S.S. Landmark v. ITO

117 Taxmann.com 825High Court2020#14729 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2023.

Issues it is cited on

test of enduring benefitsection 35ddsection 72asection 147(b)section 115jaasection 2(31)section 147(a)true and full disclosuresection 39section 54ecresulting companysection 115ja

Judgments citing S.S. Landmark v. ITO

Jt. CIT (Ods) - CC -1(4), Mumbai vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 222/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Bledeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd. Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) & M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle- 1(4) [Acit, Cc] Room. No 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, B-Wing, 2Nd Floor Pratishtha Bhavan Mahakali Caves Road Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Maharishi Karve Road Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 35D

….1. However, that cannot lead to the conclusion that there is nondisclosure of true and material facts by the assessee." 21. Another relevant ruling to be referred here is the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of S.S. Landmark v. ITO [117 Taxmann.com 825], wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held that Assessing Officer is bound to give details as to which facts and materials were not disclosed by the assessee which led to income escaping the assessment. The relevant findings of the order is as under: "..11. It is also to be noted, merely alleging that there is failure to disclose truly and…

Ultra Tech Cement Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT- CC 1(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 220/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Bledeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd. Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) & M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle- 1(4) [Acit, Cc] Room. No 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, B-Wing, 2Nd Floor Pratishtha Bhavan Mahakali Caves Road Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Maharishi Karve Road Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 35D

….1. However, that cannot lead to the conclusion that there is nondisclosure of true and material facts by the assessee." 21. Another relevant ruling to be referred here is the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of S.S. Landmark v. ITO [117 Taxmann.com 825], wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held that Assessing Officer is bound to give details as to which facts and materials were not disclosed by the assessee which led to income escaping the assessment. The relevant findings of the order is as under: "..11. It is also to be noted, merely alleging that there is failure to disclose truly and…

DCIT Cir 1(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1789/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Bledeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd. Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) & M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle- 1(4) [Acit, Cc] Room. No 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, B-Wing, 2Nd Floor Pratishtha Bhavan Mahakali Caves Road Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Maharishi Karve Road Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 35D

….1. However, that cannot lead to the conclusion that there is nondisclosure of true and material facts by the assessee." 21. Another relevant ruling to be referred here is the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of S.S. Landmark v. ITO [117 Taxmann.com 825], wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held that Assessing Officer is bound to give details as to which facts and materials were not disclosed by the assessee which led to income escaping the assessment. The relevant findings of the order is as under: "..11. It is also to be noted, merely alleging that there is failure to disclose truly and…

M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent Cir-1(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1466/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Bledeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd. Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) & M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle- 1(4) [Acit, Cc] Room. No 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, B-Wing, 2Nd Floor Pratishtha Bhavan Mahakali Caves Road Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Maharishi Karve Road Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 35D

….1. However, that cannot lead to the conclusion that there is nondisclosure of true and material facts by the assessee." 21. Another relevant ruling to be referred here is the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of S.S. Landmark v. ITO [117 Taxmann.com 825], wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held that Assessing Officer is bound to give details as to which facts and materials were not disclosed by the assessee which led to income escaping the assessment. The relevant findings of the order is as under: "..11. It is also to be noted, merely alleging that there is failure to disclose truly and…

Glen Propbuild Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 10(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2752/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Apr 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C” DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.2752/DEL/2018 Assessment Year 2008-09 M/s. Glen Propbuild Private Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Limited, Tax, 306-308, Square One, C-2, District Circle-10(1), Centre, Saket, New Delhi. New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AACCG7652H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Salil Kapoor, Adv. Shri Sumit Lalchandani, Adv. Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Respondent by: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr.D.R Date of hearing: 06 04 2023 Date of pronouncement: 17 04 2023 O R D E R PER SHAMIM YAHY…

M/S. Bose Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5705/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Sept 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh[Assessment Year: 2008-09] Bose Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit 3Rd Floor, Plot No.4, Circle – 5(1), Salcon Aurum, Jasola District New Delhi Centre, New Delhi – 110 025 Pan No. Aaacb 3260 A [Appellant] [Respondent]

For Appellant: Shri K. M. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 37(1)

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘A’ BENCH, NEW DELHI [THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE] BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2008-09] Bose Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. DCIT 3rd Floor, Plot No.4, Circle – 5(1), Salcon Aurum, Jasola District New Delhi Centre, New Delhi – 110 025 PAN No. AAACB 3260 A [Appellant] [Respondent] Date of Hearing : 01.09.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 03.09.2020 Assessee by : Shri K. M. Gupta, Adv Revenue by : Ms Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, This appeal by the assessee…

S.S. Landmark v. ITO (117 Taxmann.com 825) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax