Tata Meteliks Ltd. v. CIT

368 ITR 643High Court2014#17763 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2022.

Judgments citing Tata Meteliks Ltd. v. CIT

Saj Testplant Private Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 6, Pune

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 388/PUN/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 Saj Test Plant Private Limited Vs. Dcit, 72/76, Mundhwa, Circle 6, Pune Pune Cantonment, Pune – 411036 Pan : Aabcs4227K Appellant Respondent

Section 139(5)Section 143(1)

…e u/s 143(1) of the Act, which cannot be construed as an assessment so as to debar the assessee from filing the second revised return on the ground that the assessment was already completed. The Hon‟ble Calcutta High Court in Tata Metaliks Ltd. vs. CIT (2014) 368 ITR 643 (Cal) considered an identical fact situation in which the AO refused to accept the revised return only on the ground that the first return was already accepted u/s 143(1) and hence, the assessee was prohibited from filing any revised return. Repelling the contention of the Revenue, the Hon‟ble High Court upheld the view point of the assessee by h…

Shah Impex, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 34, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 140/MUM/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Apr 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am M/S Shah Impex The Asst. Commissioner Of 412, Swastik Bisa, Business Income Tax-34, Park, Behind Wadhani Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai Vs. Industrial Estate, L.B.S Marg, Ghatkopar (West), Mumbai-400 086 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aaofs9058E

For Appellant: Vasanti B Patel, ARFor Respondent: V Justin, DR
Section 132Section 133Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…any attempt to further examine or investigate the concerned issue. Merely because the return was filed after intimation u/s 143(1) the same cannot treated as revised return or not filed in time. The Calcutta High Court in the case of Tata Meteliks Ltd v. CIT (368 ITR 643), after 9 following the ratio of Supreme Court in case of CIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd '(291 ITR 500) has held that intimation u/s 143(1)(a) does not constitute Assessment so as to disentitle assessee to file revised return u/s 139(5) of the Act. Similar view is also taken by Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Tarsem Ku…

ACIT Cen Cir 34, Mumbai vs. Jatin J.Shah, Mumbai

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2725/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2015AY 2005-06
For Appellant: Ms.Vasanti B. Patel, &For Respondent: Shri Shrikant Namdeo
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…any attempt to further examine or investigate the concerned issue. Merely because the return was filed after intimation u/s 143(1) the same cannot treated as revised return or not filed in time. The Calcutta High Court in the case of Tata Meteliks Ltd v. CIT (368 ITR 643), after following the ratio of Supreme Court in case of CIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd '(291 ITR 500) has held that intimation u/s 143(1)(a) does not constitute Assessment so as to disentitle assessee to file revised return u/s 139(5) of the Act. Similar view is also taken by Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Tarsem Kumar…

ACIT Cen Cir 34, Mumbai vs. Jay Fab, Mumbai

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2724/MUM/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2015AY 2003-04
For Appellant: Ms.Vasanti B. Patel, &For Respondent: Shri Shrikant Namdeo
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…any attempt to further examine or investigate the concerned issue. Merely because the return was filed after intimation u/s 143(1) the same cannot treated as revised return or not filed in time. The Calcutta High Court in the case of Tata Meteliks Ltd v. CIT (368 ITR 643), after following the ratio of Supreme Court in case of CIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd '(291 ITR 500) has held that intimation u/s 143(1)(a) does not constitute Assessment so as to disentitle assessee to file revised return u/s 139(5) of the Act. Similar view is also taken by Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Tarsem Kumar…

ACIT CC 34, Mumbai vs. Jay Fab, Mumbai

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3104/MUM/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2015AY 2005-06
For Appellant: Ms.Vasanti B. Patel, &For Respondent: Shri Shrikant Namdeo
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…any attempt to further examine or investigate the concerned issue. Merely because the return was filed after intimation u/s 143(1) the same cannot treated as revised return or not filed in time. The Calcutta High Court in the case of Tata Meteliks Ltd v. CIT (368 ITR 643), after following the ratio of Supreme Court in case of CIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd '(291 ITR 500) has held that intimation u/s 143(1)(a) does not constitute Assessment so as to disentitle assessee to file revised return u/s 139(5) of the Act. Similar view is also taken by Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Tarsem Kumar…

Tata Meteliks Ltd. v. CIT (368 ITR 643) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax