Royala Corporation v. UOI

288 ITR 452High Court2007#7393 most cited
15

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2023.

Issues it is cited on

section 275(1)(a)section 275(1)section 275protective assessmentpenalty proceedings initiatedrevision under section 263section 264survey under section 133asection 246section 246afurnishing inaccurate particulars of incomepenalty under section 271(1)(c)

Judgments citing Royala Corporation v. UOI

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. KOSTUB INVESTMENT LTD., NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed being infructuous

ITA 2281/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh.Anubhav Sharma

Section 143(3)Section 253(5)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

…later;” 9.1 Interpreting this Section, Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Mohair Investment And Trading (2012) 345 ITR 51 Delhi has taken note of the judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court in Rayala Corporation P. Ltd. (2007) 288 ITR 452 (Mad) and held in para 10 and 11 as follows :- “10. From a plain reading of the relevant Sections it is clear that the period of six months provided for imposition of penalty under Section 275(1)(a) starts running after the successive appeals from an assessment order has been finally decided by the CIT(A) or the ITAT as the case may be whichever…

GAYATHRI DEVI VYAS, D.SRINIVAS VYAS MANOHAR VYAS VIJAY SHRI LEGAL HEIRS OF LATE SHRI DURGA DAS VYAS,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 12(5), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by both the assessees are dismissed

ITA 2698/CHNY/2018[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2691 & 2692/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2001-02 & 2002-03 Shri D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 1, D Block, Eashwaran Koil Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Street, West Mambalam, Chennai. Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Abvpv4760G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2693, 2694, 2695, 2696, 2697 & 2698/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:1998-99, 99-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2003-04 Gayathri Devi Vyas, D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Manohar Vyas, Vijay Shri, Legal Heirs Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, No. 1, D Chennai. Block, Eashwaran Koil Street, West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Adapv2591C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate & Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Appeals Filed By The Two Different Assessees Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 271(1)(c)

…5 of the Act in isolation of the provisions of Sec. 275(1)(a) of the Act. In this regard, reliance is placed on the 23 I.T.A. No.2691 & 2692/Chny/18 & 2693 to 2698/Chny/18 decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Royala Corporation Vs. UOI 288 ITR 452 Mad wherein it was held by the Court that the proviso cannot curtail the period of limitation prescribed in the main provisions and the proviso would apply only where no appeal is filed against the order of CIT(A). Similar view is taken by the Tribunal in the case of Trilochan Singh-v-ITO 114 TTJ 82(Asr). In this case, it was contended that order…

GAYATHRI DEVI VYAS, D.SRINIVAS VYAS MANOHAR VYAS VIJAY SHRI LEGAL HEIRS OF LATE SHRI DURGA DAS VYAS,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 12(5), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by both the assessees are dismissed

ITA 2697/CHNY/2018[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2691 & 2692/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2001-02 & 2002-03 Shri D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 1, D Block, Eashwaran Koil Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Street, West Mambalam, Chennai. Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Abvpv4760G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2693, 2694, 2695, 2696, 2697 & 2698/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:1998-99, 99-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2003-04 Gayathri Devi Vyas, D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Manohar Vyas, Vijay Shri, Legal Heirs Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, No. 1, D Chennai. Block, Eashwaran Koil Street, West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Adapv2591C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate & Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Appeals Filed By The Two Different Assessees Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 271(1)(c)

…5 of the Act in isolation of the provisions of Sec. 275(1)(a) of the Act. In this regard, reliance is placed on the 23 I.T.A. No.2691 & 2692/Chny/18 & 2693 to 2698/Chny/18 decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Royala Corporation Vs. UOI 288 ITR 452 Mad wherein it was held by the Court that the proviso cannot curtail the period of limitation prescribed in the main provisions and the proviso would apply only where no appeal is filed against the order of CIT(A). Similar view is taken by the Tribunal in the case of Trilochan Singh-v-ITO 114 TTJ 82(Asr). In this case, it was contended that order…

GAYATHRI DEVI VYAS, D.SRINIVAS VYAS MANOHAR VYAS VIJAY SHRI LEGAL HEIRS OF LATE SHRI DURGA DAS VYAS,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 12(5), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by both the assessees are dismissed

ITA 2696/CHNY/2018[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2691 & 2692/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2001-02 & 2002-03 Shri D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 1, D Block, Eashwaran Koil Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Street, West Mambalam, Chennai. Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Abvpv4760G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2693, 2694, 2695, 2696, 2697 & 2698/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:1998-99, 99-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2003-04 Gayathri Devi Vyas, D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Manohar Vyas, Vijay Shri, Legal Heirs Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, No. 1, D Chennai. Block, Eashwaran Koil Street, West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Adapv2591C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate & Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Appeals Filed By The Two Different Assessees Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 271(1)(c)

…5 of the Act in isolation of the provisions of Sec. 275(1)(a) of the Act. In this regard, reliance is placed on the 23 I.T.A. No.2691 & 2692/Chny/18 & 2693 to 2698/Chny/18 decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Royala Corporation Vs. UOI 288 ITR 452 Mad wherein it was held by the Court that the proviso cannot curtail the period of limitation prescribed in the main provisions and the proviso would apply only where no appeal is filed against the order of CIT(A). Similar view is taken by the Tribunal in the case of Trilochan Singh-v-ITO 114 TTJ 82(Asr). In this case, it was contended that order…

GAYATHRI DEVI VYAS, D.SRINIVAS VYAS MANOHAR VYAS VIJAY SHRI LEGAL HEIRS OF LATE SHRI DURGA DAS VYAS,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 12(5), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by both the assessees are dismissed

ITA 2695/CHNY/2018[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2691 & 2692/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2001-02 & 2002-03 Shri D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 1, D Block, Eashwaran Koil Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Street, West Mambalam, Chennai. Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Abvpv4760G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2693, 2694, 2695, 2696, 2697 & 2698/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:1998-99, 99-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2003-04 Gayathri Devi Vyas, D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Manohar Vyas, Vijay Shri, Legal Heirs Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, No. 1, D Chennai. Block, Eashwaran Koil Street, West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Adapv2591C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate & Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Appeals Filed By The Two Different Assessees Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 271(1)(c)

…5 of the Act in isolation of the provisions of Sec. 275(1)(a) of the Act. In this regard, reliance is placed on the 23 I.T.A. No.2691 & 2692/Chny/18 & 2693 to 2698/Chny/18 decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Royala Corporation Vs. UOI 288 ITR 452 Mad wherein it was held by the Court that the proviso cannot curtail the period of limitation prescribed in the main provisions and the proviso would apply only where no appeal is filed against the order of CIT(A). Similar view is taken by the Tribunal in the case of Trilochan Singh-v-ITO 114 TTJ 82(Asr). In this case, it was contended that order…

GAYATHRI DEVI VYAS, D.SRINIVAS VYAS MANOHAR VYAS VIJAY SHRI LEGAL HEIRS OF LATE SHRI DURGA DAS VYAS,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 12(5), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by both the assessees are dismissed

ITA 2694/CHNY/2018[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2691 & 2692/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2001-02 & 2002-03 Shri D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 1, D Block, Eashwaran Koil Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Street, West Mambalam, Chennai. Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Abvpv4760G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2693, 2694, 2695, 2696, 2697 & 2698/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:1998-99, 99-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2003-04 Gayathri Devi Vyas, D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Manohar Vyas, Vijay Shri, Legal Heirs Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, No. 1, D Chennai. Block, Eashwaran Koil Street, West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Adapv2591C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate & Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Appeals Filed By The Two Different Assessees Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 271(1)(c)

…5 of the Act in isolation of the provisions of Sec. 275(1)(a) of the Act. In this regard, reliance is placed on the 23 I.T.A. No.2691 & 2692/Chny/18 & 2693 to 2698/Chny/18 decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Royala Corporation Vs. UOI 288 ITR 452 Mad wherein it was held by the Court that the proviso cannot curtail the period of limitation prescribed in the main provisions and the proviso would apply only where no appeal is filed against the order of CIT(A). Similar view is taken by the Tribunal in the case of Trilochan Singh-v-ITO 114 TTJ 82(Asr). In this case, it was contended that order…

GAYATHRI DEVI VYAS, D.SRINIVAS VYAS MANOHAR VYAS VIJAY SHRI LEGAL HEIRS OF LATE SHRI DURGA DAS VYAS,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 12(5), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by both the assessees are dismissed

ITA 2693/CHNY/2018[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2691 & 2692/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2001-02 & 2002-03 Shri D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 1, D Block, Eashwaran Koil Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Street, West Mambalam, Chennai. Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Abvpv4760G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2693, 2694, 2695, 2696, 2697 & 2698/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:1998-99, 99-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2003-04 Gayathri Devi Vyas, D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Manohar Vyas, Vijay Shri, Legal Heirs Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, No. 1, D Chennai. Block, Eashwaran Koil Street, West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Adapv2591C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate & Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Appeals Filed By The Two Different Assessees Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 271(1)(c)

…5 of the Act in isolation of the provisions of Sec. 275(1)(a) of the Act. In this regard, reliance is placed on the 23 I.T.A. No.2691 & 2692/Chny/18 & 2693 to 2698/Chny/18 decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Royala Corporation Vs. UOI 288 ITR 452 Mad wherein it was held by the Court that the proviso cannot curtail the period of limitation prescribed in the main provisions and the proviso would apply only where no appeal is filed against the order of CIT(A). Similar view is taken by the Tribunal in the case of Trilochan Singh-v-ITO 114 TTJ 82(Asr). In this case, it was contended that order…

D.SRINIVAS VYAS,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 12(5), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by both the assessees are dismissed

ITA 2692/CHNY/2018[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2691 & 2692/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2001-02 & 2002-03 Shri D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 1, D Block, Eashwaran Koil Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Street, West Mambalam, Chennai. Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Abvpv4760G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2693, 2694, 2695, 2696, 2697 & 2698/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:1998-99, 99-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2003-04 Gayathri Devi Vyas, D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Manohar Vyas, Vijay Shri, Legal Heirs Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, No. 1, D Chennai. Block, Eashwaran Koil Street, West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Adapv2591C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate & Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Appeals Filed By The Two Different Assessees Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 271(1)(c)

…5 of the Act in isolation of the provisions of Sec. 275(1)(a) of the Act. In this regard, reliance is placed on the 23 I.T.A. No.2691 & 2692/Chny/18 & 2693 to 2698/Chny/18 decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Royala Corporation Vs. UOI 288 ITR 452 Mad wherein it was held by the Court that the proviso cannot curtail the period of limitation prescribed in the main provisions and the proviso would apply only where no appeal is filed against the order of CIT(A). Similar view is taken by the Tribunal in the case of Trilochan Singh-v-ITO 114 TTJ 82(Asr). In this case, it was contended that order…

D.SRINIVAS VYAS,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 12(5), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by both the assessees are dismissed

ITA 2691/CHNY/2018[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2691 & 2692/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2001-02 & 2002-03 Shri D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 1, D Block, Eashwaran Koil Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Street, West Mambalam, Chennai. Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Abvpv4760G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2693, 2694, 2695, 2696, 2697 & 2698/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:1998-99, 99-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2003-04 Gayathri Devi Vyas, D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Manohar Vyas, Vijay Shri, Legal Heirs Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, No. 1, D Chennai. Block, Eashwaran Koil Street, West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Adapv2591C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate & Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Appeals Filed By The Two Different Assessees Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 271(1)(c)

…5 of the Act in isolation of the provisions of Sec. 275(1)(a) of the Act. In this regard, reliance is placed on the 23 I.T.A. No.2691 & 2692/Chny/18 & 2693 to 2698/Chny/18 decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Royala Corporation Vs. UOI 288 ITR 452 Mad wherein it was held by the Court that the proviso cannot curtail the period of limitation prescribed in the main provisions and the proviso would apply only where no appeal is filed against the order of CIT(A). Similar view is taken by the Tribunal in the case of Trilochan Singh-v-ITO 114 TTJ 82(Asr). In this case, it was contended that order…

AMD RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT CENTER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED(NOW KNOWN AS AMD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 66/HYD/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Sri H. Srinivasulu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri T. Sunil Goutam,DR
Section 201(1)Section 246Section 246ASection 253Section 271CSection 275Section 275(1)(a)

…the decisions of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Mohair Investment and Trading Co. P. Ltd.[2011J (ITA No. 511/2011) and on the decision of Madras High Court in the case of Rayala Corporation P. Ltd. vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (2007) 288 ITR 452. 11.2 The submissions of the appellant have been considered. The issue to be decided in this case is whether the provisions of Section 275(1)(a) or 275(1)(c) are applicable and if 275(1)(a) are applicable whether the proviso is to be considered or not and whether the order was passed within the limitation period. The provisions of Section 275(1)…

AMD RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT CENTER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED(NOW KNOWN AS AMD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 65/HYD/2018[20009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2022

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Sri H. Srinivasulu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri T. Sunil Goutam,DR
Section 201(1)Section 246Section 246ASection 253Section 271CSection 275Section 275(1)(a)

…the decisions of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Mohair Investment and Trading Co. P. Ltd.[2011J (ITA No. 511/2011) and on the decision of Madras High Court in the case of Rayala Corporation P. Ltd. vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (2007) 288 ITR 452. 11.2 The submissions of the appellant have been considered. The issue to be decided in this case is whether the provisions of Section 275(1)(a) or 275(1)(c) are applicable and if 275(1)(a) are applicable whether the proviso is to be considered or not and whether the order was passed within the limitation period. The provisions of Section 275(1)…

AMD RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT CENTER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED(NOW KNOWN AS AMD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 64/HYD/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Sri H. Srinivasulu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri T. Sunil Goutam,DR
Section 201(1)Section 246Section 246ASection 253Section 271CSection 275Section 275(1)(a)

…the decisions of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Mohair Investment and Trading Co. P. Ltd.[2011J (ITA No. 511/2011) and on the decision of Madras High Court in the case of Rayala Corporation P. Ltd. vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (2007) 288 ITR 452. 11.2 The submissions of the appellant have been considered. The issue to be decided in this case is whether the provisions of Section 275(1)(a) or 275(1)(c) are applicable and if 275(1)(a) are applicable whether the proviso is to be considered or not and whether the order was passed within the limitation period. The provisions of Section 275(1)…

AMD RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT CENTER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED(NOW KNOWN AS AMD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 63/HYD/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Sri H. Srinivasulu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri T. Sunil Goutam,DR
Section 201(1)Section 246Section 246ASection 253Section 271CSection 275Section 275(1)(a)

…the decisions of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Mohair Investment and Trading Co. P. Ltd.[2011J (ITA No. 511/2011) and on the decision of Madras High Court in the case of Rayala Corporation P. Ltd. vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (2007) 288 ITR 452. 11.2 The submissions of the appellant have been considered. The issue to be decided in this case is whether the provisions of Section 275(1)(a) or 275(1)(c) are applicable and if 275(1)(a) are applicable whether the proviso is to be considered or not and whether the order was passed within the limitation period. The provisions of Section 275(1)…

SHRI H.K. GANDOTRA,GURGAON vs. THE INOCME-TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 594/ASR/2014[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Jun 2019AY 1997-98

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 594/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 1997-98

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 246Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR (SMC) BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 594/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 1997-98 H. K. Gandotra, r/o 733, vs. Income Tax Officer, Prem Nagar, New Plots, Ward-2(1), Jammu Jammu (presently, F-2555, Ansal Palam Vihar, Gurgaon) [PAN: ACBPG 1745P] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. P. N. Arora (Adv.) Respondent by: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.) Date of Hearing: 02.04.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 28.06.2019 ORDER Per Sanjay Arora, AM: This is an Appeal by the Assessee directed against the Order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MOHAIR INVESTMENT AND TRADING CO. P. LTD.

ITA-511/2011HC Delhi30 Sept 2011
Section 115Section 14ASection 246Section 246ASection 253Section 271(1)(c)Section 275(1)(a)

…by the ITAT then the period of six months is provided for by the main Section. Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, learned Counsel, arguing on behalf of the Revenue relied on the decision of the Madras High Court in Rayala Corporation P. Ltd. v. Union of India, (2007) 288 ITR 452 (Mad). 5. On the contrary, the submission on behalf of the Assessee was that the provision had been amended and the proviso introduced to carve out a new set of cases which dealt with the order passed by the CIT(A) after 1st June, 2003. It was next argued that the objective behind the introduction of the proviso was to accelerate the pr…

Royala Corporation v. UOI (288 ITR 452) — Cited in 15 Judgments | BharatTax