67 ITR 11 (SC) (paras 9, 34) CIT v. Chase Bright Steel Ltd. (No. 1)

345 ITR 446High Court2012#6078 most cited

What is 67 ITR 11 (SC) (paras 9, 34) CIT v. Chase Bright Steel Ltd. (No. 1) authority for?

The Commissioner may revise an Assessing Officer's order under Section 263 if the officer failed to conduct a necessary inquiry, making the order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. The assessee must be given an opportunity to be heard and further inquiries may be conducted.

19

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CIT v. DLF Power Ltd. · Section 263 · inadequate enquiry · lack of enquiry · erroneous and prejudicial · revision · section 143(3) · assessment procedure · Commissioner's power

Sections most often in play

Section 119Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234BSection 263

Issues it is cited on

inadequate enquirymalabar industriallack of enquiryerroneous and prejudicialsection 263section 26scrutiny assessmentsection 143(3)section 143prescribedbusinesssection 14

Judgments citing 67 ITR 11 (SC) (paras 9, 34) CIT v. Chase Bright Steel Ltd. (No. 1)

AJAY KUMAR DUA,NEW DELHI vs. PCIT CIRCLE 61(1) - 12, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 3359/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2012-13 Sh. Ajay Kumar Dua, Vs. Pcit, B-3, Defence Colony, Circle-61(1)-12, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aajpd3532B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Ved Jain, Advocate Sh. Ayush Garg, Ca Department By Mr. Javed Akhtar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 19.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16.12.2024 Order

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…verments, there being an error in the sense that he has failed to carry out the requisite enquiry which can be rectified in a revision. Thus the Commissioner was to pass a fresh order under Section 263 after hearing the assessee [CIT v. DLF Power Ltd., (2012) 345 ITR 446(Del.)]. 10.3 Further, section 263 of the Act and amendment made in explanation 2 to section 263 states that "The Principal Commissioner or) Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that any order passed therein by the Assessing Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the…

NIVESH GROUP ,DELHI vs. PR. CIT DELHI-15, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1176/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Ms Rano Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Sh. Subhra J. Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…rry out necessary investigations which are per se required to verify the correctness of the averments, there being an error in the sense that he has failed to carry out the requisite enquiry which can be rectified in a revision. [CIT v. DLF Power Ltd., (2012) 345 ITR 446(Del.)]. 9. The ld. PCIT relied on the amendment made in explanation 2 to section 263 which states that:- “The Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that any order passed therein by the Assessing Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the…

AUTO ENGINEERS SERVICES CENTRE,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1104/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri P. Roy Chauduri, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Dr. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.1104/DEL/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Auto Engineers Services vs. Pr.CIT, Centre, New Delhi. Petrol Pump, Opp. Alpana Cinema Mall Road, Model Town, New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AAHFA8720C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri P. Roy Chauduri, Adv. Respondent by: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-D.R. Date of hearing: 14 07 2021 Date of pronouncement: 11 10 2021 O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, JM The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against the impugned ord…

LANDMARK EDUCATION INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E) II (1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4871/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year 2008-09 Landmark Education India, Income Tax Officer B-206, Bhaveshwar Plaza, (Exemption)-Ii(1), बनाम/ Lbs Marg, Ghatkopar (W), Piramal Chambers, Vs. Mumbai 400086 Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400012 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaatl0059L

Section 11Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…343 ITR 129 (Delhi) (para 14) Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 191 (SC) (para 45) CIT v. A. Raman and Co. [1968] 67 ITR 11 (SC) (paras 9, 34) CIT v. Chase Bright Steel Ltd. (No. 1) [1989] 177 ITR 124 (Bom) (para 21) CIT v. DLF Power Ltd. [2012] 345 ITR 446 (Delhi) (para 14) CIT v. Eicher Ltd. [2007] 294 ITR 310 (Delhi) (paras 10, 28) CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2002] 256 ITR 1 (Delhi) [FB] (paras 2, 12, 20, 48) CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC) (paras 2, 28) CIT v. Khemchand Ramdas [1938] 6 ITR 414 (PC) (para 50) CIT v. P. V. S. Beedies P. Ltd. [1999] 237 ITR 13 (SC) (par…

ACIT (E) 20(3), MUMBAI vs. SEEMA DILIP VORA, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 582/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year:2007-08 Acit-20(3), Ms. Seema Dilip Vora, Room No.622, 71/72, Rajkamal Apartment बनाम/ Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Rajkamal Marg, Rajkamal Vs. Mumbai Studio, Near Gandhi Hospital, Parel, Mumbai-400012 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aabpv0816C

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…a 14) Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 191 (SC) (para 45) 11 Ms. Seema Dilip vora CIT v. A. Raman and Co. [1968] 67 ITR 11 (SC) (paras 9, 34) CIT v. Chase Bright Steel Ltd. (No. 1) [1989] 177 ITR 124 (Bom) (para 21) CIT v. DLF Power Ltd. [2012] 345 ITR 446 (Delhi) (para 14) CIT v. Eicher Ltd. [2007] 294 ITR 310 (Delhi) (paras 10, 28) CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2002] 256 ITR 1 (Delhi) [FB] (paras 2, 12, 20, 48) CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC) (paras 2, 28) CIT v. Khemchand Ramdas [1938] 6 ITR 414 (PC) (para 50) CIT v. P. V. S. Beedies P. Ltd. [1999] 237 ITR 13 (SC) (par…

GEHNA JEWELLERS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 12, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 3530/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri B.V. JhaveriFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Patankar
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 40A(2)(b)

…was erroneous as it caused prejudice to the interests of Revenue. In support of his contention, the Learned Departmental Representative relied upon the following decisions:– i) Malabar Industries Ltd. v/s CIT, 243 ITR 83 (SC); and ii) CIT v/s DLF Power Ltd., 345 ITR 446 (Del.). 8. We have heard rival contentions and perused the material available on record. We have also applied our mind to the decisions relied upon by both the parties. It is evident from the notice dated 9th December 2015, issued under section 263 of the Act by the learned PCIT, he exercised his revisional jurisdiction on the issues as enumerat…

ITO 22(3)(1), NAVI MUMBAI vs. CRESCENT CONSTRUCTION, NAVI MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 865/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06

Section 14Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154

…343 ITR 129 (Delhi) (para 14) Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 191 (SC) (para 45) CIT v. A. Raman and Co. [1968] 67 ITR 11 (SC) (paras 9, 34) CIT v. Chase Bright Steel Ltd. (No. 1) [1989] 177 ITR 124 (Bom) (para 21) CIT v. DLF Power Ltd. [2012] 345 ITR 446 (Delhi) (para 14) CIT v. Eicher Ltd. [2007] 294 ITR 310 (Delhi) (paras 10, 28) CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2002] 256 ITR 1 (Delhi) [FB] (paras 2, 12, 20, 48) CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC) (paras 2, 28) CIT v. Khemchand Ramdas [1938] 6 ITR 414 (PC) (para 50) CIT v. P. V. S. Beedies P. Ltd. [1999] 237 ITR 13 (SC) (par…

CRESCENT CONSTRUCTION CO.,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 22(3), NAVI MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 658/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06

Section 14Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154

…343 ITR 129 (Delhi) (para 14) Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 191 (SC) (para 45) CIT v. A. Raman and Co. [1968] 67 ITR 11 (SC) (paras 9, 34) CIT v. Chase Bright Steel Ltd. (No. 1) [1989] 177 ITR 124 (Bom) (para 21) CIT v. DLF Power Ltd. [2012] 345 ITR 446 (Delhi) (para 14) CIT v. Eicher Ltd. [2007] 294 ITR 310 (Delhi) (paras 10, 28) CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2002] 256 ITR 1 (Delhi) [FB] (paras 2, 12, 20, 48) CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC) (paras 2, 28) CIT v. Khemchand Ramdas [1938] 6 ITR 414 (PC) (para 50) CIT v. P. V. S. Beedies P. Ltd. [1999] 237 ITR 13 (SC) (par…

DCIT 1(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. INTELNET GLOBAL SERVICES P. LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7428/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit-1(2)(1), M/S Intelnet Global Services R. No.535, 5Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Intelnet Towers, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Mindspace, Malad West, Vs. M. K. Road, Mumbai-400064 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aaaci7387P C.O. No.99/Mum/2016 (Arising Out Of Ita No.7428/Mum/2014) Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Intelnet Global Services Dcit-1(2)(1), Pvt. Ltd. Intelnet Towers, R. No.535, 5Th Floor, बनाम/ Mindspace, Malad West, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400064 M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaaci7387P

Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147

…343 ITR 129 (Delhi) (para 14) Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 191 (SC) (para 45) CIT v. A. Raman and Co. [1968] 67 ITR 11 (SC) (paras 9, 34) CIT v. Chase Bright Steel Ltd. (No. 1) [1989] 177 ITR 124 (Bom) (para 21) CIT v. DLF Power Ltd. [2012] 345 ITR 446 (Delhi) (para 14) CIT v. Eicher Ltd. [2007] 294 ITR 310 (Delhi) (paras 10, 28) CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2002] 256 ITR 1 (Delhi) [FB] (paras 2, 12, 20, 48) CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC) (paras 2, 28) CIT v. Khemchand Ramdas [1938] 6 ITR 414 (PC) (para 50) CIT v. P. V. S. Beedies P. Ltd. [1999] 237 ITR 13 (SC) (par…

ASST CIT 4(3), MUMBAI vs. MUIMBAI STOCK BROKERS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed”

ITA 6369/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2006-07 Acit-4(3), M/S Mumbai Stock 6Th Floor, R. No.649, बनाम/ Brokers Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, R No.10A, 1St Floor, 7/10, Vs. M.K. Road, Botwala Building, Mumbai-4020 Horniman Circle, Fort, Mumbai-400023 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aabcm4133A

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 88E

…343 ITR 129 (Delhi) (para 14) Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 191 (SC) (para 45) CIT v. A. Raman and Co. [1968] 67 ITR 11 (SC) (paras 9, 34) CIT v. Chase Bright Steel Ltd. (No. 1) [1989] 177 ITR 124 (Bom) (para 21) CIT v. DLF Power Ltd. [2012] 345 ITR 446 (Delhi) (para 14) CIT v. Eicher Ltd. [2007] 294 ITR 310 (Delhi) (paras 10, 28) CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2002] 256 ITR 1 (Delhi) [FB] (paras 2, 12, 20, 48) CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC) (paras 2, 28) CIT v. Khemchand Ramdas [1938] 6 ITR 414 (PC) (para 50) CIT v. P. V. S. Beedies P. Ltd. [1999] 237 ITR 13 (SC) (par…

JAYANT MANILAL GANDHY,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 16(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4504/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2005-06 Jayant Manilal Gandhy, Acit, Delux Apartment, Circle-16(2), बनाम/ Altamount Road, Matru Mandir Bldg. Vs. Mumbai-400026 Nana Chowk, Mumbai-400007 Pan No. Afupg3313H ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 53ESection 54ESection 56

…343 ITR 129 (Delhi) (para 14) Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 191 (SC) (para 45) CIT v. A. Raman and Co. [1968] 67 ITR 11 (SC) (paras 9, 34) CIT v. Chase Bright Steel Ltd. (No. 1) [1989] 177 ITR 124 (Bom) (para 21) CIT v. DLF Power Ltd. [2012] 345 ITR 446 (Delhi) (para 14) CIT v. Eicher Ltd. [2007] 294 ITR 310 (Delhi) (paras 10, 28) CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2002] 256 ITR 1 (Delhi) [FB] (paras 2, 12, 20, 48) CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC) (paras 2, 28) 21 Jayant Manilal Gandhy CIT v. Khemchand Ramdas [1938] 6 ITR 414 (PC) (para 50) CIT v. P. V. S. Beedies P. Ltd.…

R.P. SUVARNA,MUMBAI vs. CIT (33), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is disposed of in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 5536/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2006-07 Mr. R. P. Suvarna, Ito-18(3)(3), No.15, Rajanigandha Apts. Mumbai बनाम/ T.H. Kataria Marg, Mahim, Vs. Mumbai-400016 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Anbps3240G

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 50C

…343 ITR 129 (Delhi) (para 14) Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 191 (SC) (para 45) CIT v. A. Raman and Co. [1968] 67 ITR 11 (SC) (paras 9, 34) CIT v. Chase Bright Steel Ltd. (No. 1) [1989] 177 ITR 124 (Bom) (para 21) CIT v. DLF Power Ltd. [2012] 345 ITR 446 (Delhi) (para 14) CIT v. Eicher Ltd. [2007] 294 ITR 310 (Delhi) (paras 10, 28) CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2002] 256 ITR 1 (Delhi) [FB] (paras 2, 12, 20, 48) CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC) (paras 2, 28) CIT v. Khemchand Ramdas [1938] 6 ITR 414 (PC) (para 50) CIT v. P. V. S. Beedies P. Ltd. [1999] 237 ITR 13 (SC) (par…

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ART BEAUTY EXPORTS, NEW DELHI

In the result, all three appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 924/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saxena, Adv. Sumangla Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Jain, CIT DR
Section 10BSection 10B(2)(i)Section 143(3)Section 263

…Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs NDTV 360 ITR 044, CIT vs Honda Siel Power Ltd. (D(Del) 333 ITR 547 and judgment in the 26 I.T.A.Nos.2531, 5702, 5703 & 924/D/2014 AYs: 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 case of CIT vs DLF Power Ltd. 345 ITR 446 (Del). 20. At the very outset, it is relevant to point out that the ITAT Kolkata Special Bench has held that for the purpose of section 10A, 10AA and 10B of the Act, manufacture has to be considered as defined in section 2(r) of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005. The relevant part of this order is being respectfully reproduced as under:-…

M/S. ARTS BEAUTY EXPORTS,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, all three appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5703/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saxena, Adv. Sumangla Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Jain, CIT DR
Section 10BSection 10B(2)(i)Section 143(3)Section 263

…Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs NDTV 360 ITR 044, CIT vs Honda Siel Power Ltd. (D(Del) 333 ITR 547 and judgment in the 26 I.T.A.Nos.2531, 5702, 5703 & 924/D/2014 AYs: 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 case of CIT vs DLF Power Ltd. 345 ITR 446 (Del). 20. At the very outset, it is relevant to point out that the ITAT Kolkata Special Bench has held that for the purpose of section 10A, 10AA and 10B of the Act, manufacture has to be considered as defined in section 2(r) of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005. The relevant part of this order is being respectfully reproduced as under:-…

M/S. ARTS BEAUTY EXPORTS,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, all three appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5702/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saxena, Adv. Sumangla Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Jain, CIT DR
Section 10BSection 10B(2)(i)Section 143(3)Section 263

…Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs NDTV 360 ITR 044, CIT vs Honda Siel Power Ltd. (D(Del) 333 ITR 547 and judgment in the 26 I.T.A.Nos.2531, 5702, 5703 & 924/D/2014 AYs: 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 case of CIT vs DLF Power Ltd. 345 ITR 446 (Del). 20. At the very outset, it is relevant to point out that the ITAT Kolkata Special Bench has held that for the purpose of section 10A, 10AA and 10B of the Act, manufacture has to be considered as defined in section 2(r) of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005. The relevant part of this order is being respectfully reproduced as under:-…

M/S. ART BEAUTY EXPORT,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, all three appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2531/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saxena, Adv. Sumangla Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Jain, CIT DR
Section 10BSection 10B(2)(i)Section 143(3)Section 263

…Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs NDTV 360 ITR 044, CIT vs Honda Siel Power Ltd. (D(Del) 333 ITR 547 and judgment in the 26 I.T.A.Nos.2531, 5702, 5703 & 924/D/2014 AYs: 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 case of CIT vs DLF Power Ltd. 345 ITR 446 (Del). 20. At the very outset, it is relevant to point out that the ITAT Kolkata Special Bench has held that for the purpose of section 10A, 10AA and 10B of the Act, manufacture has to be considered as defined in section 2(r) of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005. The relevant part of this order is being respectfully reproduced as under:-…

CIT vs. NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD

The appeal is disposed of, with no order as to costs

ITA/1691/2010HC Delhi10 Sept 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80H

…hi High Court in CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Del.) and ITO vs. DG Housing Projects Ltd. (2012) 343 ITR 329 (Del.), in fact, support the case of the Revenue. Our attention was also drawn to the decisions in CIT vs. DLF Power Ltd. (2012) 345 ITR 446 (Del) and CIT vs. Nagesh Knitwears Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 345 ITR 145 (Del). 8. Learned counsel for the respondent has contested and stated that the judgments relied upon by the Revenue support and affirm the ratio and reasoning in the impuged order. Decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of ITA 1404/2009 & 1691/2010…

CIT vs. NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD

The appeal is disposed of, with no order as to costs

ITA - 1691 / 2010HC Delhi10 Sept 2013
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80H

…hi High Court in CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Del.) and ITO vs. DG Housing Projects Ltd. (2012) 343 ITR 329 (Del.), in fact, support the case of the Revenue. Our attention was also drawn to the decisions in CIT vs. DLF Power Ltd. (2012) 345 ITR 446 (Del) and CIT vs. Nagesh Knitwears Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 345 ITR 145 (Del). 8. Learned counsel for the respondent has contested and stated that the judgments relied upon by the Revenue support and affirm the ratio and reasoning in the impuged order. Decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of 2013:DHC:4556 ITA 1404/2009 & 1691/2010…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI V vs. NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD.

The appeal is disposed of, with no order as to costs

ITA - 1404 / 2009HC Delhi10 Sept 2013
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80H

…hi High Court in CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Del.) and ITO vs. DG Housing Projects Ltd. (2012) 343 ITR 329 (Del.), in fact, support the case of the Revenue. Our attention was also drawn to the decisions in CIT vs. DLF Power Ltd. (2012) 345 ITR 446 (Del) and CIT vs. Nagesh Knitwears Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 345 ITR 145 (Del). 8. Learned counsel for the respondent has contested and stated that the judgments relied upon by the Revenue support and affirm the ratio and reasoning in the impuged order. Decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of 2013:DHC:4555 ITA 1404/2009 & 1691/2010…

67 ITR 11 (SC) (paras 9, 34) CIT v. Chase Bright Steel Ltd. (No. 1) (345 ITR 446) — Cited in 19 Judgments | BharatTax