Similarly, in Arvind Mills Ltd. v. Dy. CIT

242 ITR 173High Court2000#20059 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,615 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 115JBSection 139Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Judgments citing Similarly, in Arvind Mills Ltd. v. Dy. CIT

Winsome Textile Industries Limited, Chandigarh vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 528/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ved Parkash Kalia Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ferred to in the proviso and it is necessary for the Assessing Officer to record that any one or all the circumstances referred to in the proviso existed before the issue of notice under section 147." (p. 677) Similarly, in Arvind Mills Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2000] 242 ITR 173 (Guj.), it was held as under:— "It is a clear case where the Assessing Officer has no reason to link escapement of income from assessment with non-disclosure of any material fact necessary for his assessment at the time of original assessment but is due to an erroneous decision on the question of law by the Assessing Officer. Thus, the case is sq…

Pramod Paliwal, Khanwa vs. ACIT Khanwa, Khanwa

In the result Ground No. 1 (a) &

ITA 271/IND/2018[09-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 Oct 2019

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year 2009-10 Shri Pramod Paliwal, Acit, Prop. M/S. Pragati Vs. Khandwa Construction, Ramkishanganj, Khandwa (M.P) (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan Adapp8012A Revenue By Shri K.G. Goyal Sr.Dr Assessee By S/Shri Anil Kamal Garg & Arpit Gaur, Cas Date Of Hearing 10.10.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 17.10.2019 O R D E R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ments: i) CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) ii) Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. (2016) 95 CCH 15 (DeI 6 Pramod Paliwal HC) iii) Direct Information (P) Ltd. vs. ITa (2012) 349 ITR 150 (MumHC) iv) Arvind Mills Ltd. vs. DCIT (2000) 242 ITR 173 (GujHC) v) Dell India (P) Ltd. vs. JCIT (2015) 127 DTR 291 (Kar.) vi) CITvs. Hewlett Packard Globalsoft Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 380 ITR 386 (Kar.) vii) CITvs. Indian Rare Earths Ltd. (2015) 374 ITR 105 (Bom.) viii) Asteroids Trading & Investments (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2009) 308ITR 190 (Born.) ix) CITvs. Usha International Ltd. (2012) 348 ITR 485 (Del.)…

M/S. Mkm Finsec (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 6366/DEL/2013[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2019AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh[A.Y 2001-02]

For Appellant: Shri Somil Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Chadha, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…acted, include reasons referred to in the proviso and it is necessary for the AO to record that anyone or all the circumstances referred to in the proviso existed before the issue of notice under Section 147." Similarly, in Aivind Mills Ltd. v. Dy. CTT (2000) 242 ITR 173 (Guj) it was held as under: "It is a clear case where the AO has no reason to link escapement of income from assessment with non-disclosure of any material fact necessary for his assessment at the time of original assessment but is due to an erroneous decision on the question of law by the AO. Thus, the case is squarely covered by the proviso to…

Asstt.Commissioner of Income Tax 1(2), Raipur (Cg) vs. M/S Maruti Clean Coal & Power Ltd, Raipur(Cg)

ITA 98/BIL/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 Mar 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Ram Lal Negi)

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Mishra, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Salil Kapoor, Adv. , Raman
Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 68

…cted, include reasons referred to in the proviso and it is necessary for the AO to record that anyone or all the circumstances referred to in the proviso existed before the issue of notice under Section 147." Similarly, in Aivind Mills Ltd. v. Dy. CTT (2000) 242 ITR 173 (Guj) it was held as under: "It is a clear case where the AO has no reason to link escapement of income from assessment with non-disclosure of any material fact necessary for his assessment at the time of original assessment but is due to an erroneous decision on the question of law by the AO. Thus, the case is squarely covered by the proviso to…