011, Ess Kay Engineering Co. (P) Ltd. vs. CIT(SC) 247 ITR 818, Revathy C.P. Equipments Ltd. v. DCIT & Ors. (Mad)

30 DTR 82Reported decision#6450 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 147 Section 148 Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 151 Section 115JB Section 139

Issues it is cited on

first proviso to section 147 change of opinion income escaping assessment tangible material liable to tax reason to believe escapement of income reopening of assessment reassessment proceedings notice under section 148 speaking order scrutiny assessment

Judgments citing 011, Ess Kay Engineering Co. (P) Ltd. vs. CIT(SC) 247 ITR 818, Revathy C.P. Equipments Ltd. v. DCIT & Ors. (Mad)

KAJAL BATRA,DELHI vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-52(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed as above

ITA 2419/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68Section 69A

…tion of change of opinion as upheld by the jurisprudence as under- 1. A.L.A. Firm Vs. CIT(Mad) 102 ITR 622 2. Ess Kay Engineering Co. (P) Ltd. Vs CIT(SC) 247 ITR 818 3. Revathy C.P. Equipments Ltd. Vs DCIT& Ors. (Mad) 241 ITR 856 4. EMAIndia Ltd. Vs ACIT(All) 30 DTR 82 h. It is worthwhile to mention that the argument of change of opinion comes to rescue of assessee only when Assessing Officer has taken one of permissible views at the time of original proceedings. A wrong application of law cannot be held as permissible view and that can always be changed for appreciating law as held by Hon'bl Kolkatta ITAT in the…

AGRI GOLD FOODS AND FARM PRODUCTS LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

ITA 2000/HYD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Sept 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Us:

Section 143(3)

…ment, in my view, is justified. Reliance is placed on the following decisions: i. ALA. Firm Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Mad) 102 ITR 622 ii Ess Kay Engineering Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(SC) 247 ITR 818 iii. EMA India Ltd. Vs. ACIT (All) 30 DTR 82. 5.2.3 From the records of appellant for subsequent Assessment Year i.e., Assessment Year 2008-09, it was observed that the appellant was in the practice of purchase of lands and selling the same subsequently by making profit out of the said transactions. There is no agricultural operation in the said land during the relevant Assessment Year Subseq…

M/S MAN DIESEL & TURBO INDIA LTD.,,MAHARASHTRA vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is hereby dismissed

ITA 4295/DEL/2015[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singha.Y. 2003-04

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…nal assessment proceedings, therefore, there is no question of change of opinion. Relaince is placed on Ess Kay Engineering Co. (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (SC) 247 ITR 818, Revathy C.P. Equipments Ltd. vs. DCIT & Ors. (Mad) 241 ITR 856 and EMA India Ltd. vs. ACIT (All) 30 DTR 82 5.1.6 In the case of M/s Consolidated Photo & Finvest Ltd. vs. ACIT 2006 (151 Taxman 41 Del). Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that even if the assessing officer gathered a reason to believe from the very same records as had been subject matter of completed assessment proceedings, still notice u/s 148 will be valid and that the principle that a m…

MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION COMPANY LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(2)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is al

ITA 990/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Maharashtra State Electricity Income-Tax Officer, Ward Transmission Company Ltd., 14(2)(3), Plot No. C-19 E Block, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Prakashganga, Bandra-Kurla Karve Road, Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaecm 2936 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Ketan Ved, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Harishankar Lal, Dr : Date Of Hearing 15/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/12/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Ketan Ved, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Harishankar Lal, DR

Section 148

…athy C.P. Equipments Ltd. Vs DCIT&Ors. (Mad) 241 IT 856and Hon'ble Allahabad High Vs DCIT&Ors. (Mad) 241 IT 856and Hon'ble Allahabad High Vs DCIT&Ors. (Mad) 241 IT 856and Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in case of EMA Court in case of EMA India Ltd. Vs ACIT(All) 30 DTR 82 have India Ltd. Vs ACIT(All) 30 DTR 82 have clearly held that "When there is no discussion on the issue in clearly held that "When there is no discussion on the issue in clearly held that "When there is no discussion on the issue in the assessment order and no the assessment order and no details were called for by the details were called for by the…

DCIT 13(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. PEBBLE BAY DEVELOPERS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes, is allowed for statistical purposes, whereas the application of the assessee under rule 27 is ...

ITA 5744/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2008-09 Dy. Commissioner Of Income- M/S Pebble Bay Developers Tax-13(1)(2), Pvt. Ltd., 2Nd Floor, Room No. 218, Vs. Raheja Chambers, Linking Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Road, Main Avenue Santacruz Mumbai-400020. (West), Mumbai-400054. Pan No. Aaccg 1645 E Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Ms. Vranda Matkari, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Nishit Gandhi, Ar Date Of Hearing : 26/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/10/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Nishit Gandhi, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda Matkari, DR

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 69C

…. M/s Pebble Bay Developers Pvt. Ltd. 33 Engineering Company (P) Ltd. vs. CIT 247 ITR 818 (SC) and EMA India Engineering Company (P) Ltd. vs. CIT 247 ITR 818 (SC) and EMA India Engineering Company (P) Ltd. vs. CIT 247 ITR 818 (SC) and EMA India Ltd. vs. ACIT (30 DTR 82) (Allahabad). Ltd. vs. ACIT (30 DTR 82) (Allahabad). 4.8. When an income liable to tax has escaped assessment in the original 4.8. When an income liable to tax has escaped assessment in the original 4.8. When an income liable to tax has escaped assessment in the original assessment proceedings due to ov assessment proceedings due to oversight and…

HITESH CHHATWAL,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC -5(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed while for the appeal of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6418/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Mani JainFor Respondent: Vinay Sinha

Section 54F

…negative is arrived at during the course of original assessment proceedings, there is no question of change of opinionrefer ~ A.L.A. Firm vs. CIT 102 ITR 622 (Madras), Ess Kay Engineering Company (P) Ltd. vs. CIT 247 ITR 818 (SC) and EMA India Ltd. vs. ACIT (30 DTR 82) (Allahabad). Assessment u/s 143(3) vis-a-vis non consideration of an issue-reopening is valid as held in (2013) 89 DTR (Ker) 31 Innovative Foods Ltd. UOI. 4.10 Even when an income liable to tax has escaped assessment in the original assessment proceedings due to oversight and inadvertence or a mistake committed by the omginal Assessing Officer, s…

NITAN CHHATWAL,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC -5(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 6422/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rahul RamanFor Respondent: Shri Mani Jain

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 14A

…egative is arrived at during the course of original assessment proceedings, there is no question of change of opinion- refer - A.L.A. Firm vs, CIT 102 ITR 622 (Madras), Ess Kay Engineering Company (P) Ltd. vs. CIT 247 ITR 818 (SC) and EMA India Ltd. vs. ACIT (30 DTR 82) (Allahabad). Assessment u/s 143(3) vis-a-vis non consideration of an issue-reopening is valid as held in (2013) 89 DTR (Ker) 31 Innovative Foods Ltd. vs UOI. 4.10. Even when an income liable to tax has escaped assessment in the original assessment proceedings due to oversight and inadvertence or a mistake committed by the original Assessing Offic…

DCIT-CC-5(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHRI NITAN CHHATWAL , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 6351/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rahul RamanFor Respondent: Shri Mani Jain

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 14A

STERLING JEWELS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 5(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2009-10 is dismissed

ITA 6154/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negiita No.6154, 6155, 6156, 6157 & 6158/Mum/2016 (Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14) Sterling Jewels Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Acit-5(3)(2) 208, A-Z Industrial Estate 460, Aaykar Bhawan Ganpatrao Kadam Marg M.K.Road, Churchgate Lower Parel (W) Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 Pan/Gir No.Aajcs3316D (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69C

…ngs, reopening cannot be construed as change of opinion. 1. ALA fir vs. CIT (102 ITR 622) (Mad HC) 2. Ess Kay Engineering Company Pvt.Ltd. vs. CiT (247 ITR 818) (SC) 3. Revathi CP Equipments Ltd vs DCIT & Ors (241 ITR 856 ) (Mad HC) 4. EMA India Ltd vs. ACIT (30 DTR 82) (All.HC) (iv) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kalyanji Mavji & Company v. CIT (102 ITR 287)(SC) (1976) has held that there is no change of opinion if the assessment is reopened on new facts which came to notice subsequently, even though they are already on record. (v) The Hon’ble Gujarat High court in the case of Praful Chunilal Patel and…

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SUPERIOR FILMS (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

Appeal are dismissed; accordingly, Revenue’s appeal is

ITA 4938/DEL/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Gurjit Batra and Shri S.M. Mathur, CAFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr. Dr

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…proceedings there is no question of change of opinion:- i) A.L.A. Firm Vs CIT (Mad) 102 ITR 622 ii) Ess Kay Engineering Co. (P) Ltd. Vs CIT (SC) 247 ITR 818 iii) Revathy C.P. Equipments Ltd. Vs DCIT & Ors. (Mad) 241 ITR 856 iv) EMA India Ltd. Vs ACIT (AH) 30 DTR 82 3. 3. It was held in following judgement that change of opinion comes to rescue of 3. 3. assessee only when Assessing Officer has taken one of permissible views at the time of original proceedings and that a wrong application of law cannot be held as permissible view and that can always be changed for appreciating law, Reopening was held valid:- So…

TANAYA GEMS & JEWELLERY EXPORTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(3)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly confirm the addition. The ground is dismissed

ITA 3196/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Sh. G. Manjunatha, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3196/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri D. G. Pansari, DR

Section 143(3)Section 234Section 234ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 68

…dings, reopening cannot be construed as change of opinion. 1. ALA Firm vs. CIT (102 ITR 622) (Mad HC) 2. Ess Kay Engineering Company Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT (247 ITR 818)(SC) 3. Revathi CP Equipments Ltd vs. DCIT &Ors (241 ITR 856)(Mad HC) 4. EMA India Ltd vs. ACIT (30 DTR 82) (All. HC) (iii) Supreme Court in the case of Kalyariji Mavji & Company v. CIT (102 iTR 287) (SC) (1976) has held that there is no change of opinion if the assessment is reopened on new facts which came to notice subsequently, even though they are already on record. 8 I.T.A. No. 3196/Mum/2017 M/s Tanaya Gems & Jewellery Exports Ltd. (iv) Gujarat H…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 23(1), MUMBAI vs. CALVIN PROPERTIES, MUMBAI

ITA 6561/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Sh. N. K. Pradhan, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6561, 6562 & 6564/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri Abi Rama KarthikeyanFor Respondent: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, AR

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68

…, reopening cannot be construed as change of opinion. 1. ALA Firm vs. CIT (102 ITR 622) (Mad HC) 2. Ess Kay Engineering Company Pyf. Lfcf vs. CIT (247 ITR R18)(SC) 3. Revathi CP Equipments Ltd vs. DCIT &0rs (241 ITR 856)(Mad HC) 4. EMA India Ltd vs. ACIT (30 DTR 82) (AIL HC) (iv) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kalyanji Mavji & Company v. CIT (102 ITR 287) (SC) (1976) has held that there is no change of opinion if the assessment is reopened on new facts which came to 8 I.T.A. No. 6561, 6562 & 6564/Mum/2017 M/s Calvin Properties notice subsequent^, even though they are already on record. (v) The Hon…

RAMYA STEEL SYNDICATE,VIJAYAWADA vs. ITO, WARD-1(2),, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 526/VIZ/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.526 /Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2008-2009) M/S Ramya Steel Syndicate Vs. Ito, Ward-1(2) Plot No.21A & 21B Vijayawada Iron Complex Bhavanipuram Vijayawada [Pan :Aacfr7326L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri K.C.Das, DR

Section 143(3)Section 148

…e above decision was held in the following cases: (i) L.A. Firm Vs. CIT (Med) 102 ITR 622. (ii) Ess Kay Engineering Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (SC) 247 ITR 516. (iii) Revathy C.P. Equipments Ltd. Vs. DC!T & Ors, (Mad) 241 ITR 856. (iv) EMA India Ltd. Vs. ACIT (AU) 30 DTR 82. 5.2.2. Appellant cannot rake up issue of reopening once assesses participated in the reassessment proceedings after receipt of order passed by Assessing Officer rejecting his objections towards reopening. This view was held in the case of Sushil Kumar Jalan Vs ITO in I.T.A. No.34/Gau/2011 by Hon’ble Guwahati Tribunal. 5.2.3. Similar view was held…

THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE - 2(1),, VIJAYAWADA vs. SRI C.D.S.PRAKASA RAO, L/H. C.D.V. SUBBA RAO,, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 44/VIZ/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 Jul 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.44/Viz/2013 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2006-07) Dy.Cit, Circle-2(1) Vs. C.D.V. Subba Rao Vijayawada Lr Of Late C.D.S. Prakasa Rao Prop.Prakash Arts, [Pan :Adapc2488D] Museum Road Governorpet Vijayawada [Pan : Adkpc7450P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri R.S.Aravindakshan, Dr प्रत्यार्थी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar

For Appellant: Shri R.S.Aravindakshan, DRFor Respondent: Shri G.V.N.Hari, AR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 436oSection 43B

…Reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements. (i) ALA Firm vs CIT (Mds) 102 ITR 622 Ess Kay Engineering Co. (P) Ltd vs CIT (SC) 247 ITR 818 (ii) (iii) Revathy C.P. Equipments Ltd. Vs. DCIT & Ors (Mad) 241 ITR 856 (W) EMA India Ltd. Vs ACIT(All) 30 DTR 82 d. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have not struck down the reassessment proceedings as it transpires from the record that the liability of service tax is not allowable u/s436of the Act and on this tangible material available on record only, the AO formed a belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, e. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to note that i…

M/S. ELLORE JEWEL PLACE,BANGALORE vs. ITO-WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee firm is

ITA 1646/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Dec 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George Km/S. Ellore Jewel Palace, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 620, Avenue Road, Ward-2(2), Bengaluru Bengaluru – 560 002. Now: Ward-5(2)(1), Pan : Aaafe3111A Bengaluru

For Appellant: Shri. H. N. Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Saravanan B, Addl. CIT

Section 133ASection 14Section 143(1)Section 148

…nal assessment proceedings. Hence, there is no question of change of opinion. ALA Firm v. CIT (Mad) 102 ITR 622. Ess Kay Engineering Co. (P) Ltd v. CIT (SC) 247 ITR 818. Revathy C.P. Equipments ltd. v. DCIT & Ors (Mad) 241 ITR 856, EMA India Ltd v. ACIT (ALL) 30 DTR 82. Change of opinion comes to rescue of assessee only when assessing officer has taken on permissible views at the time of original proceedings. A wrong application of law cannot be held as permissible view and that can always be changed for appreciation of law. Reopening valid, Som Dutt Builders (P) Ltd v. DCIT (ITAT, Kol) 98 ITD 78. In view of the…

ITO 3(1)(4), MUMBAI vs. EVERLON SYNTHETICS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA N0

ITA 6965/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6965/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) Income Tax Officer 3(1)(4), M/S Everlon Synthetics बनाम/ R. No. 666, Pvt. Ltd., V. Aayakar Bhawan,M.K. Road, 67, Regent Chambers, Mumbai – 400 020. 208 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaace0860H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

Section 115JSection 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

…not following the judicial decisions in the cases viz. (1 )A.L.A. Firm Vs. CIT(Mad) 102 ITR 622. (2) Ess Kay Engineering Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT(SC) 247 ITR 818. (3) Revathy C.P. Equipments Ltd. vs. DCIT & Ors.(Mad) 241 ITR 856. (4) EMA India Ltd. Vs. ACIT(All) 30 DTR 82 wherein it has been held that when there is no discussion on the issue in the assessment order and no details were called for by the Assessing Officer or filed by the assessee on the issue, no finding either positive or negative was arrived at during the course of the original assessment proceedings, there is no question of change of opinion. 3. W…

M/S NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1023/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2015AY 2003-04

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R.L. Meena, CIT/DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 80H

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH ‘E’ NEW DELHI BEFORE : SHRI I.C. SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 1023/Del./2013 Asstt. Year : 2003-04 New Delhi Television Ltd., vs. A.C.I.T., Circle 13(1), 207, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi. Phase-III, New Delhi. [PAN : AAACN0865 D] ITA Nos. 5126/Del./2011 Asstt. Year : 2003-04 New Delhi Television Ltd., vs. Commissioner of 207, Okhla Industrial Estate, Income-tax-V, New Delhi. Phase-III, New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Tarandeep Singh, C.A. Respondent by : Shri R.L. Meena, CIT/DR Date of hearin…

NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5126/DEL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2015AY 2003-04

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R.L. Meena, CIT/DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 80H