Srinivasa Rao v. ACIT

295 ITR 136Reported decision2007#13946 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2018.

Judgments citing Srinivasa Rao v. ACIT

Rmg Benefit Fund Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Central Circle 2(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 634/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jun 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.628, 629, 630, 631, 632, 633 & 634/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2014-15 M/S Rmg Benefit Fund Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of No.38, Jeenis Road, V. Income Tax, Saidapet, Chennai - 600 015. Central Circle – 2(1), Chennai - 600 034. Pan : Aaacr 5172 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271D

…71D of the Act. Therefore, for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10, according to the Ld. counsel, the penalty proceeding was barred by limitation. The Ld.counsel placed his reliance on the judgment of Madras High Court in M. Srinivasa Rao v. ACIT (2007) 295 ITR 136 and submitted that the Madras High Court found that though time limit was not prescribed under Section 143(3) of the Act, the proceeding initiated by the Assessing Officer after a lapse of six years could not be allowed to continue. Accordingly, the order was quashed. In view of this judgment of Madras High Court, according to the Ld. counsel, t…

Rmg Benefit Fund Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT Central Circle 2 (1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 633/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jun 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.628, 629, 630, 631, 632, 633 & 634/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2014-15 M/S Rmg Benefit Fund Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of No.38, Jeenis Road, V. Income Tax, Saidapet, Chennai - 600 015. Central Circle – 2(1), Chennai - 600 034. Pan : Aaacr 5172 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271D

…71D of the Act. Therefore, for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10, according to the Ld. counsel, the penalty proceeding was barred by limitation. The Ld.counsel placed his reliance on the judgment of Madras High Court in M. Srinivasa Rao v. ACIT (2007) 295 ITR 136 and submitted that the Madras High Court found that though time limit was not prescribed under Section 143(3) of the Act, the proceeding initiated by the Assessing Officer after a lapse of six years could not be allowed to continue. Accordingly, the order was quashed. In view of this judgment of Madras High Court, according to the Ld. counsel, t…

Rmg Benefit Fund Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Central Circle 2(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 632/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.628, 629, 630, 631, 632, 633 & 634/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2014-15 M/S Rmg Benefit Fund Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of No.38, Jeenis Road, V. Income Tax, Saidapet, Chennai - 600 015. Central Circle – 2(1), Chennai - 600 034. Pan : Aaacr 5172 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271D

…71D of the Act. Therefore, for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10, according to the Ld. counsel, the penalty proceeding was barred by limitation. The Ld.counsel placed his reliance on the judgment of Madras High Court in M. Srinivasa Rao v. ACIT (2007) 295 ITR 136 and submitted that the Madras High Court found that though time limit was not prescribed under Section 143(3) of the Act, the proceeding initiated by the Assessing Officer after a lapse of six years could not be allowed to continue. Accordingly, the order was quashed. In view of this judgment of Madras High Court, according to the Ld. counsel, t…

Rmg Benefit Fund Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Central Circle 2(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 631/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.628, 629, 630, 631, 632, 633 & 634/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2014-15 M/S Rmg Benefit Fund Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of No.38, Jeenis Road, V. Income Tax, Saidapet, Chennai - 600 015. Central Circle – 2(1), Chennai - 600 034. Pan : Aaacr 5172 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271D

…71D of the Act. Therefore, for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10, according to the Ld. counsel, the penalty proceeding was barred by limitation. The Ld.counsel placed his reliance on the judgment of Madras High Court in M. Srinivasa Rao v. ACIT (2007) 295 ITR 136 and submitted that the Madras High Court found that though time limit was not prescribed under Section 143(3) of the Act, the proceeding initiated by the Assessing Officer after a lapse of six years could not be allowed to continue. Accordingly, the order was quashed. In view of this judgment of Madras High Court, according to the Ld. counsel, t…

Rmg Benefit Fund Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Central Circle 2(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 630/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.628, 629, 630, 631, 632, 633 & 634/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2014-15 M/S Rmg Benefit Fund Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of No.38, Jeenis Road, V. Income Tax, Saidapet, Chennai - 600 015. Central Circle – 2(1), Chennai - 600 034. Pan : Aaacr 5172 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271D

…71D of the Act. Therefore, for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10, according to the Ld. counsel, the penalty proceeding was barred by limitation. The Ld.counsel placed his reliance on the judgment of Madras High Court in M. Srinivasa Rao v. ACIT (2007) 295 ITR 136 and submitted that the Madras High Court found that though time limit was not prescribed under Section 143(3) of the Act, the proceeding initiated by the Assessing Officer after a lapse of six years could not be allowed to continue. Accordingly, the order was quashed. In view of this judgment of Madras High Court, according to the Ld. counsel, t…

Rmg Benefit Fund Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Central Circle 2(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 629/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.628, 629, 630, 631, 632, 633 & 634/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2014-15 M/S Rmg Benefit Fund Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of No.38, Jeenis Road, V. Income Tax, Saidapet, Chennai - 600 015. Central Circle – 2(1), Chennai - 600 034. Pan : Aaacr 5172 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271D

…71D of the Act. Therefore, for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10, according to the Ld. counsel, the penalty proceeding was barred by limitation. The Ld.counsel placed his reliance on the judgment of Madras High Court in M. Srinivasa Rao v. ACIT (2007) 295 ITR 136 and submitted that the Madras High Court found that though time limit was not prescribed under Section 143(3) of the Act, the proceeding initiated by the Assessing Officer after a lapse of six years could not be allowed to continue. Accordingly, the order was quashed. In view of this judgment of Madras High Court, according to the Ld. counsel, t…

Rmg Benefit Fund Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Central Circle 2(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 628/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.628, 629, 630, 631, 632, 633 & 634/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2014-15 M/S Rmg Benefit Fund Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of No.38, Jeenis Road, V. Income Tax, Saidapet, Chennai - 600 015. Central Circle – 2(1), Chennai - 600 034. Pan : Aaacr 5172 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271D

…71D of the Act. Therefore, for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10, according to the Ld. counsel, the penalty proceeding was barred by limitation. The Ld.counsel placed his reliance on the judgment of Madras High Court in M. Srinivasa Rao v. ACIT (2007) 295 ITR 136 and submitted that the Madras High Court found that though time limit was not prescribed under Section 143(3) of the Act, the proceeding initiated by the Assessing Officer after a lapse of six years could not be allowed to continue. Accordingly, the order was quashed. In view of this judgment of Madras High Court, according to the Ld. counsel, t…

Srinivasa Rao v. ACIT (295 ITR 136) — Cited in 7 Judgments | BharatTax