TMI Blog2011 (12) TMI 701X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Respondent- Shri. Alok Sharma, Standing Counsel JUDGMENT PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Shri. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Respondent is not entitled and authorized to issue notice dated 26th July, 2010, under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in respect of the incometax returns filed for the assessment year 20062 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 000) 242 ITR 381 (SC), 9) CIT vs. Rajendra G. Shah (2001) 247 ITR 772 (Bom.), 10) Techspan India Pvt. Ltd. 4 vs. ITO (2006) 283 ITR 212 (Delhi), 11) Allana Cold Storage Limited vs. ITO Ors. (2006) 287 ITR 1 (Bom.), 12) Grindwell Norton Ltd. vs. Jagdish Prasad Jangid ACIT, (2004) 267 ITR 673 (Bom.), 13) Ajanta Pharma Ltd. vs. ACIT, (2004) 267 ITR 200 (Bom.), 14) Garden Finance L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue Moon, (2010) 229 CTR (SC) 219, 25) Smt. Bandana Gogoi vs. Commissioner of Income tax and another (2007) 209 CTR (Gau) 31, 26) Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Rajeev Sharma, (2010) 232 CTR (All) 303. 27) Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Ms. Mudra G. Nanawati, (2009) 227 CTR (Bom.) 387. 3. Shri. Alok Sharma, learned counsel for the Respondents submits that considering the relevant provis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. The another circumstance which is reflected from the order of the Income Tax Authorities is, that incometax return submitted by the Petitioner for the assessment year 8 20062007 was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 10th March, 2007 and the same was accepted. There is no merit in the Petition. We do not find that extra ordina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
