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

397 ITR 639High Court2017#4518 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 366,418 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

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 4902/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…

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 4898/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…

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 4897/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…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Soul Space Projects Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 193/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jun 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 193/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Ita No. 1849/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Acit, Vs Soul Space Projects Ltd., Central Circle-15, E-23/B-1, Extn. Mcie, Mathura New Delhi-110055 Road, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aajcs7736F Co No. 271/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Co No. 284/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Soul Space Projects Ltd., Vs Acit, E-23/B-1, Extn. Mcie, Mathura Central Circle-15, Road, New Delhi-110044 New Delhi-110055 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aajcs7736F

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 40Section 40A(2)(b)

…ompetent 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.) Submission 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 decision is related for extension of time per…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Soul Space Projects Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1849/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jun 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 193/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Ita No. 1849/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Acit, Vs Soul Space Projects Ltd., Central Circle-15, E-23/B-1, Extn. Mcie, Mathura New Delhi-110055 Road, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aajcs7736F Co No. 271/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Co No. 284/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Soul Space Projects Ltd., Vs Acit, E-23/B-1, Extn. Mcie, Mathura Central Circle-15, Road, New Delhi-110044 New Delhi-110055 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aajcs7736F

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 40Section 40A(2)(b)

…ompetent 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.) Submission 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 decision is related for extension of time per…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Aakash Goyal, Delhi

In the result, both the appeal as well as the Cross Objection are

ITA 5673/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Oct 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiassessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.R. Senapati, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151(1)Section 151(2)

…and the satisfaction, which the statute mandates of a distinct authority, cannot be substituted by the satisfaction of another. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Yum Restaurants Asia Pte Ltd. 5 CO No.139/Del/2018 vs. DDIT (2017) 397 ITR 639 (Del). In view of the foregoing discussion, we are satisfied that the ratio decidendi of these judgment explicitly vindicate the view of ld. CIT(A) in annulling the assessment. His view is, ergo, countenanced. 8. The ld. AR did not press the Cross Objection, which is also dismissed. 9. In the result, both the appeal as well as the Cross Obje…

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