SHAILESH ASALRAJ JAIN,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI 20, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2018-19

reassessment cannot be examined in proceedings arising from section 263 is devoid of merit. It is well- proceedings arising from section 263 is devoid of merit. proceedings arising from section 263 is devoid of merit. settled that a jurisdictional defect strikes at the foundation of settled that a jurisdictional defect strikes at the foundation of settled that a jurisdictional defect

ITO-28(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SATYA PRAKASH SINGH, MUMBAI

In the result, the ground so taken by the assessee so far as it relates to challenging the order of the AO as passed beyond the period of limitation is hereby allowed

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

reassessment proceedings are contained in Section 153 of the Act and the same read as under: “153. (1) No order of assessment shall be made under section 143 or section 144

MR. SATYA PRAKASH SINGH,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-28(3)(1), VASHI

In the result, the ground so taken by the assessee so far as it relates to challenging the order of the AO as passed beyond the period of limitation is hereby allowed

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

reassessment proceedings are contained in Section 153 of the Act and the same read as under: “153. (1) No order of assessment shall be made under section 143 or section 144

HELIOS MERCANTILE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI.

1) of Section 117.\n16. Thus, the Joint Commissioner includes an Additional\nCommissioner as well. The issue is otherwise covered by\nthe judgments of various High Courts, which are as\nfollow:-\nI.\nDharam Pal Singh Rao v. ITO [2004] 271\nITR 223 (All);\nII.\nArun Kumar Maheshwari v. ITO [2006] 285\nITR 179 (All); and\nSmt.\nMaya\nRastogi

SVP GLOBAL TEXTILES LTD FORMERLY SVP GLOBAL VENTURES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(1), MUMBAI MUMBAI, MUMBAI

1) of Section 117.\n16. Thus, the Joint Commissioner includes an Additional\nCommissioner as well. The issue is otherwise covered by\nthe judgments of various High Courts, which are as\nfollow:-\nI.\nDharam Pal Singh Rao v. ITO [2004] 271\nITR 223 (All);\nII.\nArun Kumar Maheshwari v. ITO [2006] 285\nITR 179 (All); and\nSmt.\nMaya\nRastogi

HELIOS MERCANTILE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(1), MUMBAI

1) of Section 117.\n16. Thus, the Joint Commissioner includes an Additional\nCommissioner as well. The issue is otherwise covered by\nthe judgments of various High Courts, which are as\nfollow:-\nI. Dharam Pal Singh Rao v. ITO [2004] 271\nITR 223 (All);\nII. Arun Kumar Maheshwari v. ITO [2006] 285\nITR 179 (All); and\nSmt.\nMaya\nRastogi

HELLIOS EXPORTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(2), MUMBAI

1) of Section 117.\n16. Thus, the Joint Commissioner includes an Additional\nCommissioner as well. The issue is otherwise covered by\nthe judgments of various High Courts, which are as\nfollow:-\nI.\nDharam Pal Singh Rao v. ITO [2004] 271\nITR 223 (All);\nII.\nArun Kumar Maheshwari v. ITO [2006] 285\nITR 179 (All); and\nSmt.\nMaya\nRastogi

ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(1), MUMBAI vs. HELIOS MERCANTILE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

1) of Section 117. 16. Thus, the Joint Commissioner includes an Additional Commissioner as well. The issue is otherwise covered by the judgments of various High Courts, which are as follow:— Dharam Pal Singh Rao v. ITO [2004] 271 I . ITR 223 (All); Arun Kumar Maheshwari v. ITO [2006] 285 I I. ITR 179 (All); and Smt. I Maya Rastogi

SVP GLOBAL TEXTILES LTD FORMERLY SVP GLOBAL VENTURES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(1), MUMBAI MUMBAI MUMB, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

1) of Section 117. 16. Thus, the Joint Commissioner includes an Additional Commissioner as well. The issue is otherwise covered by the judgments of various High Courts, which are as follow:— Dharam Pal Singh Rao v. ITO [2004] 271 I . ITR 223 (All); Arun Kumar Maheshwari v. ITO [2006] 285 I I. ITR 179 (All); and Smt. I Maya Rastogi

CITRON INFRAPROJECT LTD.,,MUMBAI-400005 vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-7(2), MUMBAI-400020

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

1) of Section 117. 16. Thus, the Joint Commissioner includes an Additional Commissioner as well. The issue is otherwise covered by the judgments of various High Courts, which are as follow:— Dharam Pal Singh Rao v. ITO [2004] 271 I . ITR 223 (All); Arun Kumar Maheshwari v. ITO [2006] 285 I I. ITR 179 (All); and Smt. I Maya Rastogi

SVP SOUTH WEST INDUSTRIES LTD. (FORMERLY, PLATINUM TEXTILE LTD.),MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC- 8(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

1) of Section 117. 16. Thus, the Joint Commissioner includes an Additional Commissioner as well. The issue is otherwise covered by the judgments of various High Courts, which are as follow:— Dharam Pal Singh Rao v. ITO [2004] 271 I . ITR 223 (All); Arun Kumar Maheshwari v. ITO [2006] 285 I I. ITR 179 (All); and Smt. I Maya Rastogi

HELIOS MERCANTILE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

1) of Section 117. 16. Thus, the Joint Commissioner includes an Additional Commissioner as well. The issue is otherwise covered by the judgments of various High Courts, which are as follow:— Dharam Pal Singh Rao v. ITO [2004] 271 I . ITR 223 (All); Arun Kumar Maheshwari v. ITO [2006] 285 I I. ITR 179 (All); and Smt. I Maya Rastogi

HELIOS MERCANTILE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

1) of Section 117. 16. Thus, the Joint Commissioner includes an Additional Commissioner as well. The issue is otherwise covered by the judgments of various High Courts, which are as follow:— Dharam Pal Singh Rao v. ITO [2004] 271 I . ITR 223 (All); Arun Kumar Maheshwari v. ITO [2006] 285 I I. ITR 179 (All); and Smt. I Maya Rastogi

HELIOS MERCANTILE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

1) of Section 117. 16. Thus, the Joint Commissioner includes an Additional Commissioner as well. The issue is otherwise covered by the judgments of various High Courts, which are as follow:— Dharam Pal Singh Rao v. ITO [2004] 271 I . ITR 223 (All); Arun Kumar Maheshwari v. ITO [2006] 285 I I. ITR 179 (All); and Smt. I Maya Rastogi

CITRON INFRAPROJECT LTD.,,MUMBAI-400005 vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-7(2), MUMBAI-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

1) of Section 117. 16. Thus, the Joint Commissioner includes an Additional Commissioner as well. The issue is otherwise covered by the judgments of various High Courts, which are as follow:— Dharam Pal Singh Rao v. ITO [2004] 271 I . ITR 223 (All); Arun Kumar Maheshwari v. ITO [2006] 285 I I. ITR 179 (All); and Smt. I Maya Rastogi

SVP SOUTH WEST INDUSTRIES LTD. (FORMERLY, PLATINUM TEXTILE LTD.),MUMBAI-400005 vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

1) of Section 117. 16. Thus, the Joint Commissioner includes an Additional Commissioner as well. The issue is otherwise covered by the judgments of various High Courts, which are as follow:— Dharam Pal Singh Rao v. ITO [2004] 271 I . ITR 223 (All); Arun Kumar Maheshwari v. ITO [2006] 285 I I. ITR 179 (All); and Smt. I Maya Rastogi

SVP GLOBAL TEXTILES LTD FORMERLY SVP GLOBAL VENTURES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

1) of Section 117. 16. Thus, the Joint Commissioner includes an Additional Commissioner as well. The issue is otherwise covered by the judgments of various High Courts, which are as follow:— Dharam Pal Singh Rao v. ITO [2004] 271 I . ITR 223 (All); Arun Kumar Maheshwari v. ITO [2006] 285 I I. ITR 179 (All); and Smt. I Maya Rastogi

SVP GLOBAL TEXTILES LTD FORMERLY SVP GLOBAL VENTURES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

1) of Section 117. 16. Thus, the Joint Commissioner includes an Additional Commissioner as well. The issue is otherwise covered by the judgments of various High Courts, which are as follow:— Dharam Pal Singh Rao v. ITO [2004] 271 I . ITR 223 (All); Arun Kumar Maheshwari v. ITO [2006] 285 I I. ITR 179 (All); and Smt. I Maya Rastogi