343 ITR 141 (Del) Atma Ram Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT

384 ITR 113High Court#20805 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2022.

Judgments citing 343 ITR 141 (Del) Atma Ram Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT

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

…e language of the proviso is not sufficient. The basis of the averment/statement should be either stated or should be apparent/lucid/ explained from the record.” 20. I find the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Alcatel Lucent France vs ACIT, reported in 384 ITR 113 has observed as under:- “The reasons for reopening merely repeat the words of the statute that there has been a failure by ALF to disclose material particulars. This is certainly not sufficient as far as the legal requirement is concerned. It has been repeatedly held by the court that the mere repeating of the words in the statute is hardly suffi…

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-19, NEW DELHI vs. M/S K.R. PULP & PAPERS LTD,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is

ITA 5064/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri N.K. Choudhry

For Appellant: Ms. Monika Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sunita Singh, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80I

…not sufficient. The basis of the averment/statement should be either stated or should be apparent/lucid / explained from the record.” 8.4 We further find the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Alcatel Lucent France and Ors. vs. ACIT & Ors. reported in 384 ITR 113 as relied by the Ld. Counsel for the assesee, has observed as under:- “38. The reasons for reopening merely repeat the words of the statute that there has been a failure by ALF to disclose material particulars. This is certainly not sufficient as far as the legal requirement is concerned. It has been repeatedly held by the Court that the mere…

DCIT,, ERNAKULAM vs. JOJO FROZEN FOODS P.LTD, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 545/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Mar 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Mritunjaya Sharma, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Sri.P.M.Veeramani, CA

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

…page 2 of 8) of assessment order) Whether third Para 4 (page 13- Ground 2 of Alcatel Lucent proviso to section 14 of the paper grounds of France and 147 is attracted book) order dated appeal, but no another v. CIT that the addition 26.12.2016 adjudication on (384 ITR 113 – is already a rejecting the this point. Delhi) subject matter of objections for appeal and hence reopening of the beyond the scope assessment. of reopening Whether the Para 9 and 10 of Para 7 (page 7) of freezer deposit the assessment the order of can be considered order. CIT(A). as income on account of lapsed 6 M/s.Jojo Frozen Foods Pvt.Ltd. li…

ACIT (E), NEW DELHI vs. MAI KAMLIWALI JAN KALYAN CHARITABLE TRUST, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4762/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhua.Y. : 2007-08 Dcit(E) Mai Kamliwali Jan Kalyan Circle-1(1), Vs. Charitable Trust, Room No. 2418, 24Th Floor, J-12 Rajouri Garden, E-2, Block, Pratyakash Kar Community Centre, Bhawan, New Delhi Dr. Shyama Prasad (Pan: Aaaam0224H) Mukherjee Civic Centre, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, New Delhi – 110 002

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. & Sh. PiyushFor Respondent: Sh. S.K. JAIN, SR. DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 154

…no valid approval had been obtained in terms of section 151 of the Act. To support the aforesaid contention, he relied upon the various case laws including the following cases:- - 357 ITR 646 - 343 ITR 141 (Del) Atma Ram Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT - 384 ITR 113 (Del) Alcatel Lucent France vs. ACIT - 217 Taxman 115 (Del) 7. I have heard both the parties and perused the records, especially the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). I find that Ld. First Appellate Authority has elaborately discussed the issue in dispute by considering the submissions of the assessee and adjudicated the issue as under:…