How many judgments cite Siksha v. CIT?

111 judgments on BharatTax cite Siksha v. CIT (194 ITR 548), spanning 2009 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Siksha v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 142(1), Section 143(2), Section 153A, Section 127, Section 132.

Siksha v. CIT

194 ITR 548High Court1992#970 most cited

What is Siksha v. CIT authority for?

An assessee can raise new grounds, including objections to the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction to initiate re-assessment proceedings or the validity of an assessment order (e.g., under Section 263), for the first time in the second round of appellate proceedings before the CIT(A) or Tribunal, even if not raised in earlier proceedings.

111

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Inventors Industrial Corporation Ltd v CIT · 194 ITR 548 · new ground in appeal · jurisdiction challenge appellate stage · validity of assessment order · re-assessment proceedings appeal · Section 263 order validity · second round of proceedings · assessee right to raise new plea

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A Section 127 Section 132 Section 133A Section 153D

Issues it is cited on

section 5(8)section 120(4)(b)section 2(7a)closely held company accumulated profits related party transaction section 120 section 292b section 292 section 260 section 260a assistant director

Judgments citing Siksha v. CIT

SAURAV MALIK,DEHRADUN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 49/DDN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun24 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year : 2017-18] Saurav Malik Vs Ito 100/2, Bell Road Clement Town 15A, Subhash Road, Near Hilton School, Dehradun Uttarakhand Uttarakhand-248002 Pan-Bdypm6527J Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Rajiv Sahini, Ca Revenue By Shri A.S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.12.2025

Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

…ITA No.49/DDN/2025 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DEHRADUN “SMC” BENCH: DEHRADUN BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [THROUGH VIRTUAL MODE] [Assessment Year : 2017-18] Saurav Malik vs ITO 100/2, Bell Road Clement Town 15A, Subhash Road, Near Hilton School, Dehradun Uttarakhand Uttarakhand-248002 PAN-BDYPM6527J APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by Shri Rajiv Sahini, CA Revenue by Shri A.S. Rana, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 09.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement 24.12.2025 ORDER PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM : The present appeal is filed by the assessee against the order date…

ASHOK KUMAR JAIN,DELHI vs. PR, CIT 20, NEW DELHI

ITA 2641/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year : 2018-19 Ashok Kumar Jain, Vs. Pr. Cit-20, C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi. F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi – 110 085. Pan: Aakpj1872B

For Appellant: Dr. Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Pooja Swaroop, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148ASection 151Section 263Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : B : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2018-19 Ashok Kumar Jain, Vs. Pr. CIT-20, C/o Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi. F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi – 110 085. PAN: AAKPJ1872B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Dr. Kapil Goel, Advocate Revenue by : Ms Pooja Swaroop, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 10.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 26.11.2025 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order dated 29.03.2025 of the Pr. Commissioner of…

GEETA SHARMA,SUNAM vs. ITO, SUNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 491/CHANDI/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Saldi, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Prem Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 149

…en to the assessee to set up the question of validity of the\nassessment in the appeal against the levy of penalty.\n8. 9. We also derive support from another judgement of Hon'ble\nBombay High Court in the case of Inventors Industrial\nCorporation Ltd vs CIT 194 ITR 548 (Bombay) wherein it was\nheld that assessee was entitled to challenge the jurisdiction of\nthe AO to initiate re- assessment proceedings before the CIT(A)\nin the second round of proceedings, even though he had not\nraised it in earlier proceedings before the Assessing Officer or\nin the earlier appeal.\n8. 10. Thus, on the basis of aforesaid di…

INFOSYS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1530/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Sri Padam Chand Khincha – CAFor Respondent: Smt Srinandini Das – CIT - DR

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 254Section 80A(5)

…w, have a right to raise that aspect of the matter in the second round of proceedings before the Tribunal. In holding this view, we find support from a landmark decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court, in the case of Inventors Industrial Corpn. Ltd.v.CIT [1992] 194 ITR 548, wherein speaking through Hon'ble Justice T D Sugla, who had also adorned the office of the President of this Tribunal for long years, noted that "the Calcutta High Court has taken a view, in the case of CIT v. Shree Ganesh Jute Mills Ltd. [1977] 109 ITR 562, that any new ground, not necessarily a ground pertaining to jurisdictional aspect, could…

NEHA GOEL,FARIDABAD vs. PCIT , FARIDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 2624/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Neha Goel, Vs. Pcit, H. No. 585 Sector 15 Faridabad. Faridabad 121007. Pan No.Ahcpg6493Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10(38)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151Section 263

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2014-15 Neha Goel, Vs. PCIT, H. No. 585 Sector 15 Faridabad. Faridabad 121007. PAN No.AHCPG6493Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Dr. Kapil Goel, Adv. Respondent by Ms. Amisha S. Gupta, CIT DR Date of hearing: 28/05/2025 Date of Pronouncement: 28/05/2025 ORDER PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order 28.03.2024 of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Faridabad [hereinafter referred to…

DERA SACHA SAUDA,SIRSA vs. PCIT(CENTRAL),GURGAON, GURGAON

ITA 21/CHANDI/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 21/Chd/2024 (Under Section 12Aa) M/S Dera Sacha Sauda, Shah Satnam Ji Dham, Shah Satnam Ji Marg, Sirsa. Vs The Pcit (Central), Gurgaon. स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaatd8359H अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rakesh Gupta, Advocate & Shri Saksham Aggarwal, C.A. Revenue By : Shri Rohit Sharma, Cit,Dr Date Of Hearing 05.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.04.2025 Per Rajpal Yadav, Vp Hybrid Hearing Order The Assessee Is In Appeal Against The Order Of Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central, Gurgaon (In Short 'The Pcit') Dated 27.12.2023 Vide Which Registration Granted Under Section 12Aa Of The Act Dated 13.12.2004 Has Been Cancelled W.E.F. 01.04.2016 By Invoking The Provisions Of Section 12Ab(4) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta, Advocate andFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT,DR

Section 11Section 127Section 12ASection 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, चण्डीगढ़ न्यायपीठ, चण्डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘A’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 21/CHD/2024 (Under Section 12AA) M/s Dera Sacha Sauda, Shah Satnam Ji Dham, Shah Satnam Ji Marg, Sirsa. Vs The PCIT (Central), Gurgaon. स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAATD8359H अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee by : Shri Rakesh Gupta, Advocate and Shri Saksham Aggarwal, C.A. Revenue by : Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT,DR Date of Hearing 05.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 25.04.2025 PER…

INDO PACIFIC FINLEASE LTD,CHANDIGARH vs. PCIT- CHANDIGARH 1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals are filed by the\nassessee are allowed

ITA 449/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: \nSh. Ashok Goel, C.AFor Respondent: \nSh.Rohit Sharma, CIT-D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 203(1)Section 263

…to the\nassessee to set up the question of validity of the assessment in the\nappeal against the levy of penalty.\n\n8. 9. We also derive support from another judgement of Hon'ble\nBombay High Court in the case of Inventors Industrial Corporation Ltd\nvs CIT 194 ITR 548 (Bombay) wherein it was held that assessee was\nentitled to challenge the jurisdiction of the AO to initiate re-\nassessment proceedings before the CIT(A) in the second round of\nproceedings, even though he had not raised it in earlier proceedings\nbefore the Assessing Officer or in the earlier appeal.\n\n8. 10. Thus, on the basis of aforesaid d…

INDO PACIFIC FINLEASE LTD,CHANDIGARH vs. PCIT CHANDIGARH 1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals are filed by the\nassessee are allowed

ITA 448/CHANDI/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: \nSh. Ashok Goel, C.AFor Respondent: \nSh.Rohit Sharma, CIT-D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 203(1)Section 263

…n to the\nassessee to set up the question of validity of the assessment in the\nappeal against the levy of penalty.\n8. 9. We also derive support from another judgement of Hon'ble\nBombay High Court in the case of Inventors Industrial Corporation Ltd\nvs CIT 194 ITR 548 (Bombay) wherein it was held that assessee was\nentitled to challenge the jurisdiction of the AO to initiate re-\nassessment proceedings before the CIT(A) in the second round of\nproceedings, even though he had not raised it in earlier proceedings\nbefore the Assessing Officer or in the earlier appeal.\n8. 10. Thus, on the basis of aforesaid dis…

HORIZON GLOBAL LIMITED,FARIDABAD vs. DEPTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 , FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2583/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Choudhary, CIT- DR

Section 153CSection 153D

…on Society 397 ITR 344 [SC] ii) NTPC LTD Vs. CIT 229 ITR 383 [SC] iii) VMT Spinning Co. Ltd Vs. CIT & Anr. 389 ITR 326 [P&H] iv) CIT Vs. Sam Global Securities 36-0 ITR 326 v) Siksha Vs. CIT 336 ITR 112 [Orissa] vi) Inventors Industrial Corporation Ltd Vs. CIT 194 ITR 548 [Bom]” 4. Admittedly, this issue was never raised before the lower authorities. But since the challenge to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer goes to the root of the matter, in light of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC 229 ITR 383, the same deserves to be admitted and adjudicated. Accordingly, the ad…

GORJA STEEL PROCESSORS,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD

The appeals of the assessee are allowed with consequential effects

ITA 2907/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.2905 To 2907/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2017-18 To 2019-20

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 153D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : B : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITAs No.2905 to 2907/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2017-18 to 2019-20 Gorja Steel Processors, Vs DCIT, C-182, BS Road, Industrial Area, Central Circle, Ghaziabad, Ghaziabad. Uttar Pradesh – 201 002. PAN: AAKFG3318B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate & Shri Deepesh Garg, Advocate Revenue by : Shri T. James Singson, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 29.08.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 08.10.2024 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: These appeals…

GORJA STEEL PROCESSORS,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD

The appeals of the assessee are allowed with consequential effects

ITA 2906/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.2905 To 2907/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2017-18 To 2019-20

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 153D

GORJA STEEL PROCESSORS,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD

The appeals of the assessee are allowed with consequential effects

ITA 2905/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.2905 To 2907/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2017-18 To 2019-20

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 153D

MG FINCAP (P) LTD ,SAKET,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-16, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 38/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sfiri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : E : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SFIRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.38/Dsl/'2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13... MG Fincap (P) Ltd., Vs DCIT, E-9, Ground Floor (Front Portion), Central Circle-16, Saket, Delhi. New D elhi-1 1 0 017. PAN: AAACM1148A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate & Shri Deepesh Garg, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT-DR Date of Flearing : 29.04.2024 Date of Pronouncement 07.2024 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA. J M: This appeal is preferred by the Assessee…

SH. PRAVEEN SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the quantum Appeal No

ITA 1653/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Vimal Kumarita Nos. 1545 & 1653/Del/2017 Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Sh. Praveen Sawhney, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-7 C/O M/S Rra Taxindia, New Delhi D-28, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi – 49 (Pan: Abops1461Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : S/Shri Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Deepesh Garg, Adv. Respondent By : Ms. Sarita Kumari, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10.07.2024

For Appellant: S/Shri Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Deepesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘G’’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 1545 & 1653/Del/2017 Asstt. Year : 2012-13 SH. PRAVEEN SAWHNEY, VS. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-7 C/O M/S RRA TAXINDIA, NEW DELHI D-28, SOUTH EXTENSION, PART-I, NEW DELHI – 49 (PAN: ABOPS1461Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : S/Shri Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Deepesh Garg, Adv. Respondent by : Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 20.06.2024 Date of Pronouncement 10.07.2024 ORDER PER VIMAL KUMAR, JM The assessee’s appeals are against separate orders dated…

SH. PRAVEEN SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the quantum Appeal No

ITA 1545/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

For Appellant: S/Shri Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Deepesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

ITO (IT) TDS-2, MUMBAI vs. TATA STEEL LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed, while the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 225/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri J. D. Mistry a/wFor Respondent: Shri P. C. Chhotaray

Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

…f a judgment is doubted by the higher court the judgment no longer remains the law of the land and is treated as non- est.” 15. It is further pertinent to note that the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in Inventors Industrial Corporation Ltd v/s CIT, [1992] 194 ITR 548 (Bom.) held that the ground by which the jurisdiction to make an assessment itself is challenged can be urged before any authority for the first time, even in the second round of proceedings. Therefore, once the issue raised by way of additional grounds of appeal has been found to be a legal issue, which can be decided on the basis of facts avail…

TATA STEEL LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed, while the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 8707/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri J. D. Mistry a/wFor Respondent: Shri P. C. Chhotaray

Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

S S BRAHMA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,MAYURBHANJ vs. PRINICIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PCIT, SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 107/CTK/2024[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack05 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 148Section 263Section 69

…question of validity of the assessment in the appeal against the levy of penalty. 8.9. We also derive support from another judgement of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Inventors Industrial Corporation 14 Ltd vs. CIT (1991) 96 CTR (Bom) 206 : (1992) 194 ITR 548 (Bom) wherein it was held that assessee was entitled to challenge the jurisdiction of the AO to initiate re-assessment proceedings before the CIT(A) in the second round of proceedings, even though he had not raised it in earlier proceedings before the AO or in the earlier appeal. 8.10. Thus, on the basis of aforesaid discussion we can safely hold…

ITO, WD.9(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S MAHARAJ VINCOM PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

ITA 35/KOL/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.35/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata……………….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd……............…..........................…..…..... Respondent 69, Jamunalal Bajaj Street, Kolkata- 700007. [Pan: Aafcm6496E] C.O. No.6/Kol/2023 (A/O I.T.A. No.35/Kol/2021) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd……............…..........................…....... Cross-Objector 69, Jamunalal Bajaj Street, Kolkata- 700007. [Pan: Aafcm6496E] Vs Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata …………..….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 07, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 15, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: This Appeal By The Revenue & Corresponding Cross-Objection By The Assessee Have Been Preferred Against The Order Dated 08.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ‘सी’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH KOLKATA "ी संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी मनीष बोरड, लेखा सद"य के सम" Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member and Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member I.T.A. No.35/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2009-10 ITO, Ward-9(1), Kolkata……………….......................…...……………....Appellant vs. M/s Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd……............…..........................…..…..... Respondent 69, Jamunalal Bajaj Street, Kolkata- 700007. [PAN: AAFCM6496E] C.O. No.6/Kol/2023 (A/o I.T.A. No.35/Kol/2021) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s Maharaj Vincom Pvt.…

ITO, WARD-6(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S DANIEL COMMODITIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

ITA 645/KOL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.645/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito, Ward-6(1), Kolkata………..…….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Daniel Commodities Pvt. Ltd…..........…..........................…..…..... Respondent 6, Lyons Range, Kolkata – 1. [Pan: Aaccd9344F] C.O. 4/Kol/2023 (A/O I.T.A. No.645/Kol/2020) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Daniel Commodities Pvt. Ltd…………….....................…..…..... Cross-Objector 6, Lyons Range, Kolkata – 1. [Pan: Aaccd9344F] Vs Ito, Ward-6(1), Kolkata …………….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 23, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 07, 2024

Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 263

…is open to the assessee to set up the question of validity of the assessment in the appeal against the levy of penalty. 8.9. We also derive support from another judgement of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Inventors Industrial Corporation Ltd vs CIT 194 ITR 548 (Bombay) wherein it was held that assessee was entitled to challenge the jurisdiction of the AO to initiate re-assessment proceedings before the CIT(A) in the second round of proceedings, even though he had not raised it in earlier proceedings before the Assessing Officer or in the earlier appeal. 8.10. Thus, on the basis of aforesaid discussion…

Showing 1–20 of 111 · Page 1 of 6