Signatures Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO and Another

368 ITR 165High Court#24688 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2017.

Judgments citing Signatures Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO and Another

Sukumar Rajagopalan, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 718/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 718/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Ita No. 719/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Sukumar Rajagopalan, Vs Acit, 1516, 2Nd Floor, Kotla Mubarakpur, Circle-26(1), New Delhi-110024 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagpr6405G Assessee By : Sh. Tarun Rohatgi, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.05.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.05.2017 Order These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Dated 26.11.2015 Of Ld. Cit(A)-15, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Rohatgi, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 148Section 68

…believe that the income of the Assessee escaped assessment is missing in the present case.” 6. Similar is the position of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Signatures Hotels Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO and Another (2011) 338 ITR 51 (Del), Madhu Khosla vs. CIT 368 ITR 165 (Del) and CIT vs. Insecticides (India) Pvt. Ltd., 357 ITR 330 (Del). 7. Respectfully following the propositions laid down in all these cases, I hold that the reopening in both these assessment years are bad in law as there is no application of mind by the AO.” ITA Nos. 718 & 719/Del/2016 7 Sukumar Rajagopalan So, respectfully following the afo…

Jyotsna Sukumar, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 4065/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Rohatgi, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Rakhi Vimal, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…ieve that the income of the Assessee escaped assessment is missing in the present case.” 6. Similar is the position of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Signatures Hotels Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO and Another (2011) 338 ITR 51 (Del), Madhu Khosla vs. CIT 368 ITR 165 (Del) and CIT vs. Insecticides (India) Pvt. Ltd., 357 ITR 330 (Del). 7. Respectfully following the propositions laid down in all these cases, I hold that the reopening in both these assessment years are bad in law as there is no application of mind by the AO. 8. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed. The order pronounce…

Jyotsna Sukumar, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 4064/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Rohatgi, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Rakhi Vimal, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…ieve that the income of the Assessee escaped assessment is missing in the present case.” 6. Similar is the position of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Signatures Hotels Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO and Another (2011) 338 ITR 51 (Del), Madhu Khosla vs. CIT 368 ITR 165 (Del) and CIT vs. Insecticides (India) Pvt. Ltd., 357 ITR 330 (Del). 7. Respectfully following the propositions laid down in all these cases, I hold that the reopening in both these assessment years are bad in law as there is no application of mind by the AO. 8. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed. The order pronounce…