Vegesina Kamala v. Income-tax Officer

157 ITD 457Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2016#22922 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2019.

Judgments citing Vegesina Kamala v. Income-tax Officer

INVITROGEN BIOSERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. PR. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 868/BANG/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Smt Beena Pillai, Judical Member

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT,DR
Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…satisfied in the instant case The learned CIT has erred in not following the below mentioned judicial pronouncements- Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Sunbeam Auto  Ltd. [(2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi High Court)] Vegesina Kamala vs. Income-tax Officer [(2016)  157 ITD 457 (Visakhapatnam - Trib.)] ITA Nos.868 & 869(B)/2016 3 The learned CIT has erred in not appreciating the fact 5. the AO has allowed the claim of deduction under section 10B with respect to the Bioinformatics division after verifying the necessary documents and eligibility of the Appellant. The learned CIT has erred in not considering the 6. appr…

THE INDIAN FILM COMBINE P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 16, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 1985/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1985/Mum/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) बनधम/ The Indian Film Combine Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax-16 Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Room No.442, Aayakar 1St Floor, Maker Tower „F‟ Bhawan, M.K. Road, Cuffe-Parade, Mumbai- Mumbai. 400005. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaaci3611E (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Prakash Jothwani (Ar) Revenue By: Shri Awungshi Gimson (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06/08/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/09/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 31.01.2019 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”] Relevant To The A.Y.2014-15 In Which The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Has Invoked The Provisions U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “I. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax -16 ("Hereinafter Referred To As The Pcit"), Ignoring The Relevant Facts On Record, Has Erred In Passing Order Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 By Holding That The Assessment Order Passed By The Ito 16(1)(5) ("Hereinafter Referred To As The Learned Ao") U/S 143(3) Of The Act Dated 26.12.2016 Is Erroneous So As To Be Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue & Directing The Ao To Decide All The Issues Afresh. The Appellant Submits That The Order U/S.263 Of The Act For Modifying The Order U/S.143(3) Of The Act Is Bad In Law, Illegal, Ultra-Virus, In Excess Of And/Or In Want Of Jurisdiction & Otherwise Void. 2. The Pcit Failed To Appreciate That The A.O. While Passing Order U/S 143(3) Has Considered The Facts Of The Case & Had Taken The Legally Correct View. The Pcit Erroneously Observed That There Is At Least Some

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jothwani (AR)For Respondent: Shri Awungshi Gimson (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…19 A.Y. 2014-15 proceedings which is not justifiable in view of the law relied by the Assessee below : i) Gabriel India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (Bom) (ii) Dharam Pal 181 TTJ 40 1 (Asr). (iii) Vardhman International Ltd. 181 TTJ (40) 17 (Chd) & (iv) Vegisina Kamala 157 ITD 457 (Vishaka), In view of the above said facts and circumstances, we nowhere found any reason to sustain the order passed by the PCIT in question, therefore, we set aside order passed by the PCIT in question. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 13/09/2019 (M. BALAGAN…

SH. NITTAN ANEJA,SBS NAGAR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, both the assessee’s appeal and the Revenue’s C

ITA 288/ASR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 288/(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Joshi (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Bhawani Shankar (D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 263

…ue, and thus liable for revision. 3.2. Toward this aspect, also touched upon by the ld. counsel, Sh. Mishra, upon enquiry by the Bench in relation to one of the explanations (on merits), adverting to the order by the Tribunal in Vegesina Kamala v. ITO [2016] 157 ITD 457 (Vish.), we may, to begin with, state the legal position in the matter with reference to the judicial precedents. We do so as a matter of abundant caution; the case of the assessee before us itself being that there was, in the facts and circumstances of the case, proper enquiry by the AO in the matter in assessment, and that therefore there was n…

Vegesina Kamala v. Income-tax Officer (157 ITD 457) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax