Vee Enterprises Vs. Addl. C1T & Ors(Del) 99 ITR 375 10. D&H Secheron Electonles Ltd. v. DOT (ITAT, Indore)

264 ITR 673High Court2003#6949 most cited
16

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2024.

Judgments citing Vee Enterprises Vs. Addl. C1T & Ors(Del) 99 ITR 375 10. D&H Secheron Electonles Ltd. v. DOT (ITAT, Indore)

PATCHIRAJAN LAKSHMANAN,MADURAI vs. PCIT, MADURAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 597/CHNY/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 597/Chny/2020 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Principal Commissioner Of Patchirajan Lakshmanan, V. Income Tax, No. 102F,/16Z/3, Maduari -1, Dhanasekaran Nagar, Madurai – 625 002. Polepettai (West) – 628 002. [Pan:Aazpl-1396-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01.05.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54F

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,‘बी’ "यायपीठ,चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एबी टी वक", "याियक सद"य एवं "ी एस. आर.रघुनाथा, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.: 597/Chny/2020 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Principal Commissioner of Patchirajan Lakshmanan, v. Income Tax, No. 102F,/16Z/3, Maduari -1, Dhanasekaran Nagar, Madurai – 625 002. Polepettai (West) – 628 002. [PAN:AAZPL-1396-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant by : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate ""य…

K.RAJESWARI,WEST TUTICORIN vs. PR.CIT, MADURAI-1

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 487/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri K. Balasubramanian, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. R. Mohan Reddy, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263

…अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ,चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ीमहावीर "सह, उपा"य" एवं "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीलसं./ITA No.: 487/CHNY/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ms. K. Rajeswari, The ACIT, 11/D2, Second Street, vs. Circle-1, Muniyasamypuram, Tuticorin. West Tuticorin – 628 002. PAN: AGAPR 9765M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri K. Balasubramanian, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Dr. R. Mohan Reddy, CIT सुनवाई क"…

SMT ELIZEBETH VASHEELAKUMARI,NAGERCOIL vs. ACI, CIRCLE-I, NAGERCOIL RANGE, NAGERCOIL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 783/CHNY/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.783/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Smt. Elizebeth Vasheelakumari, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 3, Parama Street, W.C.C. Road, Income Tax, Circle I, Nagercoil 629 001. Nagercoil Range, Nagercoil. [Pan:Abqpe8121P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 31.01.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.02.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax/Cit 1, Madurai, Dated 21.03.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 50CSection 54F

…en the Assessing Officer accepted the assessee's claim without making proper enquiries, the Commissioner acting under section 263 was justified in setting aside the assessment order. Similar view has been taken by the Madras High Court in Jai Bharath Tanners (264 ITR 673). The Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Ashok Leyland Ltd Vs CIT (260 ITR 599) has held that when the Assessing Officer was required to examine the claim of the assessee but has failed to do so, the order passed by him was not only erroneous but also prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Further, the Hon'ble Madras High Court in K…

BHAVENDRA HASMUKHLAL PATADIA. LEGAL HEIR OF HASMUKHLAL PATADIA.,CUTTACK vs. ITO WARD-!(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 125/CTK/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack26 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.125/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2015-2016) Bhavendra Hasmukhlal Patadia, Vs Ito, Ward-1(1), Cuttack Legal Heir Of Hasmukhlal Patadia, Nayabazar, Chauliaganj, Cuttack-753004 Pan No. :Adapp 6256 G (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Deepak Shah, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/12/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Pr.Cit, Cuttack, Passed In Itba/Com/F/17/2019-20/1026790827(1), Dated 19.03.2020, For The Assessment Year 2015-2016. Head On The Question Of Condonation Of Delay 2. On Perusal Of The Appeal Record, It Is Found That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 784 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Dated 11.07.2022 Along With Affidavit Stating Therein That Due To Continuous Lockdown On Account Of Spread Of Covid-19, The Assessee Could Not File The Present Appeal In Time, Therefore, He Prayed That Delay Of 784 Days In Filing The Present Appeal May Kindly Be Condoned. On The Other Hand, Ld. Cit-Dr Did Not Object To The Above Submission Of The Ld. Ar. Considering The Above, We Condone

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

…o a series of decisions, including by the Hon'ble Apex and jurisdictional High Court, as follows, viz. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83/109 Taxman 66 (SC); CIT vs. Mc Millan & Co. [1958] 33 ITR 182 (SC); Iai Bharath Tanners vs. CIT [2003] 264 ITR 673/128 Taxman 880 (Mad.); Ashok Leyland Ltd. vs. CIT [2003] 260 ITR 599/[2002] 125 Taxman 965 (Mad.); and Thalibai F. Iain vs. ITO [1975] 101 ITR 1 (Karnataka HC), to cite some. The same stands in fact made a part of the law by insertion of Explanation 2(a) to s. 263, referred to earlier. The initiation of revision proceedings in both these cases, b…

CAVINKARE PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1603/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1603/Chny/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Cavinkare Private Ltd. Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of 12, Cavin Ville, Income Tax, Cenotaph Road, Teynampet Company Circle-I(3) Chennai-600 018. Chennai-600 034. Pan:Aaacb 3754B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. R.Mohan Reddy, CITFor Respondent: 24.11.2022
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 35Section 36(1)(ii)

…12 accepted the assessee’s claim without making proper enquiries, the Commissioner acting under section 263 of the Act, was justified in setting aside the assessment order. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in Jai Bharath Tanners (264 ITR 673). The Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Ashok Leyland Ltd Vs CIT (260 ITR 599) has held that when the Assessing Officer was required to examine claim of the assessee, but has failed to do so, the order passed by him was not only erroneous, but also prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Further, the Hon’ble Madras High Court in…

DORAISWAMY SURESH (HUF),COIMBATORE vs. PCIT-1, COIMBATORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 609/CHNY/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.609/Chny/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Doraiswamy Suresh (Huf), Vs Assistant Commissioner Of 4, Ramalinga Adigalar Nagar, Income Tax, Nehru Nagar, Kalapatti, Non-Corporate Circle-2, Coimbatore-641 014. Coimbatore. Pan: Aaihd 1367H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. M.Rajan, CIT &
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263

…hen the Assessing Officer accepted the assessees claim without making proper enquiries, the Commissioner acting under section 263 was justified in setting aside the assessment order. Similar view has been taken by the Madras High Court in Jai Bharath Tanners (264 ITR 673). The Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Ashok Leyland Ltd Vs CIT (260 ITR 599) has held that when the Assessing Officer was required to examine the claim of the assessee but has failed to do so, the order passed by him was not only erroneous but also prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Further, the Hon’ble Madras High Court in K…

SRINIVASAN MOHAN,CHENNAI vs. THE PCIT,, CHENNAI-1

In the result, the appeals of the Assessees are allowed

ITA 136/CHNY/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Mr. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. G. Johnson, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 2(14)Section 263Section 45

…d upon the explanation to Section 263 of the Act which is inserted w.e.f 1st June, 2015. The learned Departmental Representative placed reliance on several decisions including that of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case Jai Bharath Tanners reported in 264 ITR 673 and strongly supported the revision made by the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax u/s.263 of the Act. 12. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials placed on record and had gone through the decisions placed before us and observe that it is an uncontroverted fact that, both in the original assessment made u/s.14…

SUDHA MOHAN,CHENNAI vs. THE PCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessees are allowed

ITA 135/CHNY/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Mr. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. G. Johnson, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 2(14)Section 263Section 45

…d upon the explanation to Section 263 of the Act which is inserted w.e.f 1st June, 2015. The learned Departmental Representative placed reliance on several decisions including that of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case Jai Bharath Tanners reported in 264 ITR 673 and strongly supported the revision made by the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax u/s.263 of the Act. 12. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials placed on record and had gone through the decisions placed before us and observe that it is an uncontroverted fact that, both in the original assessment made u/s.14…

SPANDANA SPHOORTY FINANCIAL LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(2), HYD, HYDERABAD

ITA 990/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Laxmi Prasao Sahuassessment Year: 2011-12 Spandana Sphoorty Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Financials Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-3(2), Hyderabao. Hyderabao. Pan – Aaics 6213N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs Spandana Sphoorty Income Tax, Circle-3(2), Financials Ltd., Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan – Aaics 6213N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri G.V.N. Hari Revenue By: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai Date Of Hearing: 10/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/10/2021 O R D E R Per L.P. Sahu, A.M.:

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. HariFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…dicial to the interests of the Revenue since there is loss of revenue. In this regard, support is drawn from the following decisions: " Spandana Spoorty Financial Ltd., Hyd. i) CIT Vs. Jawahar Bhattacharjee, 341 lTR 434 (Gau.) ii) Jai Bharath Tanners Vs. GIT, 264 ITR 673 (MAO.) iii) Vashti Management Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITAT, Del. )(2010-TIOL-642-ITA ,DEL) 8.2. In the case of CIT Vs. Jawahar Bhattacharjee (supra), the following ratio was laid down:- "Jurisdiction under section 263 can be exercised whenever it is found that the order of assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenu…

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. SPANDANA SPHOORTHY FINANCIAL LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

ITA 1474/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Laxmi Prasao Sahuassessment Year: 2011-12 Spandana Sphoorty Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Financials Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-3(2), Hyderabao. Hyderabao. Pan – Aaics 6213N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs Spandana Sphoorty Income Tax, Circle-3(2), Financials Ltd., Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan – Aaics 6213N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri G.V.N. Hari Revenue By: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai Date Of Hearing: 10/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/10/2021 O R D E R Per L.P. Sahu, A.M.:

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. HariFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…dicial to the interests of the Revenue since there is loss of revenue. In this regard, support is drawn from the following decisions: " Spandana Spoorty Financial Ltd., Hyd. i) CIT Vs. Jawahar Bhattacharjee, 341 lTR 434 (Gau.) ii) Jai Bharath Tanners Vs. GIT, 264 ITR 673 (MAO.) iii) Vashti Management Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITAT, Del. )(2010-TIOL-642-ITA ,DEL) 8.2. In the case of CIT Vs. Jawahar Bhattacharjee (supra), the following ratio was laid down:- "Jurisdiction under section 263 can be exercised whenever it is found that the order of assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenu…

ANDHRA PRADESH GAS POWER CORPORATIO LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1452/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri V.Siva Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 263

…uch the assessment is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue since there is loss of revenue. In this regard, support is drawn from the following decisions: i) CIT Vs. JawaharBhattacharjee, 341 ITR 434 (Gau.) ii) Jai Bharath Tanners Vs. CIT, 264 ITR 673 (Mad.) iii) Vashti Management Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITAT, Del.)(2010- TIOL-642-ITAT-DEL) 7.3 In the case of CIT Vs. JawaharBhattacharjee (supra), the following ratio was laid down: “Jurisdiction under section 263 can be exercised whenever it is found that the order of assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.…

ANDHRA PRADESH GAS POWER CORPORATION LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 724/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri V.Siva Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 263

…uch the assessment is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue since there is loss of revenue. In this regard, support is drawn from the following decisions: i) CIT Vs. JawaharBhattacharjee, 341 ITR 434 (Gau.) ii) Jai Bharath Tanners Vs. CIT, 264 ITR 673 (Mad.) iii) Vashti Management Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITAT, Del.)(2010- TIOL-642-ITAT-DEL) 7.3 In the case of CIT Vs. JawaharBhattacharjee (supra), the following ratio was laid down: “Jurisdiction under section 263 can be exercised whenever it is found that the order of assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.…

M/S HAHNEMANN PHARMACY AND LABORATORY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-55(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 77/KOL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Mar 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 77/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2007-08 Hahneman Pharmacy & Laboratory. -Vs- Ito, Ward-55(3),Kolkata [Pan: Aabfh 6326 H] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri V.N. Purohit, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263

…iture and consequent under assessment income by a sum of Rs. 6,33,344/-. In this regard, I place reliance on the following judicial pronouncements: a) M/s Ashoke Leyland Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 260 ITR 599 (Mad) b) M/s Jai Bharath Tanners vs. CIT reported in 264 ITR 673(Mad.) c) M/s Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 243 ITR 83(S C) The Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Madras High Court have held in the above cases that the AO’s failure to conduct enquiry on the issues depicted in the assessee’s final accounts would render an assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. E…

SARAH FAISAL HAWA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 17(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4752/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajendra (Am) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm) "ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य, एवं "ी संदीप गोसा", "या"यक सद"य, के सम" । {Appeals Against Order U/S. 271(1)(C)} आयकर अपील सं.I.T.A. No. 4749/Mum/2013 "नधा"रण वष"(Assessment Year 2005-06)

Section 120Section 2Section 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44A

…67 ITR 84 CIT Vs. McMillan& Co. (SC) 33 ITR 182. 8. LaSa Vat/ SInghal Vs. C1T (All) 226 ITR 527 9. Gee Vee Enterprises Vs. Addl. C1T & Ors(Del) 99 ITR 375 10. D&H Secheron Electonles Ltd. Vs. DOT (ITAT, Indore) 70 ITD 214 11. Jain Bharat Tanners Vs. CIT (Mad) 264 ITR 673 12. Ashok Leyland Ltd. Vs. CIT(Mad) 260 ITR 599 13. Arvee International Vs. Addl. CIT (ITAT, Mum) 101 ITD 495 Color craft Kashmlra Ceramic Compound Vs. ITO (ITAT, Mum) 105 14. ITD 59915. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Duggal & Co. v. C1T (1996) e) 220 ITR 456 (De/) held as under: 'An Assessing Officer is not only an adjudicator but also…

SARAH FAISAL HAWA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 17(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4751/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajendra (Am) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm) "ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य, एवं "ी संदीप गोसा", "या"यक सद"य, के सम" । {Appeals Against Order U/S. 271(1)(C)} आयकर अपील सं.I.T.A. No. 4749/Mum/2013 "नधा"रण वष"(Assessment Year 2005-06)

Section 120Section 2Section 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44A

…67 ITR 84 CIT Vs. McMillan& Co. (SC) 33 ITR 182. 8. LaSa Vat/ SInghal Vs. C1T (All) 226 ITR 527 9. Gee Vee Enterprises Vs. Addl. C1T & Ors(Del) 99 ITR 375 10. D&H Secheron Electonles Ltd. Vs. DOT (ITAT, Indore) 70 ITD 214 11. Jain Bharat Tanners Vs. CIT (Mad) 264 ITR 673 12. Ashok Leyland Ltd. Vs. CIT(Mad) 260 ITR 599 13. Arvee International Vs. Addl. CIT (ITAT, Mum) 101 ITD 495 Color craft Kashmlra Ceramic Compound Vs. ITO (ITAT, Mum) 105 14. ITD 59915. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Duggal & Co. v. C1T (1996) e) 220 ITR 456 (De/) held as under: 'An Assessing Officer is not only an adjudicator but also…

SARAH FAISAL HAWA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 17(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4749/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajendra (Am) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm) "ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य, एवं "ी संदीप गोसा", "या"यक सद"य, के सम" । {Appeals Against Order U/S. 271(1)(C)} आयकर अपील सं.I.T.A. No. 4749/Mum/2013 "नधा"रण वष"(Assessment Year 2005-06)

Section 120Section 2Section 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44A

…67 ITR 84 CIT Vs. McMillan& Co. (SC) 33 ITR 182. 8. LaSa Vat/ SInghal Vs. C1T (All) 226 ITR 527 9. Gee Vee Enterprises Vs. Addl. C1T & Ors(Del) 99 ITR 375 10. D&H Secheron Electonles Ltd. Vs. DOT (ITAT, Indore) 70 ITD 214 11. Jain Bharat Tanners Vs. CIT (Mad) 264 ITR 673 12. Ashok Leyland Ltd. Vs. CIT(Mad) 260 ITR 599 13. Arvee International Vs. Addl. CIT (ITAT, Mum) 101 ITD 495 Color craft Kashmlra Ceramic Compound Vs. ITO (ITAT, Mum) 105 14. ITD 59915. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Duggal & Co. v. C1T (1996) e) 220 ITR 456 (De/) held as under: 'An Assessing Officer is not only an adjudicator but also…

Vee Enterprises Vs. Addl. C1T & Ors(Del) 99 ITR 375 10. D&H Secheron Electonles Ltd. v. DOT (ITAT, Indore) (264 ITR 673) — Cited in 16 Judgments | BharatTax