How many judgments cite Venus Industrial Corporation v. Asst. CIT?

32 judgments on BharatTax cite Venus Industrial Corporation v. Asst. CIT (236 ITR 742), spanning 2016 to 2022.

Venus Industrial Corporation v. Asst. CIT

236 ITR 742High Court1999#3711 most cited

What is Venus Industrial Corporation v. Asst. CIT authority for?

Reopening an assessment within four years to re-examine a deduction under Section 80HHC, which was wrongly allowed in the original assessment, is valid. This is illustrated by cases where reassessment was held valid for re-examining deductions based on how excise duty was treated in the balance sheet.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2022.

Also referred to as

Venus Industrial Corporation v. Asst. CIT · Section 80HHC · reassessment · wrongly allowed deduction · re-examination of deduction · assessment within four years · excise duty deduction · balance sheet treatment · reopening assessment

Also reported as

98 Taxmann 14

Judgments citing Venus Industrial Corporation v. Asst. CIT

SABARI FOUNDATIONS P LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 6(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee in I

ITA 2744/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A No.:2744/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year 2010 - 2011

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ,चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ीमहावीर "सह, उपा"य" एवं"ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद"यके सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A No.:2744/CHNY/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year 2010 - 2011 M/s. Sabari Foundations Private The Income Tax Officer, Limited, Vs. Corporate Ward – VI (1), New No.30, Old No.28, Aayakar Bhavan, 6th Main Road, New Block [7th Floor], Raja Annamalaipuram, No.121, Nungambakkam High Chennai – 600 028. Road, Chennai – 600 034. PAN : AAECS 0298R (अपीलाथ"/App…

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRITSAR. vs. M/S KHOSLA INTERNATIONAL, BATALA

ITA 307/ASR/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 307/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Avish Mahajan (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148(1)Section 14A

…2001] 247 ITR 818 (SC) (approving that by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court reported at [1982] 137 ITR 446). In fact, even the same issue may be examined in a different context, validating the reassessment (Venus Industrial Corporation v. Asst. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 742 (P&H)). To say therefore that the present is a case of change of opinion or borrowed satisfaction in view of the audit objection having been raised would not be correct. 6 Asst. CIT v. Khosla International The import of the letter dated 19.08.2011 to the audit cell by the then AO, however, has to be considered. Vide the said letter (copy on rec…

SHIVAM ENTERPRISES HARBILAS,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFICER WARD-4, HOSHIARPUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 194/ASR/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 194/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Sachin Malhotra (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)

Section 143(3)Section 148

…emphasis (refer: Sewak Ram v. ITO [2010] 47 DTR 361 (P&H); Consolidated Photo and Finvest Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2006] 281 ITR 394 (Del)). Even the same issue, examined in a different context, would not bar reassessment (Venus Industrial Corp. v. Asst. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 742 (P&H)). At the same time, however, in my view no case for reopening of assessment is made out on the basis of the reason/s recorded. This is as the AO was, without doubt, conscious of the assessee’s business of transportation of goods for the principal, Ambuja Cement Ltd., earning transportation income, while framing the original assessment, even…

ITO 13(3)(3), MUMBAI vs. VULVAN TRADERS P. LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 4137/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Years: 2008-09 Income Tax Officer-13(3)(3), M/S Vulvan Traders, 805, Room No.227,02Nd Floor, A Wingh, Corporate Avenue, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Sonawala Raod, Vs. M. K. Road, Goregaon East, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400063 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aaacv1603K Assessment Years: 2008-09 M/S Vulvan Traders, 805, Income Tax Officer-13(3)(3), A Wingh, Corporate Room No.227,02Nd Floor, बनाम/ Avenue, Sonawala Raod, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Goregaon East, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400063 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aaacv1603K

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…469 (Del); b. CIT v. K. Mohan & Co. (Exports), (2012) 349 ITR 653 (Bom); c. Remfry & Sagar v. CIT, (2013) 351 ITR 75 (Del); d. OPG Metals & Finsec Ltd. v. CIT, (2013) 358 ITR 144 (Del). 2.12. In the case of Venus Industrial Corporation v. Asst. CIT, (1999) 236 ITR 742, 746 (P & H) [Where initiation was started within four years for re-examining the deduction under section 80HHC, was held to be wrongly allowed in the original assessment. Identically, in the case of Happy Forging Ltd. v. CIT, (2002) 253 ITR 413,416-17 (P & H), where excise duty paid in advance was shown as an asset in the balance sheet and wa…

ACIT NON CORP CIRCLE 1 (1) FORMERLY KNOWN AS BUSINESS CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S DEOLITE HASKINS & SELLS, CHENNAI

ITA 2580/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mr.AR.V.Sreenivasan,JCIT,D.RFor Respondent: Mr.S.P.Chidambaram,Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…aft Ltd. (2013) 354 ITR 536 (Del.) xi. Acorus Unitech Wirelss Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT (2014) 362 ITR 417 (Del.). xii. Praful Chunilal Patel: Vasant Chunilal Patel vs Asst. CIT (1999) 832, 843-44, 844-45 (Guj.), xiii. Venus Industrial Corporation vs Asst. CIT (1999) 236 ITR 742, 746 (Punj.), xiv. Srichand Lalchand Talreja vs Asst. CIT (1998) 98 taxman 14, 19 (Bom.), xv. Usha Beltron Ltd. vs JCIT (1999) 240 ITR 728, 736-37, 739 (Pat.) xvi. Kapoor Brothers vs Union of India (2001) 247 ITR 324, 331, 332-33 xvii. Vippy Processors Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT (2001) 249 ITR 7, 8 (MP) ITA Nos.2578 to 2580/chny/2017 :- 29 -: C.O.Nos.47t…

ACIT NON CORP CIRCLE 1 (1) FORMERLY KNOWN AS BUSINESS CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S DEOLITE HASKINS & SELLS, CHENNAI

ITA 2579/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mr.AR.V.Sreenivasan,JCIT,D.RFor Respondent: Mr.S.P.Chidambaram,Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

ACIT NON CORP CIRCLE 1 (1) FORMERLY KNOWN AS BUSINESS CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S DEOLITE HASKINS & SELLS, CHENNAI

ITA 2578/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mr.AR.V.Sreenivasan,JCIT,D.RFor Respondent: Mr.S.P.Chidambaram,Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

SOLO HARDWARE P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 5(3)(2), MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1486/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 115JSection 139Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…n & Co. (Exports), (2012) 349 ITR 653 (Bom); M/s Solo Hardware Pvt. Ltd. c. Remfry & Sagar v. CIT, (2013) 351 ITR 75 (Del); d. OPG Metals & Finsec Ltd. v. CIT, (2013) 358 ITR 144 (Del). 2.11. In the case of Venus Industrial Corporation v. Asst. CIT, (1999) 236 ITR 742, 746 (P & H) [Where initiation was started within four years for re-examining the deduction under section 80HHC, was held to be wrongly allowed in the original assessment. Identically, in the case of Happy Forging Ltd. v. CIT, (2002) 253 ITR 413,416-17 (P & H), where excise duty paid in advance was shown as an asset in the balance sheet and…

SNEHALATA AHNAND RANE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 3(3), KALYAN

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1787/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

…469 (Del); b. CIT v. K. Mohan & Co. (Exports), (2012) 349 ITR 653 (Bom); c. Remfry & Sagar v. CIT, (2013) 351 ITR 75 (Del); d. OPG Metals & Finsec Ltd. v. CIT, (2013) 358 ITR 144 (Del). 2.11. In the case of Venus Industrial Corporation v. Asst. CIT, (1999) 236 ITR 742, 746 (P & H) [Where initiation was started within four years for re-examining the deduction under section 80HHC, was held to be wrongly allowed in the original assessment. Identically, in the case of Happy Forging Ltd. v. CIT, (2002) 253 ITR 413,416-17 (P & H), where excise duty paid in advance was shown as an asset in the balance sheet and w…

SNEHALATA AHNAND RANE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 3(3), KALYAN

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1786/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

…469 (Del); b. CIT v. K. Mohan & Co. (Exports), (2012) 349 ITR 653 (Bom); c. Remfry & Sagar v. CIT, (2013) 351 ITR 75 (Del); d. OPG Metals & Finsec Ltd. v. CIT, (2013) 358 ITR 144 (Del). 2.11. In the case of Venus Industrial Corporation v. Asst. CIT, (1999) 236 ITR 742, 746 (P & H) [Where initiation was started within four years for re-examining the deduction under section 80HHC, was held to be wrongly allowed in the original assessment. Identically, in the case of Happy Forging Ltd. v. CIT, (2002) 253 ITR 413,416-17 (P & H), where excise duty paid in advance was shown as an asset in the balance sheet and w…

SNEHALATA AHNAND RANE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 3(3), KALYAN

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1785/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

…469 (Del); b. CIT v. K. Mohan & Co. (Exports), (2012) 349 ITR 653 (Bom); c. Remfry & Sagar v. CIT, (2013) 351 ITR 75 (Del); d. OPG Metals & Finsec Ltd. v. CIT, (2013) 358 ITR 144 (Del). 2.11. In the case of Venus Industrial Corporation v. Asst. CIT, (1999) 236 ITR 742, 746 (P & H) [Where initiation was started within four years for re-examining the deduction under section 80HHC, was held to be wrongly allowed in the original assessment. Identically, in the case of Happy Forging Ltd. v. CIT, (2002) 253 ITR 413,416-17 (P & H), where excise duty paid in advance was shown as an asset in the balance sheet and w…

SHRI DINESHKUMAR C. DOSHI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 19(1)(4), MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1730/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148

…CIT v. K. Mohan & Co. (Exports), (2012) 349 ITR 653 (Bom); c. Remfry & Sagar v. CIT, (2013) 351 ITR 75 (Del); d. OPG Metals & Finsec Ltd. v. CIT, (2013) 358 ITR 144 (Del). Dinesh S. Jain 4.10. In the case of Venus Industrial Corporation v. Asst. CIT, (1999) 236 ITR 742, 746 (P & H) [Where initiation was started within four years for re-examining the deduction under section 80HHC, was held to be wrongly allowed in the original assessment. Identically, in the case of Happy Forging Ltd. v. CIT, (2002) 253 ITR 413,416-17 (P & H), where excise duty paid in advance was shown as an asset in the balance sheet and wa…

ITO 6(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. JAYDEEP PROFILES P.LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 3236/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, बनाम/ Bhavan, M.K.Road, Darukhana, Reay Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai 400 086 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B Assessment Year: 2009-10 Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar बनाम/ Darukhana, Reay Road, Bhavan, M.K.Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 086 Mumbai 400 020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B 2 & 2698/Mum/2016

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148

…469 (Del); b. CIT v. K. Mohan & Co. (Exports), (2012) 349 ITR 653 (Bom); c. Remfry & Sagar v. CIT, (2013) 351 ITR 75 (Del); d. OPG Metals & Finsec Ltd. v. CIT, (2013) 358 ITR 144 (Del). 4.10. In the case of Venus Industrial Corporation v. Asst. CIT, (1999) 236 ITR 742, 746 (P & H) [Where initiation 15 & 2698/Mum/2016 Jaydeep Profiles P.Ltd was started within four years for re-examining the deduction under section 80HHC, was held to be wrongly allowed in the original assessment. Identically, in the case of Happy Forging Ltd. v. CIT, (2002) 253 ITR 413,416-17 (P & H), where excise duty paid in advance was sho…

JAYDEEP PROFILES PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 6 (3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 2698/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148

MOHD HASAN ABDUL GAFOOR MOMIN,THANE vs. ITO WD 1(2), KALYAN

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3336/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 Mohd. Hasan Abdul Gafoor Momin, Income Tax Officer, 430/2, Kotwal Shah Dargha Ward-1(2), बनाम/ Road, Bhiwandi, District- Thane, 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza, Vs. Maharashtra-421308 Wayale Nagar, Kalyan ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aekpm0354F

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254

…469 (Del); b. CIT v. K. Mohan & Co. (Exports), (2012) 349 ITR 653 (Bom); c. Remfry & Sagar v. CIT, (2013) 351 ITR 75 (Del); d. OPG Metals & Finsec Ltd. v. CIT, (2013) 358 ITR 144 (Del). 3.12. In the case of Venus Industrial Corporation v. Asst. CIT, (1999) 236 ITR 742, 746 (P & H) [Where initiation was started within four years for re-examining the deduction under section 80HHC, was held to be wrongly allowed in the original assessment. Identically, in the case of Happy Forging Ltd. v. CIT, (2002) 253 ITR 413,416-17 (P & H), where excise duty paid in advance was shown as an 19 Mohd. Hasan Abdul Gafoor Momi…

IDHASOFT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 15(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 5139/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Idhasoft Ltd. Dcit-15(2)(1), 3, Narayan Building, Room No.357, 3Rd Floor बनाम/ 23 L. N. Road, Dadar East, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400014 M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aabci6090G Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit-15(2)(1), M/S Idhasoft Ltd. Room No.357, 3Rd Floor 3, Narayan Building, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 23 L. N. Road, Dadar East, Vs. M. K. Road, Mumbai-400014 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aabci6090G

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…469 (Del); b. CIT v. K. Mohan & Co. (Exports), (2012) 349 ITR 653 (Bom); c. Remfry & Sagar v. CIT, (2013) 351 ITR 75 (Del); d. OPG Metals & Finsec Ltd. v. CIT, (2013) 358 ITR 144 (Del). 2.15. In the case of Venus Industrial Corporation v. Asst. CIT, (1999) 236 ITR 742, 746 (P & H) [Where initiation was started within four years for re-examining the deduction under section 80HHC, was held to be wrongly allowed in the original assessment. Identically, in the case of Happy Forging Ltd. v. CIT, (2002) 253 ITR 413,416-17 (P & H), where excise duty paid in advance was shown as an asset in the balance sheet and w…

ITO 19(2)(3), MUMBAI vs. MEENAKSHI N SHAH, MUMBAI

ITA 7082/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit 5(2)(2) Meridian Chem Bond Mumbai Purchase Ltd., बनाम/ 903 Raheja Centre, Free Vs. Press Journal Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. Aaacr1789G

Section 68

…85/Mum/2018 b. CIT v. K. Mohan & Co. (Exports), (2012) 349 ITR 653 (Bom); c. Remfry & Sagar v. CIT, (2013) 351 ITR 75 (Del); d. OPG Metals & Finsec Ltd. v. CIT, (2013) 358 ITR 144 (Del). 7.12. In the case of Venus Industrial Corporation v. Asst. CIT, (1999) 236 ITR 742, 746 (P & H) [Where initiation was started within four years for re-examining the deduction under section 80HHC, was held to be wrongly allowed in the original assessment. Identically, in the case of Happy Forging Ltd. v. CIT, (2002) 253 ITR 413,416-17 (P & H), where excise duty paid in advance was shown as an asset in the balance sheet and w…

VIPUL IMPEX & INFRABUILD LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-4(2), MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3006/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

…469 (Del); b. CIT v. K. Mohan & Co. (Exports), (2012) 349 ITR 653 (Bom); c. Remfry & Sagar v. CIT, (2013) 351 ITR 75 (Del); d. OPG Metals & Finsec Ltd. v. CIT, (2013) 358 ITR 144 (Del). 2.11. In the case of Venus Industrial Corporation v. Asst. CIT, (1999) 236 ITR 742, 746 (P & H) [Where initiation was started within four years for re-examining the deduction under section 80HHC, was held to be wrongly allowed in the original assessment. Identically, in the case of Happy Forging Ltd. v. CIT, (2002) 253 ITR 413,416-17 (P & H), where excise duty paid in advance was shown as an asset in the balance sheet and w…

VIPUL IMPEX & INFRABUILD LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-4(2), MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3005/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

…469 (Del); b. CIT v. K. Mohan & Co. (Exports), (2012) 349 ITR 653 (Bom); c. Remfry & Sagar v. CIT, (2013) 351 ITR 75 (Del); d. OPG Metals & Finsec Ltd. v. CIT, (2013) 358 ITR 144 (Del). 2.11. In the case of Venus Industrial Corporation v. Asst. CIT, (1999) 236 ITR 742, 746 (P & H) [Where initiation was started within four years for re-examining the deduction under section 80HHC, was held to be wrongly allowed in the original assessment. Identically, in the case of Happy Forging Ltd. v. CIT, (2002) 253 ITR 413,416-17 (P & H), where excise duty paid in advance was shown as an asset in the balance sheet and w…

VIPUL IMPEX & INFRABUILD LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-4(2), MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3004/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

…469 (Del); b. CIT v. K. Mohan & Co. (Exports), (2012) 349 ITR 653 (Bom); c. Remfry & Sagar v. CIT, (2013) 351 ITR 75 (Del); d. OPG Metals & Finsec Ltd. v. CIT, (2013) 358 ITR 144 (Del). 2.11. In the case of Venus Industrial Corporation v. Asst. CIT, (1999) 236 ITR 742, 746 (P & H) [Where initiation was started within four years for re-examining the deduction under section 80HHC, was held to be wrongly allowed in the original assessment. Identically, in the case of Happy Forging Ltd. v. CIT, (2002) 253 ITR 413,416-17 (P & H), where excise duty paid in advance was shown as an asset in the balance sheet and w…

Showing 1–20 of 32 · Page 1 of 2