← All Phrases

“Section 128(8)”

Section References (mined)Section 128Section 128(8)4 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 128(8) is Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT (268 ITR 128), cited in 65 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 128(8)

Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT
268 ITR 128 · 2004 · High Court
65
citing judgments

Revision under Section 263 requires an assessment order to be both erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. It is not permissible if the Assessing Officer adopted a legally permissible view, one of two possible views, or applied mind to the issues, despite the Commissioner's differing opinion or perceived inadequate enquiry.

Judgments citing Section 128(8)

Vaibhav Singh, Jaipur vs. ITO 1(2), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1081/JPR/2024[AY2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Jan 2025

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

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh Mantri, C.AFor Respondent: Shr. Anup Singh, Addl.CIT a
Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 90

under section 90 of the IT Act but the disallowance was confirmed on the sole ground that the relevant form 67 prescribed under section 128(8) was not filed within the time stipulated under sub rule 9 of Rule 128. It is important to mention here that section

Rajesh Kumar Lakhran, Jaipur vs. ITO, WD-7(1), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 761/JPR/2023[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Feb 2024

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Jagdish Choudhary (Proxy)For Respondent: Sh. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 154Section 90

under section 90 of the IT Act but the disallowance was confirmed on the sole ground that the relevant form 67 prescribed under section 128(8) was not filed within the time stipulated under sub rule 9 of Rule 128. It is important to mention here that section

Abhinav Jhalani, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax(Int. Tax.), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 527/JPR/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Oct 2023AY 2020-2021

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Sweta Saboo, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl.CITa
Section 154Section 90

under section 90 of the IT Act but the disallowance was confirmed on the sole ground that the relevant form 67 prescribed under section 128(8) was not filed within the time stipulated under sub rule 9 of Rule 128. It is important to mention here that section

Sudarshan Chitlangia, Jaipur vs. The Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 507/JPR/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Oct 2023AY 2021-22

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

For Appellant: Shri Abdulkadir Jawadwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CITa
Section 139(1)Section 154Section 224ASection 234Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 90

under section 90 of the IT Act but the disallowance was confirmed on the sole ground that the relevant form 67 prescribed under section 128(8) was not filed within the time stipulated under sub rule 9 of Rule 128. It is important to mention here that section