Third Member) in CIT v. Rohtas Projects Ltd.

100 ITD 113Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2006#15020 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 43CASection 50CSection 56(2)(vii)(b)Section 69Section 131(1)(d)Section 143(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 55asection 131(1)(d)section 55rectification under section 154section 131(1)section 43csection 43casection 56(2)(vii)(b)section 56(2)(vii)section 269fair market valuesection 56(2)

Judgments citing Third Member) in CIT v. Rohtas Projects Ltd.

MR. HIRJIPARBAT GADA,MUMBAI vs. ITO- CIRCLE 24(1), MUMBAI

In the result, In the result, the appeal of the assesse bearing ITA No

ITA 528/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar- A.Y. 2014-15 - A.Y. 2014-15 - A.Y. 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi a/w Shri Prashant GhumareFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2Section 250Section 43CSection 56(2)(vii)Section 6Section 69

…e erroneous, and the appellate order, having been passed by invoking an incorrect provision, is unjustified in law and liable to be quashed. We also draw support from the decision of the ITAT, Lucknow Bench (Third Member) in CIT v. Rohtas Projects Ltd. (2006) 100 ITD 113 (Luck.) (TM), wherein it was held that:- “7. We agree with the ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee that the Assessing Officer made the aforesaid addition of Rs. 1,43,094 based on the cost of investment estimated by the D.V.O. The Assessing Officer has not stated any reasons for not accepting the cost declared by the assessee and/or the…

MR. HIRJIPARBAT GADA,MUMBAI vs. ITO-WARD 24(1), MUMBAI

In the result, In the result, the appeal of the assesse bearing ITA No

ITA 527/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar- A.Y. 2014-15 - A.Y. 2014-15 - A.Y. 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi a/w Shri Prashant GhumareFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2Section 250Section 43CSection 56(2)(vii)Section 6Section 69

…e erroneous, and the appellate order, having been passed by invoking an incorrect provision, is unjustified in law and liable to be quashed. We also draw support from the decision of the ITAT, Lucknow Bench (Third Member) in CIT v. Rohtas Projects Ltd. (2006) 100 ITD 113 (Luck.) (TM), wherein it was held that:- “7. We agree with the ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee that the Assessing Officer made the aforesaid addition of Rs. 1,43,094 based on the cost of investment estimated by the D.V.O. The Assessing Officer has not stated any reasons for not accepting the cost declared by the assessee and/or the…

MR. HIRJIPARBAT GADA,MUMBAI vs. ITO-WARD 24(1), MUMBAI

In the result, In the result, the appeal of the assesse bearing ITA No

ITA 526/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2025AY 2014-15
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 43CSection 56(2)(vii)Section 6Section 69

…rroneous, and the appellate order, having been passed by\ninvoking an incorrect provision, is unjustified in law and liable to be quashed.\nWe also draw support from the decision of the ITAT, Lucknow Bench (Third\nMember) in CIT v. Rohtas Projects Ltd. (2006) 100 ITD 113 (Luck.) (TM), wherein it\nwas held that:-\n“7. We agree with the Id. Authorized Representative of the assessee that the Assessing\nOfficer made the aforesaid addition of Rs.1,43,094 based on the cost of investment\nestimated by the D.V.O. The Assessing Officer has not stated any reasons for not accepting\nthe cost declared by the assessee and/or…

TATA CONSUMER PRODUCTS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

ITA 373/KOL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2014-15 & Assessment Years: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sriram Sashdari, ARFor Respondent: Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, DR
Section 250Section 43(6)Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 928

…n absence of following the said process, the entire proceedings are invalid and void-ab-initio. In support, reliance is placed on the following decisions: Dr. Shashi Kant Garg v. CIT [2006] 152 Taxman 308/285 ITR 158 (All.) DCIT vs. Rohtas Projects Ltd [2006] 100 ITD 113 (Lucknow) (Third Member) CIT v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala [2001] 119 Taxman 352/252 ITR 1 (SC) Tata Consumer Products Ltd. {erstwhile Tata Global Beverages Ltd.} AYs: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Dy. CIT v. Mahi Valley Hotels & Resorts [2006] 287 ITR 360 (Guj.) Reference is also drawn to the decision of Hon'ble Delhi Tribunal (Third Member) Bench in the case of…

TATA CONSUMER PRODUCTS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

ITA 372/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2014-15 & Assessment Years: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sriram Sashdari, ARFor Respondent: Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, DR
Section 250Section 43(6)Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 928

…n absence of following the said process, the entire proceedings are invalid and void-ab-initio. In support, reliance is placed on the following decisions: Dr. Shashi Kant Garg v. CIT [2006] 152 Taxman 308/285 ITR 158 (All.) DCIT vs. Rohtas Projects Ltd [2006] 100 ITD 113 (Lucknow) (Third Member) CIT v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala [2001] 119 Taxman 352/252 ITR 1 (SC) Tata Consumer Products Ltd. {erstwhile Tata Global Beverages Ltd.} AYs: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Dy. CIT v. Mahi Valley Hotels & Resorts [2006] 287 ITR 360 (Guj.) Reference is also drawn to the decision of Hon'ble Delhi Tribunal (Third Member) Bench in the case of…

SANJAY CHOBEY,JHANSI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-2(3)(1), JHANSI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 140/AGR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra02 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: : Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year: 2013-14 Vs. Acit, Circle –2(3)( 1), Dr. Sanjay Chobey, (Huf) Opp. Ware House, Shivpuri Aayakar Bhawan, Road, Nandpura, Jhansi 1090, Civil Lines, Pan : Aahhd7844 Q Jhansi (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 50CSection 50C(2)

…me Tax Officer, Moradabad vs. Aditya Narain Verma (HUF) Moradabad in ITA 4166/Del/2013 (Del. Trib) iii) ITO vs. Pawan Kumar Gupta (2011) 43 SOT 42 (Trib. Delhi) iv) Raj Kumar Jain vs. ACIT, (1994) 50 ITD 1 (Alld. Trib) v) DCIT vs. Rohtas Projects Ltd., (2006) 100 ITD 113 (Trib. Lkw) vi) ACIT vs. Anima Investment Ltd. 73 ITD 125 (Trib. Del) 9. The Ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) could have remanded the issue to the AO with the direction to refer the issue of valuation of property to the departmental valuation officer and the then accordingly decided. He again submitted before us that the matter may be restored t…