Vinod Kumar Khatri v. DCIT

129 DTR 377High Court2016#12135 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2021.

Read the full judgment

Judgments citing Vinod Kumar Khatri v. DCIT

SRI. K R KAVIRAJ,HOSPET vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CIRCLE-1, BELLARY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is treated as partly allowed

ITA 1952/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Prasad Reddy, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 37

…stances, there is no requirement of law to issue a notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act with reference to revised return We derive support for the aforesaid conclusions from the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Vinod Kumar Khatri v DCIT [2016] 129 DTR 377 (Del). We are therefore of the view that there is no merit in grounds No.1 & 2 raised by the assessee and accordingly the said grounds are dismissed.” ITA Nos.1950 to 1952/Bang/2018 Sri K.R. Kaviraj, Hosapete Page 4 of 37 It can be noticed that the co-ordinate bench has rendered its decision following the decision rendered by Hon’ble Delhi High…

SRI. K R KAVIRAJ,HOSPET vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CIRCLE-1, BELLARY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is treated as partly allowed

ITA 1951/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Prasad Reddy, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 37

…stances, there is no requirement of law to issue a notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act with reference to revised return We derive support for the aforesaid conclusions from the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Vinod Kumar Khatri v DCIT [2016] 129 DTR 377 (Del). We are therefore of the view that there is no merit in grounds No.1 & 2 raised by the assessee and accordingly the said grounds are dismissed.” ITA Nos.1950 to 1952/Bang/2018 Sri K.R. Kaviraj, Hosapete Page 4 of 37 It can be noticed that the co-ordinate bench has rendered its decision following the decision rendered by Hon’ble Delhi High…

SRI. K R KAVIRAJ,HOSAPETE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CIRCLE-1, BELLARY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is treated as partly allowed

ITA 1950/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Prasad Reddy, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 37

…stances, there is no requirement of law to issue a notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act with reference to revised return We derive support for the aforesaid conclusions from the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Vinod Kumar Khatri v DCIT [2016] 129 DTR 377 (Del). We are therefore of the view that there is no merit in grounds No.1 & 2 raised by the assessee and accordingly the said grounds are dismissed.” ITA Nos.1950 to 1952/Bang/2018 Sri K.R. Kaviraj, Hosapete Page 4 of 37 It can be noticed that the co-ordinate bench has rendered its decision following the decision rendered by Hon’ble Delhi High…

SRI P C MOHAN ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1991/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Dec 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K.And Shri B.R. Baskaranassessmentyear:2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, D.R
Section 10Section 143(2)Section 14A

…ances, there is no requirement of law to issue a notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act with reference to revised return. We derive support for the aforesaid conclusions from the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Vinod Kumar Khatri v. DCIT [2016] 129 DTR 377 (Del). We are therefore of the view that there is no merit in grounds No.1 & 2 raised by the assessee and accordingly the said grounds are dismissed.” Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the legal issue urged by the assessee. Accordingly, we reject the same. 11. The next issue urged on merits relate to disallowance made u/s 14A of the Act.…

ASST.C.I.T., RAICHUR vs. M/S SHILPA MEDICARE LTD.,, RAICHUR

In the result, the revenue’s appeal for AY 2011-12 is dismissed

ITA 1373/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaran

For Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR) (ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)

…ances, there is no requirement of law to issue a notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act with reference to revised return. We derive support for the aforesaid conclusions from the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Vinod Kumar Khatri v. DCIT [2016] 129 DTR 377 (Del). We are therefore of the view that there is no merit in grounds No.1 & 2 raised by the assessee and accordingly the said grounds are dismissed. 6. Ground Nos.4 & 5 is with regard to the action of the revenue authorities in not treating the subsidy grant from the State Govt. as a as capital receipt and consequently not in the nature of inco…

ASST.C.I.T., RAICHUR vs. M/S SHILPA MEDICARE LTD.,, RAICHUR

In the result, the revenue’s appeal for AY 2011-12 is dismissed

ITA 1374/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaran

For Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR) (ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)

…ances, there is no requirement of law to issue a notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act with reference to revised return. We derive support for the aforesaid conclusions from the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Vinod Kumar Khatri v. DCIT [2016] 129 DTR 377 (Del). We are therefore of the view that there is no merit in grounds No.1 & 2 raised by the assessee and accordingly the said grounds are dismissed. 6. Ground Nos.4 & 5 is with regard to the action of the revenue authorities in not treating the subsidy grant from the State Govt. as a as capital receipt and consequently not in the nature of inco…

M/S SHILPA MEDICARE LTD.,,RAICHUR vs. ADDL.C.I.T., RAICHUR

In the result, the revenue’s appeal for AY 2011-12 is dismissed

ITA 1351/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaran

For Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR) (ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)

…ances, there is no requirement of law to issue a notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act with reference to revised return. We derive support for the aforesaid conclusions from the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Vinod Kumar Khatri v. DCIT [2016] 129 DTR 377 (Del). We are therefore of the view that there is no merit in grounds No.1 & 2 raised by the assessee and accordingly the said grounds are dismissed. 6. Ground Nos.4 & 5 is with regard to the action of the revenue authorities in not treating the subsidy grant from the State Govt. as a as capital receipt and consequently not in the nature of inco…

M/S. CLARIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT,(OSD) RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

ITA 498/AHD/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G D Agarwal, Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Rajpal Yadav] Assessment Year: 2008-09 Claris Life Sciences Limited ................................Appellant Corporate Towers, Near Parimal Crossing Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad 380006 [Pan: Aaacc6366Q] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd) Range 1, Ahmedabad …..……..….….....Respondent

Section 139Section 139(5)Section 140ASection 221Section 221(1)

…is still at fault for not filing the income tax return within time prescribed under section 139(1) and the penal consequences would follow. Our attention is then invited to Hon’ble Delhi High Court’s judgment in the case of Vinod Kumar Khatri Vs DCIT [(2016) 129 DTR 377 (Del)] wherein it is observed that “there is merit in the contention that the revised return should relate back to the return originally filed, minus the omissions and the wrong statements” and that “even if the revised return replaces the original return, the assessment proceedings leading upto the revised Assessment year: 2008-09 Page 7 of 11…

Vinod Kumar Khatri v. DCIT (129 DTR 377) — Cited in 8 Judgments | BharatTax