Sec. 139(1) – taxcaselaw.com

Delhi H.C : The petitioner has been denied approval under Section 35(1)(ii) of the Income tax Act 1961

High Court Of Delhi Manipal Academy Of Higher Education vs. Union Of India & Anr. S. Ravindra Bhat & Prateek Jalan, JJ. Section 10, 10(23C), 10(23C)(vi), 11, 12, 139(1), 28, 288(2), 35, 35(1), 35(1)(ii), 41, 43(4) W.P.(C) 9996/2015 8th April, 2019 Counsel Appeared: Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv., Vikrant Pachnand, Adv. for the Petitioner.: Vikram Jetly, Adv. …

Bombay H.C : Did not the Appellate Tribunal err in law in upholding the proceedings initiated against the Appellant under Section 147

High Court Of Bombay S. Rajalakshmi vs. ITO Section 139(1), 147, 148 Asst. Year 2007-08 S.C. Dharmadhikari & B.P.Colabawalla, JJ. Income Tax Appeal (IT) No. 2517 OF 2018 25th October, 2018 Counsel Appeared: S. Ganesh, Sr. Adv., Nishant Thakkar, Jasmin Amalsadvala I/b PDS Legal for the Petitioner.: Suresh Kumar for the Respondent. B. P. COLABAWALLA J. …

Delhi H.C : DCIT, Circle 16(2) [hereinafter referred to as the Assessing Officer (AO)] as well as the order dated 21st March, 2016 rejecting the objections filed by the Petitioner.

High Court Of Delhi Mastech Technologies Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT S. Muralidhar & Prathiba M. Singh, JJ. Section 143(1), 139(1), 147, 148 Asst. Year 2008-09 W.P.(C) 2858/2016 & C.M. APPL.11983/2016 13th July, 2017 Counsel appeared: Ajay Wadhwa and Sameep Gupta, Advocates for the Petitioner.: Rahul Chaudhary, Senior Standing Counsel for the Respondent Dr. S. Muralidhar, J. …

Madhya Pradesh H.C : the AO had not recorded, his satisfaction even which the AO making the assessment of searched person was himself having jurisdiction over such other person (i.e. the assesse) and thus was not required to record any satisfaction for initiating proceedings u/s 153C in case of the assessee

High Court of Madhya Pradesh CIT vs. Mechmen 11-C Section 44AB, 139(1), 132(1), 133A, 153C, 142, 143(3), 234A, 234B, 234C, 153A, 139, 147, 148, 149, 151, 153, 158BD,153C(1), 132, 132A, 158BC, 292C Asst. Year 2000-01 to 2006-07 A. M. Khanwilkar, CJ & K.K.Trivedi, J ITA No. 44, 45, 48, 50, 53, 54 & 56/2011 10th July, …

Allahabad H.C : The assessing officer was justified in making the addition on transaction of long term capital gains as income from other sources, on the ground that the said information came to the knowledge of the assessing officer after initiation of proceedings under Section 147

High Court Of Allahabad Dr. Shiva Kant Mishra vs. CIT Section 139(1), 54F, 132, 158BC, 148 to 53, 2(22)(e), 147, 260A Asst. Year 2002-03 Tarun Agarwala & Prakash Kesarwani, JJ ITA No. 137 of 2015 9th July, 2015 Counsel appeared: Ashish Bansal, Ashok Kumar for the Appellant: None for the Respondent. TARUN AGARWALA, J: The appellant …

Madhya Pradesh H.C : The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bhopal has challenged the order passed by the Settlement Commission 26.05.2014 (Annexure-P/4) under the provisions of subsection 2C of Section 245D

High Court Of Mp CIT & Anr. vs. Keti Construction Ltd. & Anr. Section 245D, 132, 153A, 143(2), 139(1), 245C(1), 132(4), 276C (2), 226(3), 279, 245HA, 245C, 245HA(1)(iv) Asst. Year 2010-2011 P.K. Jaiswal & J. K. Jain, JJ Writ Petition No.6313/2014 7th July, 2015 Counsel appeared: R. L. Jain, learned Senior Counsel, Veena Mandlik, learned counsel …

Allahabad H.C : the petitioner has assailed the impugned order dated 24.03.2009 (Annexure-5) under Section 144A of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, also impugned notice dated 26.09.2008 (Annexure-2) under Section 143(2)/115WD

High Court Of Allahabad Tulsi Food Products vs. DCIT Section 144A, 143(2)/115WD, 139(1), 2(9), 292BB Asst. Year 2007-08 Devi Prasad Singh & Dr. Satish Chandra,JJ. Misc. Bench No. 3505/2009 3rd April, 2012 Counsel appeared: Shalabh Singhf for the Petitioner.: Sanjeev Shankhdhar for the Respondent DR. SATISH CHANDRA, J. By this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed …

Karnataka H.C : Employer at the time of payment of voluntary retirement amount shall be refunded allowing the benefit under s. 89 r/w s. 10(10C) of the IT Act

High Court Of Karnataka CIT vs. A. Balakrishnan & Anr. Section 10(10C), 139(1), 139(4), 147, 237 Asst. Year 2003-04 V. Gopala Gowda & L. Narayanaswamy, JJ. Writ Appeal No. 572 of 2007 31st October, 2007 Counsel Appeared : Seshachala & K.V. Arvind, for the Appellant : G. Sukumar, for the Respondents Judgment Gopala Gowda, J. : …

Gujarat H.C : Whether the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in directing the AO to allow carry forward of the assessed loss even though the return was filed late, in view of the specific provisions of s. 80 of the IT Act, 1961 ?

High Court Of Gujarat CIT vs. Dhatu Sanskar (P) Ltd. Sections 80, 139(1), Proviso Asst. Year 1984-85 J.M. Panchal & Smt. Abhilasha Kumari, JJ. IT Ref. No. 181 of 1995 15th June, 2006 Counsel Appeared Ms. Mona Bhatt, for the Applicant : None, for the Respondent JUDGMENT SMT. ABHILASHA KUMARI, J. : The Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench …

Gujarat H.C : Whether, the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in directing the ITO to allow to carry forward business loss, though time was not extended by the ITO for filing of return ?

High Court Of Gujarat CIT vs. Swastik Sanitary Works Ltd. Sections 32, 32A, 43(1), 72, 139(1) Asst. Year 1985-86 J.M. Panchal & Bankim N. Mehta, JJ. IT Ref. No. 180 of 1995 27th April, 2006 Counsel Appeared : Manish R. Bhatt & Ms. Monaben M. Bhatt, for the Applicant : None, for the Respondent JUDGMENT J.M. …

Category: Sec. 139(1)