Tally for CAs in Industry Silver Edition (Single User) Tally Renewal (Auditor Edition) Need Tally for Clients? (Tie-up with us!!!)
Open DEMAT Account with in 24 Hrs and start investing now!
л From the Courts »
Open DEMAT Account in 24 hrs
 Ratnagiri Gas and Power Pvt. Ltd. NTPC Bhawan, Core-7, Scope Complex, 7, Institutional Area, Lodhi Road, New Delhi Vs. DCIT Circle-21(1) New Delhi
 The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Saharanpur. Vs. Shri Ishtiyaque Ahmed through Legal Heirs Smt. Mushyada Begum, S/Shri Mohd. Azhar, Athar and Moyeen, 1/142, Mohalla Qureshian, Saharanpur
 ACIT, Central Circle 07, New Delhi. vs. M/s. R. J. Corp Ltd., F 2/7, Okhla Indl. Area, Phase I, New Delhi.
 Experion Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. F-9, First Floor, Manish Plaza 1, Plot No. 7, M. L. U, Sector-10, Dwarka Delhi Vs. ACIT Circle-8(2) New Delhi
 USK Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. E-172, DDA, Naraina Vihar, New Delhi Vs. ITO Ward-27(1) New Delhi
  Sh. Chakra Dhari Sureka, M-14B, South Extn. Part-II, New Delhi Vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, New Delhi
 ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA, 299, DEEPALI ENCLAVE, PITAMPURA, NEW DELHI Vs. ITO, WARD 40(3), NEW DELHI
 B.M. Malhotra & Sons Ltd., C/o Kapil Goel, Advocate, F-26/124, Sector 7, Rohini, Delhi Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(1), New Delhi.
 The All Gujarat Federation Of Tax Consultants vs. Union Of India (Gujarat High Court) (No. 2)
 Ravindera Hire Purchase & Finance E-1/58, Sector-11, Faridabad Haryana Vs. ITO Ward-2(2) Faridabad Haryana
 SSE Commodities Pvt. Ltd. 6926, FF, Jaipuria Mills, Clock Tower, Subzi Mandi, New Delhi. Vs. ITO Ward 24(2) C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi.

SMT. SHANTI DEVI MERWAH, A-26, FIRST FLOOR, KIRTI NAGAR, NEW DELHI Vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-7, NEW DELHI
November, 10th 2020

This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the impugned order dated 16.02.2015 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-24, New Delhi in relation to assessment year 2005-06 on the following grounds:-

1. The Assessing Officer had passed an order u/s. 143(3)/147 dated 28.3.2013 raising a demand of Rs. 19,60,796/- on the asessee for ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 without serving any valid notice u/s. 148 on the assessee. Further, on filing the appeal against such order by the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A)-XXXI erred in rejecting the appeal on the ground that the assessee has not paid the tax demand, without considering the fact that there was no valid Notice served on the assessee for carrying out the assessment consequent to which the assessment proceedings are void ab initio.

For more informatrion

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2021 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Ritz Consulting