COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PAWAN GUPTA

The appeals are dismissed

5. The Revenue, being aggrieved by the said decision and other similar decisions of the Tribunal in the connected matters has preferred these appeals. Mr. Jolly, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revenue in some of the appeals, submitted that the time limit prescribed under the proviso to section 143 (2) is only for ensuring that in cases

RAJAN GUPTA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed as aforesaid

5. That learned counsel for the appellant / assessee, in rejoinder, drew our attention to the Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT v. Hindustan Bulk Carriers: 259 ITR 449 (SC), wherein the Supreme Court held that the mere filing of an application by the assessee before the Settlement Commission would have no adverse effect on the proceedings of assessment

MR. J.S. GUJRAL,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year 2005-06

section 2(24)(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 5. Appellant vide letter dated 6th September, 2010 objected to the action of initiation of proceedings u/s 147. The objection raised was disposed off by the Ld. AO by passing an order dated 20th September, 2010 and thereafter he continued the proceedings for reassessment

MR. RANJEET SINGH,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year 2005-06

section 2(24)(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 5. Appellant vide letter dated 6th September, 2010 objected to the action of initiation of proceedings u/s 147. The objection raised was disposed off by the Ld. AO by passing an order dated 20th September, 2010 and thereafter he continued the proceedings for reassessment

MR. SANJIV NARAYAN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year 2005-06

section 2(24)(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 5. Appellant vide letter dated 6th September, 2010 objected to the action of initiation of proceedings u/s 147. The objection raised was disposed off by the Ld. AO by passing an order dated 20th September, 2010 and thereafter he continued the proceedings for reassessment

MR. KRISHNA KUMAR PANT,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year 2005-06

section 2(24)(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 5. Appellant vide letter dated 6th September, 2010 objected to the action of initiation of proceedings u/s 147. The objection raised was disposed off by the Ld. AO by passing an order dated 20th September, 2010 and thereafter he continued the proceedings for reassessment

COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX vs. S.S. AHLUWALIA

5) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section or in any direction or order issued under section 120, every Assessing Officer shall have all the powers conferred by or under this Act on an Assessing Officer in respect of the income accruing or arising or received within the area, if any, over which he has been vested with jurisdiction by virtue

COMMSSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-XVI vs. S.S. AHLUWALIA

5) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section or in any direction or order issued under section 120, every Assessing Officer shall have all the powers conferred by or under this Act on an Assessing Officer in respect of the income accruing or arising or received within the area, if any, over which he has been vested with jurisdiction by virtue

CAIRN UK HOLDING LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 5 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

reassessment proceedings under section 147 / 148 of the Act based on the issue of an invalid notice under section 143(2) of the Act which is the primary requirement for initiation of any assessment proceedings;” Below Ground No. 3.11, the following grounds are added; Cairn U K Holdings Limited V DCIT ( International Taxation) New Delhi

CIT vs. SELECT HOLIDAY RESORTS PVT LTD

The appeals stand disposed of as above

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

2. 3. Interest on loans advanced Dividend received Profit on sale of shares Rs. 1,94,70,181 Rs. 49,90,860 Rs. 1,49,285 The aforesaid dividend of Rs. 49,90,860/- was received on the shares of Max India Ltd, held by the assessee as "trading assets". By an order dated 27/08/2004, the assessing officer, invoking section

CIT vs. SELECT HOLIDAY RESORTS PVT LTD

The appeals stand disposed of as above

2. 3. Interest on loans advanced Dividend received Profit on sale of shares Rs. 1,94,70,181 Rs. 49,90,860 Rs. 1,49,285 The aforesaid dividend of Rs. 49,90,860/- was received on the shares of Max India Ltd, held by the assessee as "trading assets". By an order dated 27/08/2004, the assessing officer, invoking section

M/S EICHER GOODEARTH LTD

The appeals stand disposed of as above

2. Dividend received Rs. 49,90,860 3. Profit on sale of shares Rs. 1,49,285 The aforesaid dividend of Rs. 49,90,860/- was received on the shares of Max India Ltd, held by the assessee as "trading assets". By an order dated 27/08/2004, the assessing officer, invoking section 14A of the said act, apportioned the said interest

M/S EICHER GOODEARTH LTD

The appeals stand disposed of as above

2. Dividend received Rs. 49,90,860 3. Profit on sale of shares Rs. 1,49,285 The aforesaid dividend of Rs. 49,90,860/- was received on the shares of Max India Ltd, held by the assessee as "trading assets". By an order dated 27/08/2004, the assessing officer, invoking section 14A of the said act, apportioned the said interest

M/S EICHER GOODEARTH LTD

The appeals stand disposed of as above

2. Dividend received Rs. 49,90,860 3. Profit on sale of shares Rs. 1,49,285 The aforesaid dividend of Rs. 49,90,860/- was received on the shares of Max India Ltd, held by the assessee as "trading assets". By an order dated 27/08/2004, the assessing officer, invoking section 14A of the said act, apportioned the said interest

M/S EICHER GOODEARTH LTD

The appeals stand disposed of as above

2. Dividend received Rs. 49,90,860 3. Profit on sale of shares Rs. 1,49,285 The aforesaid dividend of Rs. 49,90,860/- was received on the shares of Max India Ltd, held by the assessee as "trading assets". By an order dated 27/08/2004, the assessing officer, invoking section 14A of the said act, apportioned the said interest

M/S EICHER GOODEARTH LTD

The appeals stand disposed of as above

2. Dividend received Rs. 49,90,860 3. Profit on sale of shares Rs. 1,49,285 The aforesaid dividend of Rs. 49,90,860/- was received on the shares of Max India Ltd, held by the assessee as "trading assets". By an order dated 27/08/2004, the assessing officer, invoking section 14A of the said act, apportioned the said interest

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. HCL PEROT SYSTMES LTD.

The appeals stand disposed of as above

2. Dividend received Rs. 49,90,860 3. Profit on sale of shares Rs. 1,49,285 The aforesaid dividend of Rs. 49,90,860/- was received on the shares of Max India Ltd, held by the assessee as "trading assets". By an order dated 27/08/2004, the assessing officer, invoking section 14A of the said act, apportioned the said interest

M/S EICHER GOODEARTH LTD

The appeals stand disposed of as above

2. Dividend received Rs. 49,90,860 3. Profit on sale of shares Rs. 1,49,285 The aforesaid dividend of Rs. 49,90,860/- was received on the shares of Max India Ltd, held by the assessee as "trading assets". By an order dated 27/08/2004, the assessing officer, invoking section 14A of the said act, apportioned the said interest