Shanti Lai Godawat& Others v. ACIT

126 TTJ 135Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2009#12091 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,607 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2023.

Judgments citing Shanti Lai Godawat& Others v. ACIT

Rajendraprasad Babulal Khetan, Surat vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Cir. - 4, Surat

ITA 142/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.142/Srt/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Rajendraprasad Babulal Khetan, Vs. The Acit, E-2-1101, Capital Greens, Vesu Central Circle-4, – Bharthana, Surat – 395007. Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abqpk8161R (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील (खोज और ज"ती) सं./It(Ss)A Nos.32/Srt/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Rajendraprasad Babulal Khetan, Vs. The Acit, E-2-1101, Capital Greens, Vesu Central Circle-4, – Bharthana, Surat – 395007. Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abqpk8161R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 150(1)Section 154

…he assessment order is invalid in the eye of law as it is a time barred assessment order and Ld. CIT(A) should have quashed such assessment order. For that, Ld. Counsel relied on two judgments which are reproduced below: (i) Shanti Lal Godawat vs. ACIT (2009) 126 TTJ 135 (Jodhpur) (ii) CWT vs. Dhhansukhlal J. Gajjar (1999) 137 ITR 534 (Guj. HC) ITA.142/SRT/2023, IT(SS)A.32, 65 – 67/SRT/2023 & Cos. 11 -12/SRT/2023 Rajendraprasad Babulal Khetan Hence, Ld. Counsel contended that The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the validity of the unsigned assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of…

Kothakota Rama Rao, Rayagada vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeals of the assessee i

ITA 20/CTK/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Aug 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)सं./Ita No.132/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.19&20/Ctk/2019 & Ita No.386/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/07/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 11.09.2018 & 29.08.2018 For Assessment Years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017. 2. Since, Similar Issues Have Been Raised In All The Appeals, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Shall Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y.2013-2014 In It(Ss)A No.132/Ctk/2018 After Taking Into Consideration The Grounds & Facts Mentioned

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234

…the order on 29.12.2017, the order has been received by him on 15.01.2018 and therefore the assessment order is barred by limitation of time. In this regard the appellant has relied upon the following judgments: a. Shanti Lai Godawat& Others vs. ACIT (2009) 126 TTJ 135 (Tnb.Jodhpur). b. Government Wood Works Vs. State of Kerala (1987) 69 STC 62 (Ker) 23 IT(SS)A No.132/CTK/2018 ITA Nos.19&20/CTK/2019 c. Maharaja Shopping Complex Vs. DCIT Citation not given. d. M/s. Nidan, Berhampur Vs. ACIT, ITA No. 109/CTK-2018 (Trib. Cuttack) e. CIT Vs. Vegetable Products Ltd.88 ITR 192 (SC) 7.2 I have carefully considered t…

Kothakota Rama Rao, Rayagada vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeals of the assessee i

ITA 19/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Aug 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)सं./Ita No.132/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.19&20/Ctk/2019 & Ita No.386/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/07/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 11.09.2018 & 29.08.2018 For Assessment Years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017. 2. Since, Similar Issues Have Been Raised In All The Appeals, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Shall Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y.2013-2014 In It(Ss)A No.132/Ctk/2018 After Taking Into Consideration The Grounds & Facts Mentioned

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234

…the order on 29.12.2017, the order has been received by him on 15.01.2018 and therefore the assessment order is barred by limitation of time. In this regard the appellant has relied upon the following judgments: a. Shanti Lai Godawat& Others vs. ACIT (2009) 126 TTJ 135 (Tnb.Jodhpur). b. Government Wood Works Vs. State of Kerala (1987) 69 STC 62 (Ker) 23 IT(SS)A No.132/CTK/2018 ITA Nos.19&20/CTK/2019 c. Maharaja Shopping Complex Vs. DCIT Citation not given. d. M/s. Nidan, Berhampur Vs. ACIT, ITA No. 109/CTK-2018 (Trib. Cuttack) e. CIT Vs. Vegetable Products Ltd.88 ITR 192 (SC) 7.2 I have carefully considered t…

Kothakota Rama Rao, Rayagada vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeals of the assessee i

ITA 386/CTK/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Aug 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)सं./Ita No.132/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.19&20/Ctk/2019 & Ita No.386/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/07/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 11.09.2018 & 29.08.2018 For Assessment Years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017. 2. Since, Similar Issues Have Been Raised In All The Appeals, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Shall Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y.2013-2014 In It(Ss)A No.132/Ctk/2018 After Taking Into Consideration The Grounds & Facts Mentioned

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234

…the order on 29.12.2017, the order has been received by him on 15.01.2018 and therefore the assessment order is barred by limitation of time. In this regard the appellant has relied upon the following judgments: a. Shanti Lai Godawat& Others vs. ACIT (2009) 126 TTJ 135 (Tnb.Jodhpur). b. Government Wood Works Vs. State of Kerala (1987) 69 STC 62 (Ker) 23 IT(SS)A No.132/CTK/2018 ITA Nos.19&20/CTK/2019 c. Maharaja Shopping Complex Vs. DCIT Citation not given. d. M/s. Nidan, Berhampur Vs. ACIT, ITA No. 109/CTK-2018 (Trib. Cuttack) e. CIT Vs. Vegetable Products Ltd.88 ITR 192 (SC) 7.2 I have carefully considered t…

Jivraj P. Surani, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 15 & 16, Mumbai

Appeal stands dismissed whereas the revenue’s appeal stands dismissed as infructuous

ITA 4541/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

…11080 of 2017) (SC). Also in support of his contentions that the assessment made by the AO is barred by limitation, the Ld. counsel relied on the decision in CIT v. BJN Hotels Ltd. (2016) 382 ITR 110 (Karn), order of the Tribunal in Shanti Lal Godawad v. ACIT 126 TTJ 135 and M/s Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd. v. CIT in ITA No. 1743/Kol/2013 for AY 2008-09 (ITAT, Kolkata). In support of his contentions regarding validity of special audit, the Ld. counsel relied on the decision in Sahara India (Firm) v. CIT (2008) 300 ITR 403 (SC), RPS Associates v. DIT (Inv) (2015) 280 CTR (All) 582, Alidhara Texpro Engg. P. Ltd. v. D…

Suresh V. Kukadiya, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 15 & 16, Mumbai

Appeal stands dismissed whereas the revenue’s appeal stands dismissed as infructuous

ITA 4523/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

…11080 of 2017) (SC). Also in support of his contentions that the assessment made by the AO is barred by limitation, the Ld. counsel relied on the decision in CIT v. BJN Hotels Ltd. (2016) 382 ITR 110 (Karn), order of the Tribunal in Shanti Lal Godawad v. ACIT 126 TTJ 135 and M/s Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd. v. CIT in ITA No. 1743/Kol/2013 for AY 2008-09 (ITAT, Kolkata). In support of his contentions regarding validity of special audit, the Ld. counsel relied on the decision in Sahara India (Firm) v. CIT (2008) 300 ITR 403 (SC), RPS Associates v. DIT (Inv) (2015) 280 CTR (All) 582, Alidhara Texpro Engg. P. Ltd. v. D…

Kalavati Surani, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 15 & 16, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4530/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mrs. Kalavati Surani Acit-Cc 15 & 16, B-2005, Chandanbala Chs Mumbai. Vs. Rr Thakkar Marg, Walkeshwar Mumbai-400006 Pan No. Aznps1185J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Vijay Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Mr. R. Manjunatha Swamy, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/07/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/10/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Mr. R. Manjunatha Swamy, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153CSection 250

…11080 of 2017) (SC). Also in support of his contentions that the assessment made by the AO is barred by limitation, the Ld. counsel relied on the decision in CIT v. BJN Hotels Ltd. (2016) 382 ITR 110 (Karn), order of the Tribunal in Shanti Lal Godawad v. ACIT 126 TTJ 135 and M/s Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd. v. CIT in ITA No. 1743/Kol/2013 for AY 2008-09 (ITAT, Kolkata). In support of his contentions regarding validity of special audit, the Ld. counsel relied on the decision in Sahara India (Firm) v. CIT (2008) 300 ITR 403 (SC), RPS Associates v. DIT (Inv) (2015) 280 CTR (All) 582, Alidhara Texpro Engg. P. Ltd. v. D…

Jayantilal C. Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO 15(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3838/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhjayantilal C. Jain, Prop. M.S. Rajguru Jewellery Mart, ……………. Appellant 621 Cotton Exchange Bldg. 6Th Floor, Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai 400002, Pan Abopj3987G V/S

For Appellant: Shri. Vimal Purniya -ARFor Respondent: Shri. Alok Johari – CIT-DR
Section 253Section 254(1)Section 68Section 69

…assessee has filed written notes on various grounds of appeal wherein he has also relied on the decision of Allahabad High Court in CIT Vs Sincere Construction [2015]54 taxman.com 31(Allahabad) and decision of Tribunal In Shanti Lal Godawat Vs ACIT [2009] 126 TTJ 135 (Jodh). On the other hand, the ld. DR for the Revenue supported the order of authorities below. It was argued that assessment order was made within two year from the end of Assessment Year. The AO passed the order within period of limitation as prescribed under section 153 of the Act. The ground of appeal raised by assessee is misconceived. It…

Shanti Lai Godawat& Others v. ACIT (126 TTJ 135) — Cited in 8 Judgments | BharatTax