Rao Raja Hanut Singh (2001) 252 ITR 0528 (Rajasthan) (iv) Ian Peter Morris v. ACIT

244 ITR 303High Court2000#15833 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 144BASection 153ASection 153DSection 281BSection 132Section 142(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 281bsection 144basanctioning authoritynon application of mindsection 153bsection 153dfinal assessment orderdraft assessment ordersection 144bassistant commissionersection 139section 153

Judgments citing Rao Raja Hanut Singh (2001) 252 ITR 0528 (Rajasthan) (iv) Ian Peter Morris v. ACIT

MILLENIUM VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ACIT, CC-28, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 458/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Mr. S. Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Royi.T.A. No. 458 /Del/2022 (Assessment Year : 2015-16) Millenium Vinimay Pvt. Vs. Acit Ltd., Dpt, 801, Dlf Central Circle – 28 Prime Tower, Plot No.F- New Delhi 79 & 80, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-1, New Delhi Pan: Aaecm 5383 R (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & I.T.A. No. 827/Del/2022 (Assessment Year : 2015-16) Dcit Vs. Millenium Vinimay Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle -28 164, M.G. Road, Budge, Delhi West Bengal – 700 137 Pan: Aaecm 5383 R (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anshul, Sr. D.R
Section 132(4)Section 132ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153C(1)Section 153DSection 250(6)

…Assessee's Representative relied on the order of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Shiv Kumar Nayyar Vs. ACIT in ITA No. 1282 to 1285/Del/2020 dated 26/07/2023 and also the Judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki reported at 244 ITR 303. 7. The Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that there is no infirmity the approval granted u/s 153D of the Act and the Ld. Additional CIT has applied his mind and further submitted that the facts in the Judgments referred by the Assessee's Representative are distinguishable. The Ld. Departmental Representative further submitted that there…

VEENA SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, DELHI

In the result, the Appeals filed by the Assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 295/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shamim Yahya & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 294/Del/2022, (A.Y. 2016-17) & Ita No. 295/Del/2022, (A.Y. 2017-18) Veena Singh Vs. Acit Flat 5, 2Nd Floor, J-21, Central Circle-25 South Extension Part-1, Room No. 322, 3Rd Floor, Delhi Ara Centre, Jhandewalan, Pan: Axjps9588H Delhi

Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 44ASection 68Section 69A

…sessee's Representative relied on the order of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Shiv Kumar Nayyar Vs. ACIT in ITA No. 1282 to 1285/Del/2020 dated 26/07/2023 and also the Judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki reported at 244 ITR 303. 7. The Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that there is no infirmity the approval granted u/s 153D of the Act and the Ld. Additional CIT has applied his mind and further submitted that the facts in the Judgments referred by the Assessee's Representative are distinguishable. The Ld. Departmental Representative further submitted that the…

VEENA SINGH ,DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE25, DELHI

In the result, the Appeals filed by the Assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 294/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shamim Yahya & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 294/Del/2022, (A.Y. 2016-17) & Ita No. 295/Del/2022, (A.Y. 2017-18) Veena Singh Vs. Acit Flat 5, 2Nd Floor, J-21, Central Circle-25 South Extension Part-1, Room No. 322, 3Rd Floor, Delhi Ara Centre, Jhandewalan, Pan: Axjps9588H Delhi

Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 44ASection 68Section 69A

…sessee's Representative relied on the order of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Shiv Kumar Nayyar Vs. ACIT in ITA No. 1282 to 1285/Del/2020 dated 26/07/2023 and also the Judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki reported at 244 ITR 303. 7. The Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that there is no infirmity the approval granted u/s 153D of the Act and the Ld. Additional CIT has applied his mind and further submitted that the facts in the Judgments referred by the Assessee's Representative are distinguishable. The Ld. Departmental Representative further submitted that the…

M/S SHINDENGEN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3343/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.3343/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Shindengen India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Plot No.283/2, Bommasandra Jigani Link Circle -6(1)(1), Road, Bengaluru – 560 105. Bengaluru. Pan : Aarcs 8947 E Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. S. D. Kapila, Advocate Respondent By : Shri. Pradeep Kumar, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 30.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.08.2021 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojarithis Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 16.10.2018 Passed By The Dcit, Circle 6-(1)(1), Bengaluru, U/S.143(3) Read With Sec.144C (13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act), In Relation To Ay 2014-15. 2. The First Issue That Arises For Consideration In This Appeal Is With Regard To The Addition Made To The Total Income Of The Assessee Of A Sum Of Rs.21,61,37,271 Being An Addition Made Consequent To Determination Of Arm’S Length Price (Alp) U/S.92 Of The Act, In Respect Of An International Transaction Entered Into By The Assessee With Its Associated Enterprise (Ae). The Assessee Is A Wholly Owned Subsidiary Of Shindengen Electric Mfg Co., Ltd, Japan. It Was Incorporated In India On August 21, 2012 Under The Indian

For Appellant: Shri. S. D. Kapila, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92Section 92C

…er. The failure to give IT(TP)A No.3343/Bang/2018 Page 15 of 20 reasons could lead to a very justifiable complaint that there was a breach of natural justice. Reasons if given would substitute objectivity for subjectivity. (Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs. ITAT (2000) 244 ITR 303 Delhi.) 18. The learned DR relied on the order of the DRP. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and are of the view that the issue needs to be remanded to the DRP for consideration afresh as the DRP as a first appellate authority has not given any findings on the factual and legal submissions made by the assessee before it. Since t…

SHARAD KUMAR SARAF,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 20(3), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 2718/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Sharad Kumar Saraf Asst. Commissioner Of A-25, Midc Street No. 3, Income Tax-20(3), Vs. Marol Industrial Area, Mumbai. Andheri (East), Mumbai-400093. Pan No. Aaips1238A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Mr. Rakesh Mohan& Ms. Shloka Shah, Ars Revenue By : Mr. Ram Tiwari, Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/03/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/03/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Rakesh Mohan& Ms. ShlokaFor Respondent: Mr. Ram Tiwari, DR
Section 143(3)Section 17(2)(iv)

…TR 0708 (Bombay) (ii) CIT v. Smt. Kamal C. Mehboobbani (1995) 214 ITR 0015 (Bombay) (iii) CIT v. Rao Raja Hanut Singh (2001) 252 ITR 0528 (Rajasthan) (iv) Ian Peter Morris v. ACIT [Civil appeal No.11385-11386 of 2016 (SC)] (v) Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. ITAT (2000) 244 ITR 303 (Delhi) (vi) UOP LLC v. Addl. Director of IT [(2007) 108 ITD 186 (Delhi) 8. Now coming to the merits of the case we find that no details whatsoever regarding the credit card expense was submitted before the Assessing Officer. Hence addition of the impugned amount in the hands of the assessee was fully justified. Upon assessee's appeal learned CIT…

SHARAD KUMAR SARAF,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 20(3), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 7652/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Ms.Arju Garodia
Section 17(2)(iv)

…708 (Bombay)] (ii) CIT v. Smt.Kamal C.Mehboobbani [(1995) 214 ITR 0015 (Bombay)] (iii) CIT v. Rao Raja Hanut Singh [(2001) 252 ITR 0528 (Rajasthan)] (iv) Ian Peter Morris v. ACIT [Civil appeal No.11385-11386 of 2016 (SC)] (v) Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. ITAT [(2000) 244 ITR 303 (Delhi)] (vi) UOP LLC v. Addl.Director of IT [(2007) 108 ITD 186 (Delhi)] 8. Now coming to the merits of the case we find that no details whatsoever regarding the credit card expense was submitted before the Assessing Officer. Hence addition of the impugned amount in the hands of 7 ITA No.7652/Mum/2014. Shri Sharad Kumar Saraf. the assessee was f…