Rakesh C Rastogi v. Appropriate Authority

253 ITR 94Supreme Court of India2002#17400 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2020.

Judgments citing Rakesh C Rastogi v. Appropriate Authority

Ajay Baldevbhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(11) (Previously Ward-7(1)), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1341/AHD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Mar 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri R.A. Dyani, Addl.CIT
Section 144Section 69B

…2009-10 “5.1. Decision: I have persued the assessment order of the AO and the statement of facts filed by the appellant carefully. The AO has given substantial oppoertunities of being heard as per ratio laid down in the case of Rakesh C. Rastogi & Ans Vs. AA-253 ITR 94 (SC). However, the appellant could not or was not in a position to avail such opportunity to explain the investments in question. In fact the AO has noted that the appellant has expressed his inability to explain the impugned investment of Rs.21,14,476/-. Notwithstanding the recording by the A.O., number of opportunities were given by this office…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sara Services & Enginners Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the results appeal of the assessee is partly disallowed on ground no

ITA 544/DEL/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Sri C.M.Garg, Jm & Sri L.P.Sahu, Am Ita No. 406,407/Del./2010 Asstt. Year : 2002-03 Asstt. Year : 2003-04

For Appellant: Sri O.P. Sapra, Sri Sandeep Sapara, Adv. , ShriFor Respondent: Sri Sujit kumar, Sr. DR & Smt. Sunita Kejriwal, CIT,DR
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 80H

…s to enable the person affected to meet the case against him. In order that he is so enabled he should know the case against him. It is this principle which was enforced by a Bench of three Judges in the case of Rakesh C Rastogi v Appropriate Authority (2002) 253 ITR 94 (SC). ITA No. 406, 207/Del/2010 Sara Services & Engs. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT In Tin Box Co. v CIT (2001) 249 ITR 216 the Supreme Court found that in light of the finding of the Tribunal that the assessee did not have proper opportunity before the Assessing Officer, the only course of action was to set aside the assessment, so that the assessment cou…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sara Services & Enginners Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the results appeal of the assessee is partly disallowed on ground no

ITA 543/DEL/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Sri C.M.Garg, Jm & Sri L.P.Sahu, Am Ita No. 406,407/Del./2010 Asstt. Year : 2002-03 Asstt. Year : 2003-04

For Appellant: Sri O.P. Sapra, Sri Sandeep Sapara, Adv. , ShriFor Respondent: Sri Sujit kumar, Sr. DR & Smt. Sunita Kejriwal, CIT,DR
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 80H

…s to enable the person affected to meet the case against him. In order that he is so enabled he should know the case against him. It is this principle which was enforced by a Bench of three Judges in the case of Rakesh C Rastogi v Appropriate Authority (2002) 253 ITR 94 (SC). ITA No. 406, 207/Del/2010 Sara Services & Engs. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT In Tin Box Co. v CIT (2001) 249 ITR 216 the Supreme Court found that in light of the finding of the Tribunal that the assessee did not have proper opportunity before the Assessing Officer, the only course of action was to set aside the assessment, so that the assessment cou…

Sara Services & Engineers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the results appeal of the assessee is partly disallowed on ground no

ITA 407/DEL/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Sri C.M.Garg, Jm & Sri L.P.Sahu, Am Ita No. 406,407/Del./2010 Asstt. Year : 2002-03 Asstt. Year : 2003-04

For Appellant: Sri O.P. Sapra, Sri Sandeep Sapara, Adv. , ShriFor Respondent: Sri Sujit kumar, Sr. DR & Smt. Sunita Kejriwal, CIT,DR
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 80H

…s to enable the person affected to meet the case against him. In order that he is so enabled he should know the case against him. It is this principle which was enforced by a Bench of three Judges in the case of Rakesh C Rastogi v Appropriate Authority (2002) 253 ITR 94 (SC). ITA No. 406, 207/Del/2010 Sara Services & Engs. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT In Tin Box Co. v CIT (2001) 249 ITR 216 the Supreme Court found that in light of the finding of the Tribunal that the assessee did not have proper opportunity before the Assessing Officer, the only course of action was to set aside the assessment, so that the assessment cou…

Sara Services & Engineers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the results appeal of the assessee is partly disallowed on ground no

ITA 406/DEL/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Sri C.M.Garg, Jm & Sri L.P.Sahu, Am Ita No. 406,407/Del./2010 Asstt. Year : 2002-03 Asstt. Year : 2003-04

For Appellant: Sri O.P. Sapra, Sri Sandeep Sapara, Adv. , ShriFor Respondent: Sri Sujit kumar, Sr. DR & Smt. Sunita Kejriwal, CIT,DR
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 80H

…s to enable the person affected to meet the case against him. In order that he is so enabled he should know the case against him. It is this principle which was enforced by a Bench of three Judges in the case of Rakesh C Rastogi v Appropriate Authority (2002) 253 ITR 94 (SC). ITA No. 406, 207/Del/2010 Sara Services & Engs. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT In Tin Box Co. v CIT (2001) 249 ITR 216 the Supreme Court found that in light of the finding of the Tribunal that the assessee did not have proper opportunity before the Assessing Officer, the only course of action was to set aside the assessment, so that the assessment cou…

Rakesh C Rastogi v. Appropriate Authority (253 ITR 94) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax