Scindia 300 ITR 193 (Bom) 5 ITO v. R.K. Gupta 308 ITR (AT) 49 (Del) 6 CIT v. Rajeev Sharma

310 ITR 300High Court#24556 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2023.

Judgments citing Scindia 300 ITR 193 (Bom) 5 ITO v. R.K. Gupta 308 ITR (AT) 49 (Del) 6 CIT v. Rajeev Sharma

RAKYAN'S FINE JEWELLERY (FORMALLY KNOWN AS M/S. VARUN GEMS),NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, RANGE- 33, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7178/DEL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.M. Gargrakyan’S Fine Jewellery (Formerly Vs. Jcit, Known As M/S. Varun Gems, Range-33, M-31, M Block Main Market, New Delhi Greater Kailash, Part-1, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaafv2804P

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Mathur, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 292B

…assessee by stating that section 292BB of the Act is applicable thus legal contention of assessee is not tenable. The ld AR placing Rakyan’s Fine Jewellery reliance on the order of Special Bench of ITAT in the case of Kuber Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd Vs. DCIT 310 ITR 300 (Del) (SC) submitted that provision of section 292BB of the Act is applicable for AY 2008-09 onwards and the same is not applicable to present past Assessment Year 2007-08. 4. On the other hand the ld Sr. DR submitted that the assessee did not raise any objection regarding non service of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act during assessment proceedings.…

ASHWANI KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 67(3), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3803/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain

For Appellant: Shri Gautam JainFor Respondent: Shri T. Vasanthan Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…d Vs. DGIT ii) 323 ITR 249 DIT Vs. Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication. iii) ITA No. 696/2015 CIT Vs. Delhi Kalyan Samiti. iv) 383 ITR 455 Pr. CIT Vs. Silver Line and Anr v) 282 CTR 435 Pr. CIT Vs. Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders vi) 310 ITR 300 AT Kuber Tobacco Products [P] Ltd Vs. DCIT vii) 178 Taxman 315 CIT Vs. Mani Kakkar 4. In that view of the matter, the Assessing Officer does not acquire jurisdiction u/s 147/143(2) of the Act and therefore, assessment so made is bad and invalid under the law and directed to be quashed. Legal ground raised by the assessee is allowed. 5. Since th…

PRIYA SANDEEP THORAT,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 27(1), NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4121/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सिं./Ita No.4121/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2008-2009) Priya Sandeep Thorat, C/O Vs. Acit-27(1)(Old Dcit- Jayesh Sanghrajka & Co, 22(1), Vashi Income Tax, Chartered Accountants, Unit Navi Mumbai. No.405, Hind Rajsthan Centre, D.S.Phalke Road, Dadar(E), Mumbai-400014 स्थममी रेखम सिं./ जीआइआय सिं./ Pan/Gir No. : Ahjpm 5246 J (अऩीरमथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. यनधमवरयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Harshvardhana Datar यमजस्र् की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri B.S.Bist सुनर्मई की तमयीख / Date Of Hearing : 10/08/2015 घोषणम की तमयीख/Date Of Pronouncement 28/10/2015 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A), Mumbai, Dated 12-6-2015 For The Assessment Year 2008-09, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The I.T.Act. 2. In This Appeal The Assessee Is Aggrieved That The Assessment Framed U/S.143(3) R.W.S.147 Without Issue Of Notice U/S.143(2) Is Not Sustainable In Law. 3. We Have Considered Rival Contentions & Carefully Gone Through The Orders Of The Authorities Below. In Para 2.1 & 2.2 Of The Assessment Order, The Ao Observed As Under :-

For Appellant: Shri Harshvardhana DatarFor Respondent: Shri B.S.Bist

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

…e CIT v Mr. Salman Khan [ITA No.2362 of 2009 dated 01/12/2009-BOM HC] 4 CWT v. HUF of H.H. Late J.M. Scindia 300 ITR 193 (Bom) 5 ITO v. R.K. Gupta 308 ITR (AT) 49 (Del) 6 CIT v. Rajeev Sharma 336 ITR 678 (All) 7 Kuber Tabocco Products Pvt. Ltd. v Dy. CIT 310 ITR 300 (AT) (SB) (Del) 8 ITO v. Smt. Kuldip Kaur (2011) 136 TTJ (Chd) (UO) 53 9 H. Gouthamchand v. Addl. CIT (2010) 131 TTJ (Bang) 204 10 Chandra R. Gandhi v. ITO 120 TTJ 786 (Mum) 5. On the other hand, the learned DR though admitted this fact that no notice u/s.143(2) has been issued in this case, however, he strongly objected that once the assess…