Spences Hotels P. Ltd. v. DCIT

263 ITR 263Reported decision2003#15488 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 346,713 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2021.

Judgments citing Spences Hotels P. Ltd. v. DCIT

M/S Vvd Constructions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, ITA No.3384/Bang/2018 is allowed, while ITA Nos

ITA 3388/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Guruswamy, ITPFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 36(1)(iii)

…the Act could not save the limitation as limitation had already expired on the date of issue of notice u/s. 148 i.e., on 04.7.2017. Further we place reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Spences Hotels P. Ltd. v. DCIT, 263 ITR 263 (Karn) wherein it was held that reopening notice issued beyond the period of limitation u/s. 149(1)(a)(iii) expired on the date of issue of notice and therefore notice of reassessment was barred by limitation. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Dynacraft Air Controls v. Smt. Sneha Joshi & Ors., 355 ITR 102 (Bom) held that under the pres…

M/S Vvd Constructions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, ITA No.3384/Bang/2018 is allowed, while ITA Nos

ITA 3387/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Guruswamy, ITPFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 36(1)(iii)

…the Act could not save the limitation as limitation had already expired on the date of issue of notice u/s. 148 i.e., on 04.7.2017. Further we place reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Spences Hotels P. Ltd. v. DCIT, 263 ITR 263 (Karn) wherein it was held that reopening notice issued beyond the period of limitation u/s. 149(1)(a)(iii) expired on the date of issue of notice and therefore notice of reassessment was barred by limitation. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Dynacraft Air Controls v. Smt. Sneha Joshi & Ors., 355 ITR 102 (Bom) held that under the pres…

M/S Vvd Constructions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, ITA No.3384/Bang/2018 is allowed, while ITA Nos

ITA 3386/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Guruswamy, ITPFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 36(1)(iii)

…the Act could not save the limitation as limitation had already expired on the date of issue of notice u/s. 148 i.e., on 04.7.2017. Further we place reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Spences Hotels P. Ltd. v. DCIT, 263 ITR 263 (Karn) wherein it was held that reopening notice issued beyond the period of limitation u/s. 149(1)(a)(iii) expired on the date of issue of notice and therefore notice of reassessment was barred by limitation. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Dynacraft Air Controls v. Smt. Sneha Joshi & Ors., 355 ITR 102 (Bom) held that under the pres…

M/S Vvd Constructions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, ITA No.3384/Bang/2018 is allowed, while ITA Nos

ITA 3385/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Guruswamy, ITPFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 36(1)(iii)

…the Act could not save the limitation as limitation had already expired on the date of issue of notice u/s. 148 i.e., on 04.7.2017. Further we place reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Spences Hotels P. Ltd. v. DCIT, 263 ITR 263 (Karn) wherein it was held that reopening notice issued beyond the period of limitation u/s. 149(1)(a)(iii) expired on the date of issue of notice and therefore notice of reassessment was barred by limitation. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Dynacraft Air Controls v. Smt. Sneha Joshi & Ors., 355 ITR 102 (Bom) held that under the pres…

M/S Vvd Constructions Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, ITA No.3384/Bang/2018 is allowed, while ITA Nos

ITA 3384/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Guruswamy, ITPFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 36(1)(iii)

…the Act could not save the limitation as limitation had already expired on the date of issue of notice u/s. 148 i.e., on 04.7.2017. Further we place reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Spences Hotels P. Ltd. v. DCIT, 263 ITR 263 (Karn) wherein it was held that reopening notice issued beyond the period of limitation u/s. 149(1)(a)(iii) expired on the date of issue of notice and therefore notice of reassessment was barred by limitation. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Dynacraft Air Controls v. Smt. Sneha Joshi & Ors., 355 ITR 102 (Bom) held that under the pres…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Bioplus Life Sciences Pvt Ltd

In the result, I pass the following:-

ITA/1014/2017HC Karnataka24 Jul 2018

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar Writ Petition No.1014 Of 2017 (T-Kst) Between: M/S. Rainbow Colour Lab, No.13, D.J.C. Complex, Hudson Circle, Bengaluru – 560 027. A Partnership Firm Represented By Its Partner Sri.G.K.Madan Mohan, Aged About 62 Years, S/O Sri.G.V.Krishna Reddy. ...Petitioner (By Sri. M.Thirumalesh, Advocate ) And: 1. State Of Karnataka

Section 12

….P.No.14486/2021 & others dated 26.08.2021 (Orissa HC); - 7 - (xiv) Sky Automobiles vs. DCCT – WP (C) No.2225 / 2017 dated 01.10.2021 (Orissa HC); (xv) K.M.Sharma vs. ITO – (2002) 254 ITR 772 (SC); (xvi) Speces Hotels Pvt. Ltd., vs. DCIT – (2003) 263 ITR 263; (xvii) National Agricultural Co-operative Marketing Federation of India Ltd., vs. Union of India – (2003) 260 ITR 548; 5. Per contra, learned AGA for the respondents, in addition reiterating the various contentions urged in the statement of objections, would support of the impugned order and submits that there is no merit in the pet…

Spences Hotels P. Ltd. v. DCIT (263 ITR 263) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax