Shahdara (Delhi) Saharanpur Light Railway Co. Ltd. v. CIT

208 ITR 882High Court1994#17185 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,607 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Judgments citing Shahdara (Delhi) Saharanpur Light Railway Co. Ltd. v. CIT

Shri Bimal Paul, Silchar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Silchar

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 8/GTY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati06 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri Arun Bhowmick, JCIT

Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153(1)

…on the appellant, along with a copy of the assessment order, the mere fact that the appellant's copy was marked “sd/-“, would not constitute a fatal debility. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in Shahdara (Delhi) Saharanpur Light Railway Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1994] 208 ITR 882, held that there can be no invalidation of the assessment order when the amount of tax is mentioned in the demand notice, which is an undisputed fact in this appeal. 3.8 In view of the discussion as aforesaid, the ground of appeal is not meritorious. The same fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. 4.0 GROUND NUMBER (2) 4.1 The appellant has tak…

Shri Bimal Paul, Silchar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Silchar

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 211/GTY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati06 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri Arun Bhowmick, JCIT

Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153(1)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - Agartala, Agartala vs. Shri Subhajit Paul, Agartala

In the result, cross-objection nos

ITA 116/GTY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati31 Jul 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.116/Gau/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Rockein Saikia, JCIT, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Modi, FCA

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153D

…ITR 732 (Cal.,) SivalingamChettiar (VS) Vs. CIT (1966) 62 ITR 678 (Mad.), Kalyankumar Ray Vs. CIT (1991) 191 ITR 634 (SC), Arrah Sasaram Light Railway Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1993) 204 ITR 807 (Cal), Shahdara (Delhi) Saharanpur Light Railway Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1994) 208 ITR 882 (Cal), etc. The limitation period prescribed in section 153 is the period within which the AO has to complete one stage of the proceedings, that is, the assessment of the income and the determination of the tax payable. It is not necessary that the terms of the order of assessment should, also be communicated to the assessee within that period [R…

Voltas Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 7(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, these appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5330/MUM/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2005-06 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Voltas Ltd. Ito Wd 7(3)(4) Voltas House-A, Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ Dr. Babasheb Ambedkar Vs. Rd, Chincpokli, Mumbai-40020 Mumbai-400033 (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaacv2809D Assessment Year: 2005-06 Ito Wd 7(3)(4) Voltas Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ Voltas House-A, Dr. Babasheb Ambedkar Rd, Vs. Mumbai-40020 Chincpokli, Mumbai-400033 (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaacv2809D Appellant By Shri Dinesh Vyas (Ar) Revenue By Shri Asghar Zain (Dr)

Section 143(3)Section 154

…r these circumstances, the AO could not have adopted any other value as assessed by any other authority. Reliance in this regard was placed on the Judgment of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Shahdara (Delhi) Saharanpur Light Railway Co. Ltd. vs CIT 208 ITR 882. It was further contended by the Ld. Counsel that in case valuation report is not received before the assessment is completed then reference u/s 55A becomes invalid because the purpose for which a valuation report could be utilized, namely, for completion of the assessment in conformity with the valuation 9 Voltas Ltd. report, was not longer exi…

ACIT 16(3), Mumbai vs. Dilip Shoorji, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA N0

ITA 5987/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.5987/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Asstt. Commissioner Of Shri Dilip Shoorji, बनाम/ Income Tax – 16(3), 4 Th Floor, Cutch Castle, V. Matru Mandir, 523, S.V.P. Road, 2 Nd Floor, R. No. 206, Opera House, Tardeo Road, Mumbai – 400 004. Mumbai – 400 007. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aoqps0438E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.P. BairagraFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap,DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 50Section 50CSection 55A

…he DVO report is not received. In support the assessee relied on the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Reliance Jute & Industries Ltd. v. ITO, 150 ITR 643 (Cal.) and in the case of Shahdara (Delhi) Sarangpur Light Railway Co. Ltd. v. CIT, 208 ITR 882 (Cal.). It was further submitted that all the lands are developed lands having structure, road, electricity, drainage and water facilities and are non agricultural lands as per non-agricultural permission and merely because they are occupied by hutments, it cannot be said that they are not developed lands. ITA 5987/Mum/2013 10 The ld. CIT(A) o…