329 ITR 289 (Del) CIT v. DLF Power Ltd.

323 ITR 632High Court2010#2715 most cited

What is 329 ITR 289 (Del) CIT v. DLF Power Ltd. authority for?

A Commissioner cannot invoke Section 263 to revise an assessment order that allowed a deduction after the assessee provided full details and explanations, unless the order is demonstrably prejudicial to revenue.

43

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT vs. DLF Power Ltd. · 329 ITR 289 · Section 263 · revisionary powers · Commissioner · Assessing Officer · prejudicial to revenue · erroneous assessment · Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT · CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers

Sections most often in play

Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 145A(b)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 263Section 56(2)(viii)

Issues it is cited on

section 141section 282a(1)section 194lasection 145a(b)section 145bsection 45(5)section 57(iv)section 56(2)(viii)section 10(37)doctrine of mergerenhanced compensationsection 197

Judgments citing 329 ITR 289 (Del) CIT v. DLF Power Ltd.

M/S. Bhandari Hospital and Research Centre, Indore vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Indore

ITA 355/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Bhandari Hospital & Pr. Cit-(I) Research Centre, Gf-21 & Indore बनाम/ 22, Opp. Meghdoot Garden, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aadfb8151A

Section 131(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 263Section 35A

…R 83, CIT vs. Anil Kumar Sharma (Delhi), m. 341 ITR 537 (Delhi), CIT vs. Vikas Polymers o. 343 ITR 342, CIT vs. Hero Auto Ltd. (Delhi H.C.), p. 111 ITR 326, J.P. Srivastava & Sons Vs. CIT, (Allhd. H.C) q. 320 ITR 674, CIT vs. Ashish Rajpal (Delhi H.C.). At r. 323 ITR 632, CIT vs. Design and Automation Engineers (Bombay) P. Ltd. (Bombay H.C.), of s. 323 ITR 206, CIT vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd. t. 243 ITR 83, Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT, (Supreme Court) u. 203 ITR 108 CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd., (Bombay H.C.) Elaborating on the aforesaid decisions : 4.1 On the question regarding examination of validit…

Shri Vinod Bhandari, Indore vs. The Pr.CIT-1, Indore

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 350/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 133ASection 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

…or does not leads to the proposition that he did not make any enquiry on this matter which would trigger 263 on the specific issue. Manish Kumar vs CIT (2012) 134 ITD 27 (Indore Trib), 15 ITA Nos.350 & 66/Ind/2017 & ITANo.57/Ind/2019 Vinod Bhandari and also 323 ITR 632 and Maithan International vs ACIT 134 ITD 393). 2. Merely because from a perfectionist point of view, it is felt that some more enquiries and verifications could have been made by the Assessing Officer while making assessment/assessment order cannot be declared to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. (Salora Cloth v. ACIT [200…

Afcons Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT 9, Mumbai

The appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated in the order

ITA 3159/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.3159/Mum/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2014-15) Afcons Infrastructure Limited Pr. Cit-9 16, Afcons House Room No.214, Aaykar Bhavan बनाम/ 2Nd Floor, M.K. Road Shah Industrial Estate Vs. Veera Desai Road, Andheri West Mumbai. Mumbai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaca-9067-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : S/Shri J.D. Mistry & Nitesh Joshi-Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Anadi Varma-Ld.Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 05/09/2019 & 19/12/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 17/03/2020 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: S/Shri J.D. Mistry & Nitesh Joshi-Ld. ArsFor Respondent: Shri Anadi Varma-Ld.CIT-DR
Section 263

…ent proceedings and setting aside of the impugned order is erroneous, in excess of jurisdiction and bad in law. 1.6. The learned CIT ought to have followed the decision of the Jurisdictional Bombay High Court in Design & Automation Engineers (Bombay) (P) Ltd (323 ITR 632) which has been rendered in the context of section 263 of the Act. 1.7. The learned CIT erred in holding that the view taken by the appellant is unsustainable in law and hence change of opinion is permissible to invoke revision proceedings under section 263 of the Act. 1.8. The learned CIT ought to have appreciated that where the learned Assessin…

Gordon Bruce Serrao, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -28, Mumbai

In the result, appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3105/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Saktijit Dey

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram a/wFor Respondent: Shri M. Daya Sagar
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54

…llowing decisions:– i) Janki Ram Bahadur Ram v/s CIT, [1995] 57 ITR 21 (SC); ii) CIT v/s Dhable & Ors., [1993] 202 ITR 98 (Bom.); iii) CIT v/s Gabriel India Ltd., [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bom.); iv) CIT v/s Design & Automation Engineers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd., [2008] 323 ITR 632 (Bom.); v) CIT v/s Kiran Hirji Shah, [2015] 231 Taxman 670 (Bom.); 6 Gordon Bruce Serrao vi) CIT v/s Fine Jewellery (I) Ltd., [2015] 372 ITR 303 (Bom.); vii) MOIL Ltd. v/sCIT, [2017] 396 ITR 244 (Bom.); viii) CIT v/s Nirav Modi, [2017] 390 ITR 292 (Bom.); ix) CIT v/s Reliance Communication Ltd., [2017] 244 Taxman 55 (SC); x) CIT v/s Paville Fas…

Lupin Limited, Mumbai vs. CIT- Ltu, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 3097/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora &For Respondent: Shri Anadi Varma, DR
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 8

…on under Section 263 of the Act on the basis of the fact that assessment is made without application of mind. In this regard, the assessee placed reliance on the following judicial precedents: • CIT v. Design and Automation Engineers (Bombay) (P.) Ltd (2010) 323 ITR 632 (Bom) • Gabriel India Ltd (1993) (203 ITR 108) (Bom) • Nirav Modi (2017) 390 ITR 292 (Bom) (SLP dismissed (2017) 77 taxmann.com 15 (SC) 16 | P a g e 17. In view of the above facts and the provisions of the Act and case laws discussed above, we are of the view that the Revision order passed by CIT under section 263 of the Act is without any bas…

Maharashtra Cricket Association, Pune vs. CIT-1, Pune

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1177/PUN/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1177/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Maharashtra Cricket Association, 5Th Floor, Amar Avinash Corporate City, 10, Bund Garden Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411001 …. Pan: Aaatm2192D Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Pune

For Appellant: S/Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Ms. Nirupama Kotru, CIT and Shri S.B. Prasad, CIT
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 263

…ation of Commissioner that the Assessing Officer had not elaborately discussed the issue, he stated that under similar circumstances, the proposition laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Design and Automation Engineers (Bombay) P. Ltd. (2010) 323 ITR 632 (Bom) was relevant. 19. The next objection of Commissioner was that capital expenditure incurred by the assessee of Rs.43,97,58,754/-. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that the receipts from BCCI were being booked and utilized as per law and what BCCI was doing for accounting the said payments was not the busine…

ACIT Cir 7(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Laxmi Venture (India) Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 6379/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit, Circle-7(1)(2) M/S. Laxmi Venture India Room No.130, First Floor, बनाम/ Ltd., 36/40, Mahalaxmi Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Bridge Arcade, Vs. Road, Mumbai 400 020 Mahalaxmi, Mumbai 400 037 (यनधाारयती /Assessee) (याजस्व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaacl1982G यनधाारयती की ओर से / Assessee By Shri Haridas Bhat याजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By Ms. Aarju Garodia ुनवाई की तायीख / 12/03/2018 Date Of Hearing : आदेश की तायीख /Date Of Order: 12/03/2018

Section 263Section 73

…pon the following decisions:- a) CIT vs Gabrial India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108(Bom.) b) CIT vs Development Credit Bank Ltd. (2010) 323 ITR 206(Bom.) c) CIT vs Ganpat Ram Bishnoi (2008) 296 ITR 292 (Raj.) d) CIT vs Design & Automation Engineers (Bom.) Pvt. Ltd. 323 ITR 632 e) Grasim Industries Ltd. vs CIT 321 ITR 92 & f) Fiduciary Shares & Stocks Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.321/Mum/2013) order dated 13/05/2016. g) 338 ITR 435 (Delhi) h) 379 ITR 222 (Delhi) The ld. counsel took us to the aforesaid order dated 13/05/2016, passed by the Tribunal and the finding recorded in para 5.6.3 of the order, wherein, discussion has been m…

Satnam Transport Company, Indore vs. The ACIT Circle-5(1), Indore

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee and Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 514/IND/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इ"दौर "यायपीठ, इ"दौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s. Satnam Transport Company CIT-II 137, Transport Nagar, Indore Indore बनाम/ (Appellant) (Revenue ) Vs. P.A. No.AARFS4063L Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s. Satnam Transport Company DCIT-5(1) 137, Transport Nagar, Indore Indore बनाम/ (Appellant) (Revenue ) Vs. P.A. No.AARFS4063L Assessment Year: 2009-10 DCIT-5(1) M/s. Satnam Transport Company Indore 137, Transport Nagar, Indore बनाम/ (Revenue) (Respondent) V…

The DCIT, 5(1), Indore vs. M/S. Satnam Transport Company, Indore

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee and Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 285/IND/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इ"दौर "यायपीठ, इ"दौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s. Satnam Transport Company CIT-II 137, Transport Nagar, Indore Indore बनाम/ (Appellant) (Revenue ) Vs. P.A. No.AARFS4063L Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s. Satnam Transport Company DCIT-5(1) 137, Transport Nagar, Indore Indore बनाम/ (Appellant) (Revenue ) Vs. P.A. No.AARFS4063L Assessment Year: 2009-10 DCIT-5(1) M/s. Satnam Transport Company Indore 137, Transport Nagar, Indore बनाम/ (Revenue) (Respondent) V…

M/S Satnam Transport Company, Indore vs. The CIT- II, Indore

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee and Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 248/IND/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इ"दौर "यायपीठ, इ"दौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s. Satnam Transport Company CIT-II 137, Transport Nagar, Indore Indore बनाम/ (Appellant) (Revenue ) Vs. P.A. No.AARFS4063L Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s. Satnam Transport Company DCIT-5(1) 137, Transport Nagar, Indore Indore बनाम/ (Appellant) (Revenue ) Vs. P.A. No.AARFS4063L Assessment Year: 2009-10 DCIT-5(1) M/s. Satnam Transport Company Indore 137, Transport Nagar, Indore बनाम/ (Revenue) (Respondent) V…

Fedex Express Tranportation and Supply Chain Services (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 9, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3621/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Fedex Express Transportation The Principal Commissioner Of & Supply Chain Services Income Tax – 9 Room No.214, 2Nd Floor, (India) Private Limited Boomerang, Unit No.801, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Wing-A, 8Th Floor, Mumbai - 400020 Chandivali Farm Road, Andheri (East) Mumbai - 400072 Pan: Aabcf6516A (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Jitendra Jain Revenue By : Shri S. Padmaja (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.11.2017 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra JainFor Respondent: Shri S. Padmaja (CIT-DR)
Section 119Section 139(5)Section 263

…er the Companies Act could have got its accounts audited in accordance with section 166 read with section 210 of the Companies Act, 1956. 6. The learned AR relied upon the decision of CIT Vs. Nirav Modi 241 Taxmann 255, CIT Vs. Design and Automation Engineers 323 ITR 632, CIT Vs.Fine Jewellery (I) Ltd. 372 ITR 303, Vanshree Builders & Developers (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT 63 SOT 30, Escorts Mahle Ltd. Vs. DCIT 119 ITD 119 (Delhi), ACIT Vs. Pratap Rajasthan Special Steels Limited 99 TTJ 67 (Jaipur). 7. The learned DR submitted that the AO passed the order mechanically without application of mind on the basis of revised retu…

Future Ideas Co Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT -9, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 3062/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainfuture Ideas Co. Ltd. Principal Cit – 9 Knowledge House, Shyam Nagar 2Nd Floor, Room No. 214 Vs. Off Jogeshwari Vikroli Link Rd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai 400060 Mumbai 400020 Pan – Aaacf9519L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi &For Respondent: Ms. S. Padmaja
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 57

…evenue. In coming to this view, we draw support from, inter alia, the decisions of the Hon'ble Courts in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (243 ITR 83) (SC), CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (295 ITR 282) (SC) and Design and Automation Engineers (Bombay) P. Ltd. (323 ITR 632) (Bom). In this factual and legal matrix of the case and considering the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, we are of the view that since the AO has come to a finding and taken a possible view in the matter after application of mind, the conditions precedent for the learned CIT for invoking jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act did not exist…

Future Corporate Resources Ltd.(Formerly Known As Simpleton Investrade Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT -9, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 3061/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainfuture Corporate Resources Ltd. Principal Cit – 9 (Formerly Simpleton Investrade P. Ltd.) 2Nd Floor, Room No. 214 Knowledge House, Shyam Nagar Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Off Jogeshwari Vikroli Link Rd. Mumbai 400020 Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai 400060 Pan – Aajcs3979E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi &For Respondent: Ms. S. Padmaja
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…evenue. In coming to this view, we draw support from, inter alia, the decisions of the Hon'ble Courts in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (243 ITR 83) (SC), CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (295 ITR 282) (SC) and Design and Automation Engineers (Bombay) P. Ltd. (323 ITR 632) (Bom). In this factual and legal matrix of the case and considering the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, we are of the view that since the AO has come to a finding and taken a possible 14 Futre Corporate Resources Ltd. view in the matter after application of mind, the conditions precedent for the learned CIT for invoking jurisdiction under se…

Sri. B.Y. Raghavendra vs. C.I.T

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

ITA 669/BANG/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Oct 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K. Garodia

For Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263

…ere the income has been computed after scrutiny under section 143(3) taking into consideration tax audit report and the certificate computing eligible relief as held by the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in the case of CIT v. Design and Automation Engineers [2010] 323 ITR 632 (Bom) following inter alia the decision in CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bom). 10. For these and such other grounds that may urged at the time of hearing , the order of the Commissioner of Income tax Davangere passed u/s 263 of the IT Act 1961 for the assessment year 2009-10 may be cancelled. 11. For these and such other grounds t…

Dun & Bradstreet Information Services India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 8, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3989/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Dun & Bradstreet Information Vs. The Commissioner Of Services India Pvt. Ltd., Icc Income Tax, Chambers, 98, Saki Vihar Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Powai, Mumbai 400 072 M. K. Road, Mumbai Pan: Aaacd P Appellant .. Respondent

Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(2)Section 263Section 436Section 50B

…law that when two views are possible and Assessing Officer takes one view then order cannot be regarded as erroneous? In this respect we draw support from the case titled “Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Design & Automation Engineers” (Bombay)(P) Ltd (2010) 323 ITR 632 (Bom)wherein Bombay High Court concluded the following: "We have considered the arguments advanced by the Advocates appearing for the Revenue as well as Assessee. In the instant case as recorded earlier, the ITO had by his order dated 30th October, 1996 sought details/explanation from the assessee which the assessee had given by his letter date…

Surya Merchants Ltd., New Delhi vs. CIT, Kanpur

In the result, all the five Appeals filed by the Assessee stand

ITA 3136/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CA &For Respondent: Smt. Sunita Kejriwal, CIT(DR)
Section 153ASection 263Section 40A(3)Section 80I

…CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers (2003) 259 ITR 502 (Guj) b. CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Del) c. CIT vs. Vinod Kumar Gupta (2007) 165 TAXMAN 225 (P&H) d. CIT vs. Design & Automation Engineers (Bombay) (P) Ltd. ITA NOS. 3132-3136/Del/2014 (2010) 323 ITR 632 e. CIT vs. Munjal Castings (2008) 303 ITR 23 (P&H) f. CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) g. Ranka Jewellers vs. Add CIT (2010) 328 ITR 148 h. CIT vs. Mahendra umar Bansal (2008) 297 ITR 99 (All) 6.5 It was further stated by the Ld. AR that stand of the Ld. CIT for AY 2004-05 and next five years is contradictory and is against pri…

Surya Merchants Ltd., New Delhi vs. CIT, Kanpur

In the result, all the five Appeals filed by the Assessee stand

ITA 3135/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CA &For Respondent: Smt. Sunita Kejriwal, CIT(DR)
Section 153ASection 263Section 40A(3)Section 80I

…CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers (2003) 259 ITR 502 (Guj) b. CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Del) c. CIT vs. Vinod Kumar Gupta (2007) 165 TAXMAN 225 (P&H) d. CIT vs. Design & Automation Engineers (Bombay) (P) Ltd. ITA NOS. 3132-3136/Del/2014 (2010) 323 ITR 632 e. CIT vs. Munjal Castings (2008) 303 ITR 23 (P&H) f. CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) g. Ranka Jewellers vs. Add CIT (2010) 328 ITR 148 h. CIT vs. Mahendra umar Bansal (2008) 297 ITR 99 (All) 6.5 It was further stated by the Ld. AR that stand of the Ld. CIT for AY 2004-05 and next five years is contradictory and is against pri…

Surya Merchants Ltd., New Delhi vs. CIT, Kanpur

In the result, all the five Appeals filed by the Assessee stand

ITA 3134/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CA &For Respondent: Smt. Sunita Kejriwal, CIT(DR)
Section 153ASection 263Section 40A(3)Section 80I

…CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers (2003) 259 ITR 502 (Guj) b. CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Del) c. CIT vs. Vinod Kumar Gupta (2007) 165 TAXMAN 225 (P&H) d. CIT vs. Design & Automation Engineers (Bombay) (P) Ltd. ITA NOS. 3132-3136/Del/2014 (2010) 323 ITR 632 e. CIT vs. Munjal Castings (2008) 303 ITR 23 (P&H) f. CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) g. Ranka Jewellers vs. Add CIT (2010) 328 ITR 148 h. CIT vs. Mahendra umar Bansal (2008) 297 ITR 99 (All) 6.5 It was further stated by the Ld. AR that stand of the Ld. CIT for AY 2004-05 and next five years is contradictory and is against pri…

Surya Merchants Ltd., New Delhi vs. CIT, Kanpur

In the result, all the five Appeals filed by the Assessee stand

ITA 3133/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CA &For Respondent: Smt. Sunita Kejriwal, CIT(DR)
Section 153ASection 263Section 40A(3)Section 80I

…CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers (2003) 259 ITR 502 (Guj) b. CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Del) c. CIT vs. Vinod Kumar Gupta (2007) 165 TAXMAN 225 (P&H) d. CIT vs. Design & Automation Engineers (Bombay) (P) Ltd. ITA NOS. 3132-3136/Del/2014 (2010) 323 ITR 632 e. CIT vs. Munjal Castings (2008) 303 ITR 23 (P&H) f. CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) g. Ranka Jewellers vs. Add CIT (2010) 328 ITR 148 h. CIT vs. Mahendra umar Bansal (2008) 297 ITR 99 (All) 6.5 It was further stated by the Ld. AR that stand of the Ld. CIT for AY 2004-05 and next five years is contradictory and is against pri…

Surya Merchants Ltd., New Delhi vs. CIT, Kanpur

In the result, all the five Appeals filed by the Assessee stand

ITA 3132/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CA &For Respondent: Smt. Sunita Kejriwal, CIT(DR)
Section 153ASection 263Section 40A(3)Section 80I

…CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers (2003) 259 ITR 502 (Guj) b. CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Del) c. CIT vs. Vinod Kumar Gupta (2007) 165 TAXMAN 225 (P&H) d. CIT vs. Design & Automation Engineers (Bombay) (P) Ltd. ITA NOS. 3132-3136/Del/2014 (2010) 323 ITR 632 e. CIT vs. Munjal Castings (2008) 303 ITR 23 (P&H) f. CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) g. Ranka Jewellers vs. Add CIT (2010) 328 ITR 148 h. CIT vs. Mahendra umar Bansal (2008) 297 ITR 99 (All) 6.5 It was further stated by the Ld. AR that stand of the Ld. CIT for AY 2004-05 and next five years is contradictory and is against pri…