Just a moment...

βœ•
Top
Help
πŸš€ New: Section-Wise Filter βœ•

1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β€” now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available

2. New: β€œIn Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.

Try both these filters in Case Laws β†’

×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedbackβœ•

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2015 (9) TMI 235

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....kshmi Gurung, Junior Standing Counsel For the Respondent : Ms Suruchi Aggarwal, Senior Standing Counsel with Ms Lakshmi Gurung, Junior Standing Counsel ORDER 1. These appeals by the Revenue are directed against the common order dated 28th November, 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('ITAT') in ITA Nos.5307, 5308/Del/2013 and 2356 & 2357/Del/2014 for the Assessment Years ('AY') 20....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT (A)]. The CIT (A) also rejected the plea noting that the return of income filed on 18th November 2010, nearly eight months after the notice dated 29th March 2010under Section 153A (1), was in the name of Mayank Traders P Ltd and that no reference was made to its amalgamation with OPPL. The CIT (A) further noted that the Respondent was corresponding w....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....milarly, by order dated 3rd August 2015 in ITA No. 475/2000 (Spice Enfotainment Ltd. v. CIT) it was held by this Court that the defect of passing an assessment order in respect of an entity that had ceased to exist on the date of such order, could not be treated as a mere procedural defect. The mere fact that the Respondent communicated to the AO, prior to the Assessment order and subsequent notic....