232 Taxman 414 (Del. HC) 4. Yum Restaurants Asia Pte Ltd. v. DDIT

397 ITR 639High Court2017#4525 most cited

What is 232 Taxman 414 (Del. HC) 4. Yum Restaurants Asia Pte Ltd. v. DDIT authority for?

The approval for reopening of assessment must be obtained from the prescribed authority, which depends on whether the assessment is being reopened within four years or beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year.

26

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2022.

Also referred to as

Yum Restaurants Asia Pte Ltd. v. DDIT · 397 ITR 639 · section 147 · section 151 · reassessment approval · within four years · beyond four years · prescribed authority

Issues it is cited on

section 147(1)section 116within four yearssection 151(1)beyond four yearssection 151(2)section 10bsection 149(1)(b)section 149(1)section 149tangible materialchief commissioner

Judgments citing 232 Taxman 414 (Del. HC) 4. Yum Restaurants Asia Pte Ltd. v. DDIT

NISHIT FINCAP P. LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 18(3), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

ITA 1424/DEL/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda[Assessment Year: 2008-09]

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153(1)Section 153CSection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘SMC’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2008-09] M/s Nishit Fincap Private Income Tax Officer, Limited, Ward-18(3), B-1/14, Upper Ground Vs New Delhi Floor, Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi-110007 PAN-AAACN3687M Assessee Revenue Assessee by Sh. Suresh Kumar Gupta, Adv. Revenue by Sh. Om Prakash Sr. DR Date of Hearing 29.03.2022 Date of Pronouncement 11 .04.2022 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM, This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 27/04/2021 of the CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) for Assessm…

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADIT(EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2772/AHD/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Mar 2022AY 2003-04
For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 144Section 22Section 234BSection 271Section 271DSection 27ISection 57Section 68

…nder section 148 has to be issued by Additional Commissioner, reopening of assessment with approval of Commissioner was unsustainable. The Supreme Court of India dismissed the SLP filed against the High Court Ruling. Further, in case of Yum restaurants v DDIT 397 ITR 639 (Del), the Bombay High Court held that where original assessment was processed under section 143(1), approval for reopening of assessment should be by an officer of rank of Joint Commissioner; approval granted by an officer superior to Joint Commissioner would not satisfy requirement of section 151(2). In the case of CIT v. SPL'S Siddhartha Ltd […

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADIT(EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2771/AHD/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Mar 2022AY 2003-04
For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 144Section 22Section 234BSection 271Section 271DSection 27ISection 57Section 68

…nder section 148 has to be issued by Additional Commissioner, reopening of assessment with approval of Commissioner was unsustainable. The Supreme Court of India dismissed the SLP filed against the High Court Ruling. Further, in case of Yum restaurants v DDIT 397 ITR 639 (Del), the Bombay High Court held that where original assessment was processed under section 143(1), approval for reopening of assessment should be by an officer of rank of Joint Commissioner; approval granted by an officer superior to Joint Commissioner would not satisfy requirement of section 151(2). In the case of CIT v. SPL'S Siddhartha Ltd […

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1032/AHD/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Mar 2022AY 2004-05
For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 144Section 22Section 234BSection 271Section 271DSection 27ISection 57Section 68

…nder section 148 has to be issued by Additional Commissioner, reopening of assessment with approval of Commissioner was unsustainable. The Supreme Court of India dismissed the SLP filed against the High Court Ruling. Further, in case of Yum restaurants v DDIT 397 ITR 639 (Del), the Bombay High Court held that where original assessment was processed under section 143(1), approval for reopening of assessment should be by an officer of rank of Joint Commissioner; approval granted by an officer superior to Joint Commissioner would not satisfy requirement of section 151(2). In the case of CIT v. SPL'S Siddhartha Ltd […

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1031/AHD/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Mar 2022AY 2004-05
For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 144Section 22Section 234BSection 271Section 271DSection 27ISection 57Section 68

…nder section 148 has to be issued by Additional Commissioner, reopening of assessment with approval of Commissioner was unsustainable. The Supreme Court of India dismissed the SLP filed against the High Court Ruling. Further, in case of Yum restaurants v DDIT 397 ITR 639 (Del), the Bombay High Court held that where original assessment was processed under section 143(1), approval for reopening of assessment should be by an officer of rank of Joint Commissioner; approval granted by an officer superior to Joint Commissioner would not satisfy requirement of section 151(2). In the case of CIT v. SPL'S Siddhartha Ltd […

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1030/AHD/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Mar 2022AY 2003-04
For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 144Section 22Section 234BSection 271Section 271DSection 27ISection 57Section 68

…nder section 148 has to be issued by Additional Commissioner, reopening of assessment with approval of Commissioner was unsustainable. The Supreme Court of India dismissed the SLP filed against the High Court Ruling. Further, in case of Yum restaurants v DDIT 397 ITR 639 (Del), the Bombay High Court held that where original assessment was processed under section 143(1), approval for reopening of assessment should be by an officer of rank of Joint Commissioner; approval granted by an officer superior to Joint Commissioner would not satisfy requirement of section 151(2). In the case of CIT v. SPL'S Siddhartha Ltd […

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1029/AHD/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Mar 2022AY 2003-04
For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 144Section 22Section 234BSection 271Section 271DSection 27ISection 57Section 68

…nder section 148 has to be issued by Additional Commissioner, reopening of assessment with approval of Commissioner was unsustainable. The Supreme Court of India dismissed the SLP filed against the High Court Ruling. Further, in case of Yum restaurants v DDIT 397 ITR 639 (Del), the Bombay High Court held that where original assessment was processed under section 143(1), approval for reopening of assessment should be by an officer of rank of Joint Commissioner; approval granted by an officer superior to Joint Commissioner would not satisfy requirement of section 151(2). In the case of CIT v. SPL'S Siddhartha Ltd […

M/S. MARBLE ART,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2480/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Mar 2021AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ramita M. Biswas, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 148

…case Notice Approv As per the Hon’ble issued al Court, approval by taken should have been from taken from . 1 CIT vs. SPL’s ACIT CIT JCIT/Addl CIT Siddhartha Ltd [2012] 345 ITR 223 (Delhi) . 2 Yum! Restaurants Asia DCIT DIT Addl. DIT Pte. Ltd vs. DDIT [2017] 397 ITR 639 32 ITA.Nos.2478 to 2480/Del./2013 M/s Marble Art, New Delhi. (Delhi) . 3 CIT v. Soyuz Industrial AO CIT JCIT Resources Ltd. [2015] 232 Taxman 414 (Delhi) . 4 CIT v. Aquatic DCIT CIT Addl CIT Remedies (P.) Ltd [2018] 406 ITR 545 (Bombay) . 5 Ghanshyam K. DCIT CIT Addl CIT Khabraniv. ACIT [2012] 346 ITR 443 (BOM) . 6 DSJ Communication DCIT CIT Add…

M/S. MARBLE ART,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2479/DEL/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Mar 2021AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ramita M. Biswas, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 148

…case Notice Approv As per the Hon’ble issued al Court, approval by taken should have been from taken from . 1 CIT vs. SPL’s ACIT CIT JCIT/Addl CIT Siddhartha Ltd [2012] 345 ITR 223 (Delhi) . 2 Yum! Restaurants Asia DCIT DIT Addl. DIT Pte. Ltd vs. DDIT [2017] 397 ITR 639 32 ITA.Nos.2478 to 2480/Del./2013 M/s Marble Art, New Delhi. (Delhi) . 3 CIT v. Soyuz Industrial AO CIT JCIT Resources Ltd. [2015] 232 Taxman 414 (Delhi) . 4 CIT v. Aquatic DCIT CIT Addl CIT Remedies (P.) Ltd [2018] 406 ITR 545 (Bombay) . 5 Ghanshyam K. DCIT CIT Addl CIT Khabraniv. ACIT [2012] 346 ITR 443 (BOM) . 6 DSJ Communication DCIT CIT Add…

M/S. MARBLE ART,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2478/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Mar 2021AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ramita M. Biswas, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 148

…case Notice Approv As per the Hon’ble issued al Court, approval by taken should have been from taken from . 1 CIT vs. SPL’s ACIT CIT JCIT/Addl CIT Siddhartha Ltd [2012] 345 ITR 223 (Delhi) . 2 Yum! Restaurants Asia DCIT DIT Addl. DIT Pte. Ltd vs. DDIT [2017] 397 ITR 639 32 ITA.Nos.2478 to 2480/Del./2013 M/s Marble Art, New Delhi. (Delhi) . 3 CIT v. Soyuz Industrial AO CIT JCIT Resources Ltd. [2015] 232 Taxman 414 (Delhi) . 4 CIT v. Aquatic DCIT CIT Addl CIT Remedies (P.) Ltd [2018] 406 ITR 545 (Bombay) . 5 Ghanshyam K. DCIT CIT Addl CIT Khabraniv. ACIT [2012] 346 ITR 443 (BOM) . 6 DSJ Communication DCIT CIT Add…

SHANKER TRADEX PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 23(1), NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed on this issue keeping all other issues and unadjudicated

ITA 7583/DEL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shanker Tradex Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, 3552, 105-10, Ravi Raj Market, Chawri Ward-23(1), Bazar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaics8635G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manorath Tyagi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 147Section 151(2)Section 263Section 68

…nner . Ghanshyam K. Khabrani v. ACIT ( 2012) 346 ITR 443 (Bom)(HC) DSJ Communication Ltd. .v. DCIT (2014) 222 Taxman 129 (Bom.)(HC) Purse Holdings India P. Ltd. v. ADDIT(IT)( 2016) 143 DTR 1(Mum.)(Trib.) Yum ! Restaurants Asia Pte Ltd v. Dy. DIT (No.1) (2017) 397 ITR 639 (Delhi)‖ 13. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the order of the learned assessing officer passed u/s 147 read with Section 143 (3) of the act on 31st of March 2015 wherein it is specifically mentioned that the income of the assessee was not assessed u/s 143 (3) of the act but the return was processed only u/s 143 (1)…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. B.L. KASHYAP & SONS LTD., DELHI

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

ITA 5546/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Sh. Anil Chaturvedi, Am [Through Video Conferencing] आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.4897 To 4903/Del/2014 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years 2002-03 To 2008-09 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" M/S. B. L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd. B-1, /A-21, Mice, Mathura Road, .............अपीलाथ"/Appellant New Delhi Pan-Aaacb0205F Vs Dcit, Central Circle-17, Room No.353, E-2, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi-110055 …………. ""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.5540 To 5546/Del/2014 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years 2002-03 To 2008-09 वष" Acit, Central Circle-17, Room No.353, E-2, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Extn. ...........अपीलाथ"/Appellant New Delhi-110055 Vs M/S. B. L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd. B-1, /A-21, Mice, Mathura Road, New Delhi Pan-Aaacb0205F …………. ""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Goyal, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 142Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153BSection 153B(1)

…mpetent authority is improper:- 1. CIT v. SPL’s Siddhartha Ltd. : 345 ITR 223 (Del.) 2. Ghanshyam K. Khabrani v. ACIT : 346 ITR 443 (Bom.) 3. CIT v. Soyuz Insdustrial Resources Ltd. : [2015] 232 Taxman 414 (Del. HC) 4. Yum Restaurants Asia Pte Ltd. v. DDIT : 397 ITR 639 (Del.) MY SUBMISSION ON THE ABOVE It is humbly submitted that all these decisions are on the subject of reopening of assessment u/s 147 and the authority who should be satisfied for on the reasons recorded by the assessing officer. Therefore, these decisions are in respect of satisfaction for initiation of reassessment proceedings. None of the d…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. B.L. KASHYAP & SONS LTD., DELHI

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

ITA 5542/DEL/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Sh. Anil Chaturvedi, Am [Through Video Conferencing] आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.4897 To 4903/Del/2014 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years 2002-03 To 2008-09 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" M/S. B. L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd. B-1, /A-21, Mice, Mathura Road, .............अपीलाथ"/Appellant New Delhi Pan-Aaacb0205F Vs Dcit, Central Circle-17, Room No.353, E-2, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi-110055 …………. ""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.5540 To 5546/Del/2014 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years 2002-03 To 2008-09 वष" Acit, Central Circle-17, Room No.353, E-2, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Extn. ...........अपीलाथ"/Appellant New Delhi-110055 Vs M/S. B. L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd. B-1, /A-21, Mice, Mathura Road, New Delhi Pan-Aaacb0205F …………. ""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Goyal, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 142Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153BSection 153B(1)

…mpetent authority is improper:- 1. CIT v. SPL’s Siddhartha Ltd. : 345 ITR 223 (Del.) 2. Ghanshyam K. Khabrani v. ACIT : 346 ITR 443 (Bom.) 3. CIT v. Soyuz Insdustrial Resources Ltd. : [2015] 232 Taxman 414 (Del. HC) 4. Yum Restaurants Asia Pte Ltd. v. DDIT : 397 ITR 639 (Del.) MY SUBMISSION ON THE ABOVE It is humbly submitted that all these decisions are on the subject of reopening of assessment u/s 147 and the authority who should be satisfied for on the reasons recorded by the assessing officer. Therefore, these decisions are in respect of satisfaction for initiation of reassessment proceedings. None of the d…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. B.L. KASHYAP & SONS LTD., DELHI

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

ITA 5540/DEL/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2002-03

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Sh. Anil Chaturvedi, Am [Through Video Conferencing] आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.4897 To 4903/Del/2014 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years 2002-03 To 2008-09 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" M/S. B. L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd. B-1, /A-21, Mice, Mathura Road, .............अपीलाथ"/Appellant New Delhi Pan-Aaacb0205F Vs Dcit, Central Circle-17, Room No.353, E-2, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi-110055 …………. ""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.5540 To 5546/Del/2014 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years 2002-03 To 2008-09 वष" Acit, Central Circle-17, Room No.353, E-2, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Extn. ...........अपीलाथ"/Appellant New Delhi-110055 Vs M/S. B. L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd. B-1, /A-21, Mice, Mathura Road, New Delhi Pan-Aaacb0205F …………. ""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Goyal, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 142Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153BSection 153B(1)

…mpetent authority is improper:- 1. CIT v. SPL’s Siddhartha Ltd. : 345 ITR 223 (Del.) 2. Ghanshyam K. Khabrani v. ACIT : 346 ITR 443 (Bom.) 3. CIT v. Soyuz Insdustrial Resources Ltd. : [2015] 232 Taxman 414 (Del. HC) 4. Yum Restaurants Asia Pte Ltd. v. DDIT : 397 ITR 639 (Del.) MY SUBMISSION ON THE ABOVE It is humbly submitted that all these decisions are on the subject of reopening of assessment u/s 147 and the authority who should be satisfied for on the reasons recorded by the assessing officer. Therefore, these decisions are in respect of satisfaction for initiation of reassessment proceedings. None of the d…

M/S. B.L. KASHYAP & SONS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 4903/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Sh. Anil Chaturvedi, Am [Through Video Conferencing] आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.4897 To 4903/Del/2014 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years 2002-03 To 2008-09 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" M/S. B. L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd. B-1, /A-21, Mice, Mathura Road, .............अपीलाथ"/Appellant New Delhi Pan-Aaacb0205F Vs Dcit, Central Circle-17, Room No.353, E-2, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi-110055 …………. ""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.5540 To 5546/Del/2014 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years 2002-03 To 2008-09 वष" Acit, Central Circle-17, Room No.353, E-2, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Extn. ...........अपीलाथ"/Appellant New Delhi-110055 Vs M/S. B. L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd. B-1, /A-21, Mice, Mathura Road, New Delhi Pan-Aaacb0205F …………. ""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Goyal, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 142Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153BSection 153B(1)

…mpetent authority is improper:- 1. CIT v. SPL’s Siddhartha Ltd. : 345 ITR 223 (Del.) 2. Ghanshyam K. Khabrani v. ACIT : 346 ITR 443 (Bom.) 3. CIT v. Soyuz Insdustrial Resources Ltd. : [2015] 232 Taxman 414 (Del. HC) 4. Yum Restaurants Asia Pte Ltd. v. DDIT : 397 ITR 639 (Del.) MY SUBMISSION ON THE ABOVE It is humbly submitted that all these decisions are on the subject of reopening of assessment u/s 147 and the authority who should be satisfied for on the reasons recorded by the assessing officer. Therefore, these decisions are in respect of satisfaction for initiation of reassessment proceedings. None of the d…

M/S. B.L. KASHYAP & SONS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 4901/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Sh. Anil Chaturvedi, Am [Through Video Conferencing] आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.4897 To 4903/Del/2014 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years 2002-03 To 2008-09 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" M/S. B. L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd. B-1, /A-21, Mice, Mathura Road, .............अपीलाथ"/Appellant New Delhi Pan-Aaacb0205F Vs Dcit, Central Circle-17, Room No.353, E-2, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi-110055 …………. ""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.5540 To 5546/Del/2014 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years 2002-03 To 2008-09 वष" Acit, Central Circle-17, Room No.353, E-2, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Extn. ...........अपीलाथ"/Appellant New Delhi-110055 Vs M/S. B. L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd. B-1, /A-21, Mice, Mathura Road, New Delhi Pan-Aaacb0205F …………. ""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Goyal, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 142Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153BSection 153B(1)

…mpetent authority is improper:- 1. CIT v. SPL’s Siddhartha Ltd. : 345 ITR 223 (Del.) 2. Ghanshyam K. Khabrani v. ACIT : 346 ITR 443 (Bom.) 3. CIT v. Soyuz Insdustrial Resources Ltd. : [2015] 232 Taxman 414 (Del. HC) 4. Yum Restaurants Asia Pte Ltd. v. DDIT : 397 ITR 639 (Del.) MY SUBMISSION ON THE ABOVE It is humbly submitted that all these decisions are on the subject of reopening of assessment u/s 147 and the authority who should be satisfied for on the reasons recorded by the assessing officer. Therefore, these decisions are in respect of satisfaction for initiation of reassessment proceedings. None of the d…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. B.L. KASHYAP & SONS LTD., DELHI

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

ITA 5545/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Sh. Anil Chaturvedi, Am [Through Video Conferencing] आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.4897 To 4903/Del/2014 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years 2002-03 To 2008-09 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" M/S. B. L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd. B-1, /A-21, Mice, Mathura Road, .............अपीलाथ"/Appellant New Delhi Pan-Aaacb0205F Vs Dcit, Central Circle-17, Room No.353, E-2, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi-110055 …………. ""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.5540 To 5546/Del/2014 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years 2002-03 To 2008-09 वष" Acit, Central Circle-17, Room No.353, E-2, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Extn. ...........अपीलाथ"/Appellant New Delhi-110055 Vs M/S. B. L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd. B-1, /A-21, Mice, Mathura Road, New Delhi Pan-Aaacb0205F …………. ""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Goyal, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 142Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153BSection 153B(1)

…mpetent authority is improper:- 1. CIT v. SPL’s Siddhartha Ltd. : 345 ITR 223 (Del.) 2. Ghanshyam K. Khabrani v. ACIT : 346 ITR 443 (Bom.) 3. CIT v. Soyuz Insdustrial Resources Ltd. : [2015] 232 Taxman 414 (Del. HC) 4. Yum Restaurants Asia Pte Ltd. v. DDIT : 397 ITR 639 (Del.) MY SUBMISSION ON THE ABOVE It is humbly submitted that all these decisions are on the subject of reopening of assessment u/s 147 and the authority who should be satisfied for on the reasons recorded by the assessing officer. Therefore, these decisions are in respect of satisfaction for initiation of reassessment proceedings. None of the d…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. B.L. KASHYAP & SONS LTD., DELHI

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

ITA 5544/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Sh. Anil Chaturvedi, Am [Through Video Conferencing] आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.4897 To 4903/Del/2014 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years 2002-03 To 2008-09 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" M/S. B. L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd. B-1, /A-21, Mice, Mathura Road, .............अपीलाथ"/Appellant New Delhi Pan-Aaacb0205F Vs Dcit, Central Circle-17, Room No.353, E-2, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi-110055 …………. ""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.5540 To 5546/Del/2014 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years 2002-03 To 2008-09 वष" Acit, Central Circle-17, Room No.353, E-2, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Extn. ...........अपीलाथ"/Appellant New Delhi-110055 Vs M/S. B. L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd. B-1, /A-21, Mice, Mathura Road, New Delhi Pan-Aaacb0205F …………. ""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Goyal, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 142Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153BSection 153B(1)

…mpetent authority is improper:- 1. CIT v. SPL’s Siddhartha Ltd. : 345 ITR 223 (Del.) 2. Ghanshyam K. Khabrani v. ACIT : 346 ITR 443 (Bom.) 3. CIT v. Soyuz Insdustrial Resources Ltd. : [2015] 232 Taxman 414 (Del. HC) 4. Yum Restaurants Asia Pte Ltd. v. DDIT : 397 ITR 639 (Del.) MY SUBMISSION ON THE ABOVE It is humbly submitted that all these decisions are on the subject of reopening of assessment u/s 147 and the authority who should be satisfied for on the reasons recorded by the assessing officer. Therefore, these decisions are in respect of satisfaction for initiation of reassessment proceedings. None of the d…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. B.L. KASHYAP & SONS LTD., DELHI

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

ITA 5543/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Sh. Anil Chaturvedi, Am [Through Video Conferencing] आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.4897 To 4903/Del/2014 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years 2002-03 To 2008-09 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" M/S. B. L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd. B-1, /A-21, Mice, Mathura Road, .............अपीलाथ"/Appellant New Delhi Pan-Aaacb0205F Vs Dcit, Central Circle-17, Room No.353, E-2, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi-110055 …………. ""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.5540 To 5546/Del/2014 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years 2002-03 To 2008-09 वष" Acit, Central Circle-17, Room No.353, E-2, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Extn. ...........अपीलाथ"/Appellant New Delhi-110055 Vs M/S. B. L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd. B-1, /A-21, Mice, Mathura Road, New Delhi Pan-Aaacb0205F …………. ""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Goyal, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 142Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153BSection 153B(1)

…mpetent authority is improper:- 1. CIT v. SPL’s Siddhartha Ltd. : 345 ITR 223 (Del.) 2. Ghanshyam K. Khabrani v. ACIT : 346 ITR 443 (Bom.) 3. CIT v. Soyuz Insdustrial Resources Ltd. : [2015] 232 Taxman 414 (Del. HC) 4. Yum Restaurants Asia Pte Ltd. v. DDIT : 397 ITR 639 (Del.) MY SUBMISSION ON THE ABOVE It is humbly submitted that all these decisions are on the subject of reopening of assessment u/s 147 and the authority who should be satisfied for on the reasons recorded by the assessing officer. Therefore, these decisions are in respect of satisfaction for initiation of reassessment proceedings. None of the d…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. B.L. KASHYAP & SONS LTD., DELHI

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

ITA 5541/DEL/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2003-04

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Sh. Anil Chaturvedi, Am [Through Video Conferencing] आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.4897 To 4903/Del/2014 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years 2002-03 To 2008-09 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" M/S. B. L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd. B-1, /A-21, Mice, Mathura Road, .............अपीलाथ"/Appellant New Delhi Pan-Aaacb0205F Vs Dcit, Central Circle-17, Room No.353, E-2, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi-110055 …………. ""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.5540 To 5546/Del/2014 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years 2002-03 To 2008-09 वष" Acit, Central Circle-17, Room No.353, E-2, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Extn. ...........अपीलाथ"/Appellant New Delhi-110055 Vs M/S. B. L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd. B-1, /A-21, Mice, Mathura Road, New Delhi Pan-Aaacb0205F …………. ""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Goyal, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 142Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153BSection 153B(1)

…mpetent authority is improper:- 1. CIT v. SPL’s Siddhartha Ltd. : 345 ITR 223 (Del.) 2. Ghanshyam K. Khabrani v. ACIT : 346 ITR 443 (Bom.) 3. CIT v. Soyuz Insdustrial Resources Ltd. : [2015] 232 Taxman 414 (Del. HC) 4. Yum Restaurants Asia Pte Ltd. v. DDIT : 397 ITR 639 (Del.) MY SUBMISSION ON THE ABOVE It is humbly submitted that all these decisions are on the subject of reopening of assessment u/s 147 and the authority who should be satisfied for on the reasons recorded by the assessing officer. Therefore, these decisions are in respect of satisfaction for initiation of reassessment proceedings. None of the d…

Showing 1–20 of 26 · Page 1 of 2

232 Taxman 414 (Del. HC) 4. Yum Restaurants Asia Pte Ltd. v. DDIT (397 ITR 639) — Cited in 26 Judgments | BharatTax