08 (Del) 4. CIT vs. S.K. Katyal, (2009) 308 ITR 168 (Del) 5. Golderest Finance (India) Ltd. v. DCIT

334 ITR 240High Court2011#7576 most cited
15

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2024.

Issues it is cited on

section 132(3)section 142(2c)section 158besection 153b(1)(a)section 142(2)section 153(1)(a)section 153b(1)extension of limitationsection 142(2a)legal representativestatement under section 132(4)section 153(1)

Judgments citing 08 (Del) 4. CIT vs. S.K. Katyal, (2009) 308 ITR 168 (Del) 5. Golderest Finance (India) Ltd. v. DCIT

TATA MOTORS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 631/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.631/मुं/2013 (िन.व. 2008-09) Tata Motors Limited Bombay House, 24,Homi Mody Street, Hutama Chowk, Mumbai – 400001. Pan: Aaact-2727-Q ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle -2(3), Mumbai. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ....."ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri J.D.Mistry, Sr.Advocate With Shri Nikhil Tiwari,Advocate "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Vatsala Jha, Cit-Dr & Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 10/11/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 05/02/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri J.D.Mistry, Sr.Advocate with Shri Nikhil Tiwari,AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsala Jha, CIT-DR and Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, Sr.AR
Section 116Section 143(3)Section 92C

…horities placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the case of Dr.Nalini Mahajan vs. Director of Income Tax, 252 ITR 123(Del) upheld by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Director of Income Tax vs. Nalini Mahajan, 314 ITR 340 (SC), CIT vs. Pavan Kumar Garg, 334 ITR 240(Del) and CIT vs. Jain Sons in SLP (Civil) No.8958/2009 decided on 27/07/2009. 5.2 In second plank of his submissions, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that a perusal of Explanation to Section 92CA would show that “authorization by Board” is necessary to perform the functions of a TPO u/s. 92C and 92D of the Act. In the instant case, the…

SH. BHUSHAN LAL SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 439/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Somil Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…1 1) 333 ITR 451 (Mad) 3. S.K. Katyal through L/H Mrs. Ranjana Katyal vs. DCIT, (2007) 111 TTJ 0008 (Del) 4. CIT vs. S.K. Katyal, (2009) 308 ITR 168 (Del) 5. Golderest Finance (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT, (2006) 105 TTJ 926 (Mum) 6. CIT vs. Pawan Kumar Garg, (2011) 334 ITR 240 6.1.11. Learned Counsel for the Assessee, therefore, submitted that since no information could have been provided for assessment years under appeals i.e., 2006- 2007 to 2011-2012 and the protocol also started from 01.04.2011, therefore, no reference could be made by the Revenue Authorities for assessment years under appeals i.e., 2006-2007 to 20…

SH. BHUSHAN LAL SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 438/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Somil Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…1 1) 333 ITR 451 (Mad) 3. S.K. Katyal through L/H Mrs. Ranjana Katyal vs. DCIT, (2007) 111 TTJ 0008 (Del) 4. CIT vs. S.K. Katyal, (2009) 308 ITR 168 (Del) 5. Golderest Finance (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT, (2006) 105 TTJ 926 (Mum) 6. CIT vs. Pawan Kumar Garg, (2011) 334 ITR 240 6.1.11. Learned Counsel for the Assessee, therefore, submitted that since no information could have been provided for assessment years under appeals i.e., 2006- 2007 to 2011-2012 and the protocol also started from 01.04.2011, therefore, no reference could be made by the Revenue Authorities for assessment years under appeals i.e., 2006-2007 to 20…

SH. BHUSHAN LAL SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 437/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jun 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Somil Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…1 1) 333 ITR 451 (Mad) 3. S.K. Katyal through L/H Mrs. Ranjana Katyal vs. DCIT, (2007) 111 TTJ 0008 (Del) 4. CIT vs. S.K. Katyal, (2009) 308 ITR 168 (Del) 5. Golderest Finance (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT, (2006) 105 TTJ 926 (Mum) 6. CIT vs. Pawan Kumar Garg, (2011) 334 ITR 240 6.1.11. Learned Counsel for the Assessee, therefore, submitted that since no information could have been provided for assessment years under appeals i.e., 2006- 2007 to 2011-2012 and the protocol also started from 01.04.2011, therefore, no reference could be made by the Revenue Authorities for assessment years under appeals i.e., 2006-2007 to 20…

SH. BHUSHAN LAL SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 436/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jun 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Somil Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…1 1) 333 ITR 451 (Mad) 3. S.K. Katyal through L/H Mrs. Ranjana Katyal vs. DCIT, (2007) 111 TTJ 0008 (Del) 4. CIT vs. S.K. Katyal, (2009) 308 ITR 168 (Del) 5. Golderest Finance (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT, (2006) 105 TTJ 926 (Mum) 6. CIT vs. Pawan Kumar Garg, (2011) 334 ITR 240 6.1.11. Learned Counsel for the Assessee, therefore, submitted that since no information could have been provided for assessment years under appeals i.e., 2006- 2007 to 2011-2012 and the protocol also started from 01.04.2011, therefore, no reference could be made by the Revenue Authorities for assessment years under appeals i.e., 2006-2007 to 20…

SH. BHUSHAN LAL SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 435/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jun 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Somil Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…1 1) 333 ITR 451 (Mad) 3. S.K. Katyal through L/H Mrs. Ranjana Katyal vs. DCIT, (2007) 111 TTJ 0008 (Del) 4. CIT vs. S.K. Katyal, (2009) 308 ITR 168 (Del) 5. Golderest Finance (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT, (2006) 105 TTJ 926 (Mum) 6. CIT vs. Pawan Kumar Garg, (2011) 334 ITR 240 6.1.11. Learned Counsel for the Assessee, therefore, submitted that since no information could have been provided for assessment years under appeals i.e., 2006- 2007 to 2011-2012 and the protocol also started from 01.04.2011, therefore, no reference could be made by the Revenue Authorities for assessment years under appeals i.e., 2006-2007 to 20…

SH. BHUSHAN LAL SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 434/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jun 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Somil Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…1 1) 333 ITR 451 (Mad) 3. S.K. Katyal through L/H Mrs. Ranjana Katyal vs. DCIT, (2007) 111 TTJ 0008 (Del) 4. CIT vs. S.K. Katyal, (2009) 308 ITR 168 (Del) 5. Golderest Finance (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT, (2006) 105 TTJ 926 (Mum) 6. CIT vs. Pawan Kumar Garg, (2011) 334 ITR 240 6.1.11. Learned Counsel for the Assessee, therefore, submitted that since no information could have been provided for assessment years under appeals i.e., 2006- 2007 to 2011-2012 and the protocol also started from 01.04.2011, therefore, no reference could be made by the Revenue Authorities for assessment years under appeals i.e., 2006-2007 to 20…

SH. BHUSHAN LAL SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 432/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Somil Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…1 1) 333 ITR 451 (Mad) 3. S.K. Katyal through L/H Mrs. Ranjana Katyal vs. DCIT, (2007) 111 TTJ 0008 (Del) 4. CIT vs. S.K. Katyal, (2009) 308 ITR 168 (Del) 5. Golderest Finance (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT, (2006) 105 TTJ 926 (Mum) 6. CIT vs. Pawan Kumar Garg, (2011) 334 ITR 240 6.1.11. Learned Counsel for the Assessee, therefore, submitted that since no information could have been provided for assessment years under appeals i.e., 2006- 2007 to 2011-2012 and the protocol also started from 01.04.2011, therefore, no reference could be made by the Revenue Authorities for assessment years under appeals i.e., 2006-2007 to 20…

SH. BHUSHAN LAL SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 431/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Somil Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…1 1) 333 ITR 451 (Mad) 3. S.K. Katyal through L/H Mrs. Ranjana Katyal vs. DCIT, (2007) 111 TTJ 0008 (Del) 4. CIT vs. S.K. Katyal, (2009) 308 ITR 168 (Del) 5. Golderest Finance (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT, (2006) 105 TTJ 926 (Mum) 6. CIT vs. Pawan Kumar Garg, (2011) 334 ITR 240 6.1.11. Learned Counsel for the Assessee, therefore, submitted that since no information could have been provided for assessment years under appeals i.e., 2006- 2007 to 2011-2012 and the protocol also started from 01.04.2011, therefore, no reference could be made by the Revenue Authorities for assessment years under appeals i.e., 2006-2007 to 20…

SH. BHUSHAN LAL SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 430/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jun 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Somil Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…1 1) 333 ITR 451 (Mad) 3. S.K. Katyal through L/H Mrs. Ranjana Katyal vs. DCIT, (2007) 111 TTJ 0008 (Del) 4. CIT vs. S.K. Katyal, (2009) 308 ITR 168 (Del) 5. Golderest Finance (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT, (2006) 105 TTJ 926 (Mum) 6. CIT vs. Pawan Kumar Garg, (2011) 334 ITR 240 6.1.11. Learned Counsel for the Assessee, therefore, submitted that since no information could have been provided for assessment years under appeals i.e., 2006- 2007 to 2011-2012 and the protocol also started from 01.04.2011, therefore, no reference could be made by the Revenue Authorities for assessment years under appeals i.e., 2006-2007 to 20…

SH. BHUSHAN LAL SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 429/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jun 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Somil Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…1 1) 333 ITR 451 (Mad) 3. S.K. Katyal through L/H Mrs. Ranjana Katyal vs. DCIT, (2007) 111 TTJ 0008 (Del) 4. CIT vs. S.K. Katyal, (2009) 308 ITR 168 (Del) 5. Golderest Finance (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT, (2006) 105 TTJ 926 (Mum) 6. CIT vs. Pawan Kumar Garg, (2011) 334 ITR 240 6.1.11. Learned Counsel for the Assessee, therefore, submitted that since no information could have been provided for assessment years under appeals i.e., 2006- 2007 to 2011-2012 and the protocol also started from 01.04.2011, therefore, no reference could be made by the Revenue Authorities for assessment years under appeals i.e., 2006-2007 to 20…

SH. BHUSHAN LAL SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 428/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jun 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Somil Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…1 1) 333 ITR 451 (Mad) 3. S.K. Katyal through L/H Mrs. Ranjana Katyal vs. DCIT, (2007) 111 TTJ 0008 (Del) 4. CIT vs. S.K. Katyal, (2009) 308 ITR 168 (Del) 5. Golderest Finance (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT, (2006) 105 TTJ 926 (Mum) 6. CIT vs. Pawan Kumar Garg, (2011) 334 ITR 240 6.1.11. Learned Counsel for the Assessee, therefore, submitted that since no information could have been provided for assessment years under appeals i.e., 2006- 2007 to 2011-2012 and the protocol also started from 01.04.2011, therefore, no reference could be made by the Revenue Authorities for assessment years under appeals i.e., 2006-2007 to 20…

SH. BHUSHAN LAL SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 427/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jun 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Somil Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…1 1) 333 ITR 451 (Mad) 3. S.K. Katyal through L/H Mrs. Ranjana Katyal vs. DCIT, (2007) 111 TTJ 0008 (Del) 4. CIT vs. S.K. Katyal, (2009) 308 ITR 168 (Del) 5. Golderest Finance (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT, (2006) 105 TTJ 926 (Mum) 6. CIT vs. Pawan Kumar Garg, (2011) 334 ITR 240 6.1.11. Learned Counsel for the Assessee, therefore, submitted that since no information could have been provided for assessment years under appeals i.e., 2006- 2007 to 2011-2012 and the protocol also started from 01.04.2011, therefore, no reference could be made by the Revenue Authorities for assessment years under appeals i.e., 2006-2007 to 20…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. BBC WORLD INDIA (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee and the learned assessing officer are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5556/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 250Section 92C

…xercised by Additional Commissioner and therefore the order passed by The Additional Commissioner under section 92CA of the act is ultra virus, null and void. The assessee also relied upon the decision of the honourable Delhi High Court in CIT vs Pankaj Gupta 334 ITR 240 wherein it has been held that when the power is given to do a certain thing in a certain manner, the same must be done in that manner or not at all and that all other proceedings are necessarily forbidden. He further relied upon the decision of the honourable Delhi High Court in 52 taxmann.com 336, 17 taxmann.com 138 and the decision of the honou…

CAIRN UK HOLDING LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 5 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1669/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Puri CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144

…Commissioner and not with Additional Director. He further submitted that these 2 authorities are quite different. He further referred to the decision of the Hon‘ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT versus Pawan Kumar Garg [2009] 178 Taxman 491 (Delhi)/ [2011] 334 ITR 240 (Delhi)/ [2009] 222 CTR 36 (Delhi) wherein it has been held that manner in which expression ‗Joint Director‘ has been used in section 132(1) requires same to be interpreted in its limited sense as meaning only a Joint Director and not an Additional Director of Income- tax. 24. On the issue of reopening of assessment proceedings the ld departmenta…