← All Phrases

“Section 7(2)”

Section References (mined)Section 7Section 7(2)8 judgments

KARUNA EVAM SHANTI VAHINI FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. CTI(EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1485/MUM/2025[NOT APPLICABLE]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2025

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Samir Vora, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das (CIT - DR)
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 7(2)Section 80G(5)

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT

KARUNA EVAM SHANTI VAHINI FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1497/MUM/2025[Not Applicable]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhankaruna Evam Shanti Vahini Cit (Exemptions) Foundation, 601, 6Th Floor, 12/A, Florida Apartment, Vs. Cumballa Hills, Mound Mary Road, Pedder Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai-400026. Mumbai-400050. Pan : Aajck6283D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Samir VoraFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 7(2)Section 80G

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “E” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAJ

GERIATRIC WELLNESS FOUNDATION,PUNE vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), PUNE

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

ITA 1346/PUN/2023[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jun 2024AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri S.S. Godarageriatric Wellness Foundation Cit (Exemption), Pune Lokmanya Hospital, Mitramandal Vs. 484/6, Mitramandal Colony, Parvati, Pune – 411009 Pan : Aafcg8051M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajendra Agiwal Department By : Shri Keyur Patel, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 24-04-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 12-06-2024 O R D E R Per R. K. Panda, Vp :

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel, CIT-DR
Section 12A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.S

ITO -INTL TAX CIRCLE 3(3) (2), MUMBAI vs. RAHUL RAJNIKANT PARIKH, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 426/MUM/2022[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2004-05
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 22Section 34Section 34(1)(a)

consent. His Lordship Beg J., as he then was, pointed out in his concurring judgment at page 2077 that, if the notice under section 7(2) was a condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction to make the best judgment assessment, the doctrine of waiver could never confer jurisdiction

RAHUL RAJNIKANT PARIKH,MUMBAI vs. ITO INTL TAX CIRCLE 3(3) (2) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 425/MUM/2022[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2003-04
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 22Section 34Section 34(1)(a)

consent. His Lordship Beg J., as he then was, pointed out in his concurring judgment at page 2077 that, if the notice under section 7(2) was a condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction to make the best judgment assessment, the doctrine of waiver could never confer jurisdiction

KALPESH RAMNIKLAL JHAVERI,MUMBAI vs. ITO INTL TAX CIR 3(3) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 424/MUM/2022[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2004-05
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 22Section 34Section 34(1)(a)

consent. His Lordship Beg J., as he then was, pointed out in his concurring judgment at page 2077 that, if the notice under section 7(2) was a condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction to make the best judgment assessment, the doctrine of waiver could never confer jurisdiction

KALPESH RASHMIKANT JHAVERI,MUMBAI vs. ITO IT ,CIRCLE- 3(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 423/MUM/2022[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2003-04
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 22Section 34Section 34(1)(a)

consent. His Lordship Beg J., as he then was, pointed out in his concurring judgment at page 2077 that, if the notice under section 7(2) was a condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction to make the best judgment assessment, the doctrine of waiver could never confer jurisdiction

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PAWAN GUPTA

The appeals are dismissed

ITA - 200 / 2008HC Delhi15 Apr 2009
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 158

assessment and reassessment could never be waived for the simple reason that jurisdiction could neither be waived nor 2009:DHC:1436-DB section 7(2) was a condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction to make the best judgment assessment, the doctrine of waiver could never confer jurisdiction