Sahara Hospitality Ltd. v. CIT

352 ITR 38High Court2013#5905 most cited

What is Sahara Hospitality Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

An assessment order is invalid if the assessee is not granted a reasonable opportunity of being heard before the transfer of their case, even if Section 127 uses the word 'may'. The word 'may' in Section 127 should be interpreted as 'shall'.

20

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Sahara Hospitality Ltd. v. CIT · Section 127 · transfer of case · opportunity of being heard · mandatory · assessment order invalid · Bombay High Court · section 143(2)

Also reported as

25 Taxmann.com 299

Sections most often in play

Section 127Section 143(3)Section 132Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149

Issues it is cited on

section 16asection 92ca(3a)settlement applicationsection 292bbonus of proofsummons under section 131transfer pricing orderannual valueprice riggingpreponderance of probabilitysection 129permanent account number

Judgments citing Sahara Hospitality Ltd. v. CIT

SHRI PRINCEPREETJIT SINGH,RANJIT NAGAR vs. PR.CIT-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 54/CHANDI/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Chandrajit Singh, CIT, DR(Virtual)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54BSection 54F

…propositions, we rely upon the ratio of following judgements:  Louis Dreyfus Company Asia Pte. Ltd. vs. CIT(IT) (2022) 114 CCH 132 (Del HC)  Vedanta Resources vs ACIT WP(C) No. 6372 of 2022 dtd. 09.03.2023 (Orissa HC)  Sahara Hospitality Ltd. Vs CIT (2013) 352 ITR 38 (Bom HC) 7. Mandatory Notice u/s 143(2) not issued by the Jurisdictional AO within the stipulated time period. The notice u/s 143(2) is a statutory notice to be issued for framing the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act. In the present case, the notice u/s 143(2) was issued by the non jurisdictional AO. However, on subsequent transfer of the case to…

LOVELY PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 770/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: him regarding non mentioning of Document Identification Number (DIN) in the body of the order u/s. 127 of the Act dated 08-09-2021 and various other technical pleas raised in grounds of appeal regarding validity of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, thereby appellate order passed by the CIT(A) is non-speaking order and deserves to be quashed. 4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act as it was a search related case u/s. 132 r/w

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Taparia (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT) a
Section 127Section 127(1)Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 153C

…nts:- 1.1. Sachin Joshi Vs CIT [[2015] 370 ITR 598 (Bom)] 1.2. Vijayasanthi Investments P. Ltd. v. Chief CIT {[1991] 187 ITR 405 (AP)} 1.3. Shikshana Prasaraka Mandali v. CIT-since reported in [2013] 352 ITR 53 (Bom) 1.4. Sahara Hospitality Ltd. v. CIT [2013] 352 ITR 38 (Bom) 1.5. Vijayasanthi Investments P. Ltd. v. Chief CIT [1991] 187 ITR 405 (AP) 1.6. DARSHAN JITENDRA JHAVERI vs CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) [2021] 439 ITR 514 (Bom) 1.7. RAJESH MAHAJAN vs CIT [2003] 126 Taxman 87 (P&H) 1.8. AJANTHA INDUSTRIES AND OTHERS vs CBDT [1976] 102 ITR 281 (SC) 1.9. R.K. AGARWAL Vs CIT [2006] 154 Taxman 220 (All) 1.10. S…

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

ITA 718/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Pradip Kapasi CAFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Akhade CIT DR
Section 10Section 132Section 139Section 143Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM ITA No. 710/Mum/2021 (Assessment Year 2011-12) ITA No. 712/Mum/2021 (Assessment Year 2013-14) ITA No. 713/Mum/2021 (Assessment Year 2015-16) Shri Mohan Gurnani Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of 2101, Moraj Casa Grande, Plot Income tax No. 57, Sector 17, Koperkhairne, CC-5(2) Maharashtra-400709 1908, 19th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AACPG8827D Assessee by : Shri Pradip Kapasi CA Revenue by : Shri Mahesh Akhade CIT DR Date of hearing:…

MOHAN THANKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

ITA 713/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Pradip Kapasi CAFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Akhade CIT DR
Section 10Section 132Section 139Section 143Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM ITA No. 710/Mum/2021 (Assessment Year 2011-12) ITA No. 712/Mum/2021 (Assessment Year 2013-14) ITA No. 713/Mum/2021 (Assessment Year 2015-16) Shri Mohan Gurnani Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of 2101, Moraj Casa Grande, Plot Income tax No. 57, Sector 17, Koperkhairne, CC-5(2) Maharashtra-400709 1908, 19th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AACPG8827D Assessee by : Shri Pradip Kapasi CA Revenue by : Shri Mahesh Akhade CIT DR Date of hearing:…

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

ITA 712/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Pradip Kapasi CAFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Akhade CIT DR
Section 10Section 132Section 139Section 143Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM ITA No. 710/Mum/2021 (Assessment Year 2011-12) ITA No. 712/Mum/2021 (Assessment Year 2013-14) ITA No. 713/Mum/2021 (Assessment Year 2015-16) Shri Mohan Gurnani Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of 2101, Moraj Casa Grande, Plot Income tax No. 57, Sector 17, Koperkhairne, CC-5(2) Maharashtra-400709 1908, 19th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AACPG8827D Assessee by : Shri Pradip Kapasi CA Revenue by : Shri Mahesh Akhade CIT DR Date of hearing:…

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

ITA 711/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Pradip Kapasi CAFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Akhade CIT DR
Section 10Section 132Section 139Section 143Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM ITA No. 710/Mum/2021 (Assessment Year 2011-12) ITA No. 712/Mum/2021 (Assessment Year 2013-14) ITA No. 713/Mum/2021 (Assessment Year 2015-16) Shri Mohan Gurnani Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of 2101, Moraj Casa Grande, Plot Income tax No. 57, Sector 17, Koperkhairne, CC-5(2) Maharashtra-400709 1908, 19th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AACPG8827D Assessee by : Shri Pradip Kapasi CA Revenue by : Shri Mahesh Akhade CIT DR Date of hearing:…

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

ITA 710/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Pradip Kapasi CAFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Akhade CIT DR
Section 10Section 132Section 139Section 143Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM ITA No. 710/Mum/2021 (Assessment Year 2011-12) ITA No. 712/Mum/2021 (Assessment Year 2013-14) ITA No. 713/Mum/2021 (Assessment Year 2015-16) Shri Mohan Gurnani Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of 2101, Moraj Casa Grande, Plot Income tax No. 57, Sector 17, Koperkhairne, CC-5(2) Maharashtra-400709 1908, 19th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AACPG8827D Assessee by : Shri Pradip Kapasi CA Revenue by : Shri Mahesh Akhade CIT DR Date of hearing:…

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

ITA 709/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Pradip Kapasi CAFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Akhade CIT DR
Section 10Section 132Section 139Section 143Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM ITA No. 710/Mum/2021 (Assessment Year 2011-12) ITA No. 712/Mum/2021 (Assessment Year 2013-14) ITA No. 713/Mum/2021 (Assessment Year 2015-16) Shri Mohan Gurnani Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of 2101, Moraj Casa Grande, Plot Income tax No. 57, Sector 17, Koperkhairne, CC-5(2) Maharashtra-400709 1908, 19th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AACPG8827D Assessee by : Shri Pradip Kapasi CA Revenue by : Shri Mahesh Akhade CIT DR Date of hearing:…

MOHAN GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRLE - 5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

ITA 2089/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Pradip Kapasi CAFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Akhade CIT DR
Section 10Section 132Section 139Section 143Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM ITA No. 710/Mum/2021 (Assessment Year 2011-12) ITA No. 712/Mum/2021 (Assessment Year 2013-14) ITA No. 713/Mum/2021 (Assessment Year 2015-16) Shri Mohan Gurnani Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of 2101, Moraj Casa Grande, Plot Income tax No. 57, Sector 17, Koperkhairne, CC-5(2) Maharashtra-400709 1908, 19th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AACPG8827D Assessee by : Shri Pradip Kapasi CA Revenue by : Shri Mahesh Akhade CIT DR Date of hearing:…

M/S. MAA TARANI LOGISTICS LTD,JODA vs. ACIT CIR.-1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 140/CTK/2023[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack21 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & And Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S Maa Tarani Logistics M/S Maa Tarani Logistics Vs. Acit, Circle Acit, Circle-1(1), Ltd., Ltd., Unchabali, Unchabali, Po: Po: Cuttack Bamabri, Bamabri, Via Via- Joda, Keonjhar Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaecm 7549 R (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By Assessee By : S/Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Jaydeep Soumitra Choudhury & Jaydeep Chakraborty, Advocates Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. Cit (Osd) Pr. Cit (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 21/08 8/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/0 /08/2023 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), , Nfac, Nfac, Delhi, Dated 27.3.2023 In Appeal No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1051397448(1) For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. S/Shri Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Jaydeep Chakraborty, Advocates Soumitra Choudhury & Jaydeep Chakraborty, Advocates Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld. Pr.Cit (Osd) Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld. Pr.Cit (Osd) Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld. Pr.Cit (Osd) Appeared For The Reve Appeared For The Revenue.

For Appellant: S/Shri Soumitra Choudhury & JaydeepFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. CIT (OSD)
Section 127Section 127(2)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 1aSection 234Section 68

…assed by the ACIT, Circle-1(1), Cuttack dated P a g e 4 | 20 Assessment Year : 2012-13 25.3.2015 u/s.144 of the Act was bad in law. Ld AR drew our attention to the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Sahara Hospitality Ltd vs CIT, (2013) 352 ITR 38(Bom) to submit that as per the provisions of section 127(1) and (2), the requirement of granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard, wherever it is possible to do so is mandatory. It was the submission that the assessment order being passed by an officer other than the assessee’s original Assessing Officer, especially when the fi…

DSV AIR & SEA PVT. LTD (SUCESSSOR TO PANALPINA WORLD TRANSPORT (INDIA PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL /JT/ACIT/ ITO/NFAC, DELHI

ITA 796/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Tiwari, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Samruddhi Dhananjay Hande, Sr. A.R
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144B(1)(xvi)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

…icers subordinate to him (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction) to any other Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction) also subordinate to him'. Dispute arose in Sahara Hospitality Ltd. vs. CIT (2013) 352 ITR 38 (Bom) as to whether or not giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard before the transfer of case by the Chief Commissioner, in the backdrop of the use of the word `may' in the provision, be considered as mandatory. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held that the word `may' in section 127 should be read as `shall' and hence the gr…

M/S SAP LABS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 561/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 561/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Sap Labs India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 138, Export Promotion Commissioner Of Industrial Park, Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 6 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 066. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aafcs3649P Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 437/Bang/2015 (By Revenue) : Shri Aliasgar Rampurawala, Assessee By Ca Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against Final Assessment Order Dated 29.01.2015 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2010-11 On Following Consolidated Grounds Of Appeal. Assessee’S Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein By The Appellant Are Without Prejudice To One Another.

For Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar, CIT DR
Section 92D

…ficers subordinate to him (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction) to any other Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction) also subordinate to him. Dispute arose in Sahara Hospitality Ltd. vs. CIT (2013) 352 ITR 38 (Bom) as to whether or not giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard before the transfer of case by the Chief Commissioner, in the backdrop of the use of the word `may in the provision, be Page 16 of 29 IT(TP)A Nos. 561 & 437/Bang/2015 considered as mandatory. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held that the word `may in section 1…

D.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S SAP LABS INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 437/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 561/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Sap Labs India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 138, Export Promotion Commissioner Of Industrial Park, Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 6 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 066. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aafcs3649P Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 437/Bang/2015 (By Revenue) : Shri Aliasgar Rampurawala, Assessee By Ca Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against Final Assessment Order Dated 29.01.2015 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2010-11 On Following Consolidated Grounds Of Appeal. Assessee’S Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein By The Appellant Are Without Prejudice To One Another.

For Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar, CIT DR
Section 92D

…ficers subordinate to him (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction) to any other Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction) also subordinate to him. Dispute arose in Sahara Hospitality Ltd. vs. CIT (2013) 352 ITR 38 (Bom) as to whether or not giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard before the transfer of case by the Chief Commissioner, in the backdrop of the use of the word `may in the provision, be Page 16 of 29 IT(TP)A Nos. 561 & 437/Bang/2015 considered as mandatory. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held that the word `may in section 1…

TATA POWER SOLAR SYSTEMS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the legal issue

ITA 699/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 548/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Tata Power Solar The Deputy Systems Ltd., Commissioner Of 78, Electronic City, Income Tax, Hosur Road, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 100. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaact4660J Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 699/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Assessee) Assessee By : Shri Kanchun Kaushal, Ca : Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals By Assessee & Revenue Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Dated 28.01.2016 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle -7 (1)(1), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2011-12 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: It(Tp)A No. 548/Bang/2016 (Revenue’S Appeal): “1. The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel Are Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri Kanchun Kaushal, CA
Section 144C

…out concurrent jurisdiction) to any other Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction) also subordinate to Page 12 of 17 IT(TP)A Nos. 548 & 699/Bang/2016 him. Dispute arose in Sahara Hospitality Ltd. vs. CIT (2013) 352 ITR 38 (Bom) as to whether or not giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard before the transfer of case by the Chief Commissioner, in the backdrop of the use of the word `may in the provision, be considered as mandatory. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held that the word `may in section 127 should be read as `shall and hence the grant…

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S TATA POWER SOLAR SYSTEMS LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the legal issue

ITA 548/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 548/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Tata Power Solar The Deputy Systems Ltd., Commissioner Of 78, Electronic City, Income Tax, Hosur Road, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 100. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaact4660J Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 699/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Assessee) Assessee By : Shri Kanchun Kaushal, Ca : Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals By Assessee & Revenue Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Dated 28.01.2016 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle -7 (1)(1), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2011-12 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: It(Tp)A No. 548/Bang/2016 (Revenue’S Appeal): “1. The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel Are Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri Kanchun Kaushal, CA
Section 144C

…out concurrent jurisdiction) to any other Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction) also subordinate to Page 12 of 17 IT(TP)A Nos. 548 & 699/Bang/2016 him. Dispute arose in Sahara Hospitality Ltd. vs. CIT (2013) 352 ITR 38 (Bom) as to whether or not giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard before the transfer of case by the Chief Commissioner, in the backdrop of the use of the word `may in the provision, be considered as mandatory. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held that the word `may in section 127 should be read as `shall and hence the grant…

ECL FINANCE LTD.,MUMBAI vs. A.C.I.T. - 3(1)(2), MUMBAI

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

ITA 899/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2022AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C(3)

…icers subordinate to him (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction) to any other Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction) also subordinate to him'. Dispute arose in Sahara Hospitality Ltd. vs. CIT (2013) 352 ITR 38 (Bom) as to whether or not giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard before the transfer of case by the Chief Commissioner, in the backdrop of the use of the word "may1 in the provision, be considered as mandatory. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held that the word "may1 in section 127 should be read as "shall1 and hence the gr…

D.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S SWISS RESHARED SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the legal issue

ITA 438/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 290/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Swiss Re Global Business Solution India Pvt. Ltd. (Previously Known As Swiss Re The Deputy Shared Services India Pvt. Ltd.), Commissioner Of 2Nd To 5Th Floor, Fairwinds Income Tax, Building, Embassy Golf Links Circle – 6(1)(2), Business Park, Challaghatta Vs. Bangalore. Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore, Karnataka – 560 071. Pan: Aaecs8786L Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 438/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 (By Revenue) : Shri Nageswar Rao, Assessee By Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Revenue By Meena, Cit Dr (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 23-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 30 -12-2021 Order Per Bench Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Final Assessment Order Dated 29.01.2015 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2010-11 On Following Grounds Of Appeal.

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234BSection 92C

…ficers subordinate to him (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction) to any other Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction) also subordinate to him. Dispute arose in Sahara Hospitality Ltd. vs. CIT (2013) 352 ITR 38 (Bom) as to whether or not giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard before the transfer of case by the Chief Commissioner, in the backdrop of the use of the word `may in the provision, be considered as mandatory. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held that the word `may in section 127 should be read as `shall and hence the grant…

LOUIS DREYFUS COMMODITIES INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 2381/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conference)

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT DR
Section 143Section 144C

…icers subordinate to him (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction) to any other Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction) also subordinate to him'. Dispute arose in Sahara Hospitality Ltd. vs. CIT (2013) 352 ITR 38 (Bom) as to whether or not giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard before the transfer of case by the Chief Commissioner, in the backdrop of the use of the word `may' in the provision, be considered as mandatory. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held that the word `may' in section 127 should be read as `shall' and hence the gr…

M/S. ASIAN HONDA MOTOR CO. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, INTL. TAXATION, NEW DELHI

In the result additional ground raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6142/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiasian Honda Motor Co. Ltd, Dcit, C/O. Pds Legal Atmaram Int. Taxation Vs. Mansion, Office No. 7, First Floor, Kg Marg, New Delhi Pan:Aaica2531P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Deepak Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri NC Swain, CIT DR
Section 133ASection 271BSection 92(3)Section 92C

…ficers subordinate to him (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction) to any other Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction) also subordinate to him'. Dispute arose in Sahara Hospitality Ltd. v. CIT [2013] 352 ITR 38/[2012] 211 Taxman 15/25 taxmann.com 299 (Bom.) as to whether or not giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard before the transfer of case by the Chief Commissioner, in the backdrop of the use of the word 'may' in the provision, be considered as mandatory. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held that the word 'may' in section 127 s…

M/S. ASIAN HONDA MOTOR CO. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, INTL. TAXATION, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6143/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishim/S. Asian Honda Motor Co. Dcit, Ltd., Intl Taxation, Vs. C/O. Pds Legal New Delhi Atmaram Mansion, Office No.7, First Floor, K.G. Marg, New Delhi Pan:Aaica2531P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 153Section 92(3)Section 92C

…icers subordinate to him (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction) to any other Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction) also subordinate to him‟. Dispute arose in Sahara Hospitality Ltd. vs. CIT (2013) 352 ITR 38 (Bom) as to whether or not giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard before the transfer of case by the Chief Commissioner, in the backdrop of the use of the word `may‟ in the provision, be considered as mandatory. The Hon‟ble Bombay High Court has held that the word `may‟ in section 127 should be read as `shall‟ and hence the gr…

Sahara Hospitality Ltd. v. CIT (352 ITR 38) — Cited in 20 Judgments | BharatTax