BHARTI AIRTEL LTD (FORMERLY BHARTI BROADBAND LTD),NEW DELHI vs. ADDL CIT RG 8(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3899/MUM/2009Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 June 2021AY 2004-0518 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had taken a plausible view that the waiver of loan was a capital receipt after examining all relevant documents. Therefore, the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.

What were the facts?

The CIT invoked Section 263, believing that the assessee received Rs. 5,10,83,475/- by way of cessation of liabilities, attracting Section 41(1) and 28(iv). The assessee argued that the Assessing Officer had already examined this issue during the original assessment.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT was justified in invoking Section 263 when the Assessing Officer had already considered the issue and taken a plausible view? Whether the cessation of liability in the form of loan waiver is taxable as income?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 143(3),Section 41(1),Section 28(iv)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(6)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘A’ BENCH,

Before: SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, & SHRI AMIT SHUKLA

For Appellant: Shri Anil Bhalla, CA
For Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT- DR
Hearing: 15.06.2021Pronounced: 18.06.2021

PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER,

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the CIT(A) - 8, Mumbai dated 25.03.2009 framed u/s 263 of the Income

tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'The Act' for short].

2.

The sum and substance of the grievance of the assessee is that the ld. CIT erred both on facts and on law in passing an order u/s 263

of the Act without juri iction on a mistaken belief that order passed

u/s 143(3) of the Act was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.

3.

Before proceeding further, we must understand the factual

background.

4.

Vide order dated 22.12.2006, the

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →