329 ITR 483, Devsons Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (Jurisdictional Delhi H.C.)

377 ITR 417Reported decision#24736 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2019.

Judgments citing 329 ITR 483, Devsons Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (Jurisdictional Delhi H.C.)

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Master Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Revenue’s Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1092/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Sh. Karan Kumra, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…22 ITR 158 and other decisions cited and mentioned in the submissions of the appellant. The contentions of the appellant are also covered in its favour by the judgments in CIT vs. Amit Jain 351 ITR 74 ((Del) and Principal C.I.T. v. G.K. Properties (P) Ltd 377 ITR 417 (T&AP). In CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products (P) Ltd. (supra) and M/s Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26(SC) and the decision of Hon’ble ITAT Mumbai in M/s. Vidhya Synthetic (I) Pvt. Ltd. v/s Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ITA no. 3647/Mum./2011-Assessment Year: 2001-02 and that of the Hon’ble ITAT Delhi B’ Bench Dy. Co…

ITO 2(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Dhanrajgir Business P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5585/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Sandeep Gosain (Jm)

Section 271(1)(c)

…ssessee has not been accepted by the department, penalty could not be levied, vide CIT v/s. Reliance Petro 322 ITR 158 (SC). Further, if there is a mere change of the head of income, no penalty can be levied as held in the case of Pr. CIT v/s. G.K. Properties 377 ITR 417 (T&.A.P.). Further, when such issue 4 M/s. Dhanrajgir Business Pvt. Ltd. has been set aside by the Hon'ble ITAT, the matter is covered by the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Dalmia Diachem Industries (2010) 377 ITR 133(Bom.) In this case, it has been held that if a matter has been set aside to the Assessing Officer…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Granite Gate Properties Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2239/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadi N Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Sapra, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha, CIT (DR)

Section 271

…24, CIT vs. Caplin Point Laboratories Ltd. (Madras H.C.). >- 352 ITR 394, CIT vs. Amtek Auto Ltd. ( P &H High Court) >- 347 ITR 478, CIT vs. Lakhani Footwear Ltd. ( P &H High Court). >- 329 ITR 483, Devsons Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (Jurisdictional Delhi H.C.) >- 377 ITR 417, Principal CIT vs. G.K. Properties P Ltd. (T & AP) 23) It is well established that even if it is presumed that two views are possible, the assessee cannot be faulted for adopting a view favourable to him in filing in his return. In this connection reliance is placed on Hon'bie Supreme Court judgment in the case of Union of India vs. OnkarS. Kunw…