Uma Corporation v. ACIT & Ors.

284 ITR 67High Court#24220 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 346,713 Indian tax judgments — from 2023 to 2023.

Issues it is cited on

inadequate enquiryrevision u/s 263lack of enquirymalabar industrialdirect tax vivad se vishwassection 5(1)change of opinionerroneous and prejudicialvivad se vishwassection 263section 26section 142(1)

Judgments citing Uma Corporation v. ACIT & Ors.

Laxmi Narayan Agarwal, Jaipur vs. PCIT, Jaipur-2, Income Tax Department

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 296/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT) a
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…the case of Laherchand Dhanji v. UOI reported in 135 ITR 689 wherein dealing with the VDIS 1976, held that once the certificate is issued the same cannot be withdrawn. Further hon’ble Bombay High court in the case of Uma Corporation v. ACIT & Ors. Reported in 284 ITR 67 also held that once income is disclosed under VDIS for which certificate is issued by the authority, reassessment proceeding in respect of such disclosed income is not valid. Your honours would appreciate that the scheme of Vivad Se Vishwas is pari-matria with the VDIS schemes declared earlier as under VDIS, income was disclosed by the assessee an…

Shri Sukhjinder Singh, Jalandhar vs. Prinicpal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 71/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR
Section 263

…nder this Act shall be conclusive as to the matter stated therein and no matter covered by such order reopened in any proceedings under the Income -tax Act. Attention in this regard is invited to the case of Uma Corporation v. ACIT & Ors. (2006) 204 CTR 282 / 284 ITR 67 (Bom.) (HC) the Court held that Income disclosed under VDIS for which certificate is issued by the authority. Reassessment proceeding in respect of such disclosed income is not valid. And also to the case of Killick Nixon Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2002) 258 ITR 627/178 CTR 387(SC) wherein the Honourable Apex Court held that once declaration is accepted rea…

Shrimati. Lata Narang, Jalandhar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 35/ASR/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar02 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Rajinder Kaur, CIT- DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 5(2)Section 6

…nder this Act shall be conclusive as to the matter stated therein and no matter covered by such order reopened in any proceedings under the Income -tax Act. Attention in this regard is invited to the case of Uma Corporation v. ACIT & Ors. (2006) 204 CTR 282 / 284 ITR 67 (Bom.) (HC) the Court held that Income disclosed under VDIS for which certificate is issued by the authority. Reassessment proceeding in respect of such disclosed income is not valid. And also to the case of Killick Nixon Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2002) 258 ITR 627/178 CTR 387(SC) wherein the Honourable Apex Court held that once declaration is accepted rea…

Uma Corporation v. ACIT & Ors. (284 ITR 67) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax