore, considering the facts of the case, no infirmity could be found in the impugned order. 10 M/s. Lafit Lighting Private Limited Assessment Year :2009-10 7. The appeal stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the o…

DCIT 2(3), MUMBAI vs. TATA SONS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue as well as cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1719/MUM/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.1719/Mum/2012 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2004-2005) Acit-2(3), Mumbai-20 Vs. M/S Tata Sons Ltd., Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai-400001 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaact 4060 A (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & Cross Objection No.70/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2004-2005) M/S Tata Sons Ltd., Bombay Vs. Acit-2(3), Mumbai-20 House, 24, Homi Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai-400001 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaact 4060 A (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By Manjunatha R Swamy : ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Dinesh Vyas सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 19/10/2015 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 09/12/2015 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A), Mumbai, For The Assessment Year 2004-05, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) R.W.S.148 Of The It Act. 2. Rival Contentions Have Been Heard & Record Perused. In This Case, The Assessment Was Reopened By Issue Of Notice U/S.148 On 6-3-

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Vyas

Section 10ASection 142Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…) Changepond Technologies (P) Ltd. v. ACIT (22 SOT 220), ITAT 'A' Bench Chennai. (v) OCIT vs Softsollndia Ltd. (22 SOT 271) ITAT 'A' Bench, Hyderabad. (vi) CIT v Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd. (330 ITR 175) Bombay High Court. (vii) Rajoo Engineers Ltd. v DCIT (218 CTR 53) Gujarat High Court. 4. Attention was drawn to documents in the Paper Book to the fact;- (i) That the notice u/s.148 is dated 06.03.2009 signed by Shri Bharat B. Garg, ACIT-2(3), Mumbai, (ii) 'The AO, Shri K. R. Iyengar, DCIT-2(3), Mumbai vide letter dated 25.08.2009 sent the attested' of reasons recorded for reopening the assessment for A.Y.2004-…

MULLER & PHILPPS (INDIA) LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 2(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5926/MUM/2009[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2015AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2001-02 Muller & Philpps (India) Ito 2 (2)(2) Ltd. 221, Unique Indl. 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ Estate Off Veer Savarkar Vs. Marg Prabhadevi Mumbai- Mumbai-400025. (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aaacm324N

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 55(2)

….), Tata International Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2012] 52 SOT 465 (Mum)., Synopsys International vs. DDIT ITA no.549/Bang/2011 dt. 10.12.2012 (Bang.)(Trib.), CIT vs. Rajindra Roshin & Turpentine Industries (2008) 305 ITR 161 (P&H) (162) and Rajoo Engg. vs Dy. CIT (2008) 218 CTR 53(Guj). It was thus argued that the reopening is without mandate of law and 5 Muller & Philpps Ltd. resultant reassessment order is null and void and should be held as such. 3.2 On the other hand, Ld. DR has placed reliance on the affidavit filed by the department. It has been submitted by the Ld. DR that admittedly no ‘Reasons’ are available in t…