Click Here For Best Books On Taxation & Law. Upto 60% Off On Select Titles. Free Shipping & Pay On Delivery!
 

Click Here To Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements

Home › All Judgements › CIT vs. Scindia HUF (Bombay High Court)

CIT vs. Scindia HUF (Bombay High Court)

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 9, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE:
CITATION:

The issue of notice under s. 16 (2) W. T. Act {s. 143 (2) I. T. Act} is mandatory for reassessment proceedings. If notice u/s 16 (2) {143 (2)} is not issued, the assessment order passed u/s 17 {s. 147} is not valid.

Note: Bandana Gagoi 289 ITR 28 (Gau) was followed.

See also: ACIT vs. Aurangabad Holiday Resorts (ITAT Pune), Atul Glass Industries vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi), Vin Vish Corporation vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) & Tulika Mishra vs. JCIT (ITAT Delhi).

Related Judgements

  1. In Re Ashok Organic Industries (Bombay High Court) 

    The Sick Inndustrial Companies Act is a complete code and during the pendency of a reference, an industrial company cannot apply to the High Court for sanctioning a scheme under ss. 391 to 394 of the Companies Act. The principles … In Re Ashok Organic Industries (Bombay High…
  2. CIT vs. Vardhaman Polytex (P & H High Court) (Full Bench) 

    (i) In considering whether the interest paid by an assessee on loans raised for acquisition of new asset, before the same was first put to use, is to be added towards the cost of the asset or the same is … CIT vs. Vardhaman Polytex (P & H…
  3. CIT vs. Pamwi Tissues (Bombay High Court) 

    The deletion of the second proviso to s. 43B by the Finance Act 2003 wef 1.4.2004 cannot be treated as a retrospective amendment and contributions towards PF beyond the period stipulated in s 36(1)(va) are not allowable deductions. Note: The … CIT vs. Pamwi Tissues (Bombay High Court)…
  4. Peninsula Land vs. CIT (Bombay High Court) 

    An order passed by the AO to give consequential effect to an appeallate order of an earlier year is not an order passed under section 154 and consequently the time limit of section 154(7) does not apply. Read more ›
  5. M/s SCM Creations vs. ACIT (Madras High Court) 

    In ACIT vs. Rogini Garments 108 ITD 49, the Chennai Special Bench of the ITAT held that in view of s. 80-IA (9), relief under s. 80-IA had to be deducted from the profits and gains before computing relief u/s … M/s SCM Creations vs. ACIT (Madras High…
0 comments on “CIT vs. Scindia HUF (Bombay High Court)”
1 Pings/Trackbacks for "CIT vs. Scindia HUF (Bombay High Court)"
  1. Non-issue of notice renders assessment void | archives says:
    December 5, 2008 at 5:42 pm

    […] The judgement in Scindia (Bom HC) was […]