82 ITR 831 (SC) (para 34) Barium Chemicals Ltd. v. CLB

343 ITR 129High Court2012#5880 most cited
20

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2022.

Issues it is cited on

full and true disclosurematerial facts necessary for assessmentescapement of incomereason to believesection 13section 148transfersection 147section 143companysection 14section 143(3)

Judgments citing 82 ITR 831 (SC) (para 34) Barium Chemicals Ltd. v. CLB

GM OVERSEAS,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-48(1), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 1891/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Hemant Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 131ASection 133ASection 143(3)Section 147

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : C : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 GM Overseas, Vs ACIT, A-2/132, Prateek Apartments, Circle-48(1), Paschim Vihar, New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN: AAAFG2529A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Suresh Gupta, CA Revenue by : Shri Hemant Gupta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 15.02.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 21.03.2022 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 26th February, 2019 of the CIT(A)-16, New Delhi, relating to assess…

THE SRI KANNIKAPARAMESWARI CO OP BANK LIMITED vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

The appeal stands allowed

ITA/65/2017HC Karnataka23 Nov 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 260Section 260ASection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

…and - 21 - position has been highlighted in CIT vs. DLF Powers Limited, ITA 973/2011 decided on 29th November, 2011 and BLB Limited vs. ACIT Writ Petition (Civil) No. 6884/2010 decided on 1st December, 2011. since reported in [2012] 343 ITR 129 (Delhi). In the last decision it has been observed (page 135): “The Revenue had the option, but did not take recourse to Section 263 of the Act, inspite of audit objection. Supervisory and revisionary power under Section 263 of the Act is available, if an order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the in…

M/S BHARTIYA SAMRUDDHI FINANCE LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 6022/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Mahavir Prasad

For Appellant: Shri KVSR. Krishna, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…vestment Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (2012) 344 ITR 0001 (Del) (HC). 7. Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. vs. CIT (2009) 308 ITR 38 (Delhi). 8. CIT vs. Purolator India Ltd. [2012] 343 ITR 155 (Del) (HC). 9. BLB Limited vs. ACIT [2012] 343 ITR 129 (Del) (HC). 10. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2010) 328 ITR 534 (Bom) (HC). 11. Voltas Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [2012] 349 ITR 656 (Bom) (HC). 12 ITA.No.6022/Del./2016 M/s. Bhartiya Samruddhi Finance Ltd., New Delhi. 12.Rose Serviced Apartments Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [2012] 348 ITR…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAHARAJI EDUCATION TRUST, GHAZIABAD

The appeal are dismissed

ITA 5138/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, C. AFor Respondent: Ms. Paramita M. Biswas[CIT]–
Section 11Section 12ASection 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH “E”: NEW DELHI ] BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Through Video Conferencing) ITA. No. 5138/Del/2016 (Assessment Year: 2007-08) ACIT, M/s. Maharaji Education Vs. Trust, Central Circle : 6, No. 1 – Santosh Nagar, Pratap Vihar, New Delhi. Ghaziabad – 201 009. PAN: AAATM5225F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Suresh Gupta, C. A. Department by: Ms. Paramita M. Biswas[CIT]– DR Date of Hearing : 21/09/2021 Date of pronouncement : 13/10/2021 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. This appeal is fi…

P ARVIND MAIYA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Accordingly, writ petition is allowed

WP/12118/2016HC Karnataka05 Nov 2019

Bench: S.SUJATHA

Section 143Section 148Section 28

…IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE: THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.12118/2016 (T – IT) BETWEEN: P.ARVIND MAIYA S/O LATE SRI P.HAISHCHANDRA MAIYA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS No.280/281, “PANCHAJANYA” A.T. HALLI LAYOUT, SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE-560027. ... PETITIONER [BY SRI A.SHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI M.LAVA, ADV.] AND: THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-7[2]1 3RD FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA BANGALORE-560095. …RESPONDENT [RESPONDENT – SERVED) THIS W…

P VIKRAM MAIYA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Accordingly, writ petition is allowed

WP/11385/2016HC Karnataka05 Nov 2019

Bench: S.SUJATHA

Section 143Section 148Section 28

…IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE: THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.11385/2016 (T – IT) BETWEEN: P.VIKRAM MAIYA S/O LATE SRI P.HAISHCHANDRA MAIYA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS No.280/281, “PANCHAJANYA” A.T. HALLI LAYOUT, SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE-560027. ... PETITIONER [BY SRI A.SHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI M.LAVA, ADV.] AND: THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-7[2]1 3RD FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA BANGALORE-560095. …RESPONDENT [BY SRI K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.) T…

HARYANA DISTILLERY LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 11(1), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 1452/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2008-09 Haryana Distillery Ltd., Vs. Dcit, 16, Community Centre, Circle-11(1), New Friends Colony, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aabch0933K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K. Sampath, Advocate Shri Raj Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 31.08.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.11.2018 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 4Th December, 2017 Of The Cit(A)-35, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company & Filed Its Return Of Income On 31St March, 2010 Declaring Income At Rs.1,73,82,410/-. The Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act Was Completed On 30Th December, 2010 At An Income Of Rs.1,73,93,322/-. Subsequently, The Assessing Officer Reopened The Assessment U/S 147 Of The Act By Recording The Following Reasons:-

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 68

…); 7 ii) Pr. CIT vs. Light Carts P. Ltd. (2018) 404 ITR 574 (All); iii) NTPC Ltd. vs. DCIT (2014) 360 ITR 380 (Del); iv) NTPC Ltd. vs. DCIT (2013) 350 ITR 614 (Del); v) DIT vs. Mc Donalds Corporation (2013) 213 Taxman 26 (Del); vi) BLB Limited vs. ACIT (2012) 343 ITR 129 (Del); vii) CIT vs. Noble Resources (2011) 202 Taxman 223 (Del); viii) CIT vs. Sil Investments Ltd. (2011) 339 ITR 166 (Del); ix) D.T. & T.D.C. Ltd. ACIT (2010) 324 ITR 234 (Del); x) JSRS Udyog Ltd. vs. ITO (2009) 313 ITR 321 (Del); xi) Wel Intertrade P. Ltd. vs. ITO (2009) 308 ITR 22 (Del); xii) CIT vs. Indian Farmers Fert. (2008) 171 Taxman 379…

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

…ras 32, 60, 61) Anandji Haridas and Co. P. Ltd. v. Kushare (S. P.), STO [1968] 21 STC 326 (SC) (para 35) Bankipur Club Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 831 (SC) (para 34) Barium Chemicals Ltd. v. CLB [1966] 36 Comp Cas 639 (SC) (para 56) BLB Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2012] 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. Ke…

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

…ras 32, 60, 61) Anandji Haridas and Co. P. Ltd. v. Kushare (S. P.), STO [1968] 21 STC 326 (SC) (para 35) Bankipur Club Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 831 (SC) (para 34) Barium Chemicals Ltd. v. CLB [1966] 36 Comp Cas 639 (SC) (para 56) BLB Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2012] 343 ITR 129 (Delhi) (para 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)…

M/S T T K PRESTIGE LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP/30388/2015HC Karnataka10 Aug 2018

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice S.Sujatha

Section 143Section 147Section 148

…aspect and - 29 - position has been highlighted in CIT vs. DLF Powers Limited, ITA 973/2011 decided on 29th November, 2011 and BLB Limited vs. ACIT Writ Petition (Civil) No. 6884/2010 decided on 1st December, 2011. since reported in [2012] 343 ITR 129 (Delhi). In the last decision it has been observed (page 135): “The Revenue had the option, but did not take recourse to Section 263 of the Act, inspite of audit objection. Supervisory and revisionary power under Section 263 of the Act is available, if an order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the in…

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

…ras 32, 60, 61) Anandji Haridas and Co. P. Ltd. v. Kushare (S. P.), STO [1968] 21 STC 326 (SC) (para 35) Bankipur Club Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 831 (SC) (para 34) Barium Chemicals Ltd. v. CLB [1966] 36 Comp Cas 639 (SC) (para 56) BLB Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2012] 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. Ke…

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

…ras 32, 60, 61) Anandji Haridas and Co. P. Ltd. v. Kushare (S. P.), STO [1968] 21 STC 326 (SC) (para 35) Bankipur Club Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 831 (SC) (para 34) Barium Chemicals Ltd. v. CLB [1966] 36 Comp Cas 639 (SC) (para 56) BLB Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2012] 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. Ke…

M/S. STANDARD WATCH CO. (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 3076/DEL/2014[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Raj Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S.K. Jain, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151(1)Section 271(1)

…ied upon. In support, he placed reliance on the following decisions: i) JSRS Udyog Ltd. – 313 ITR 321 (Del.); ii) Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. vs. DCIT – 356 ITR 209 (Del.); iii) CIT vs. Usha International Ltd. – 348 ITR 485 (Del.) FB; iv) BLV Ltd. vs. ACIT – 343 ITR 129 (Del.); v ) CIT vs. Suren International (P) Ltd. – 357 ITR 24 (Del.); vi) CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd.- 320 ITR 561 (SC); 9. In ground No.3, the assessee has again questioned the validity of reassessment in absence of adjudication of objection raised by the assessee in terms of the decisions laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the ca…

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

…ras 32, 60, 61) Anandji Haridas and Co. P. Ltd. v. Kushare (S. P.), STO [1968] 21 STC 326 (SC) (para 35) Bankipur Club Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 831 (SC) (para 34) Barium Chemicals Ltd. v. CLB [1966] 36 Comp Cas 639 (SC) (para 56) BLB Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2012] 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. Ke…

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

…ras 32, 60, 61) Anandji Haridas and Co. P. Ltd. v. Kushare (S. P.), STO [1968] 21 STC 326 (SC) (para 35) Bankipur Club Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 831 (SC) (para 34) Barium Chemicals Ltd. v. CLB [1966] 36 Comp Cas 639 (SC) (para 56) BLB Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2012] 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. Ke…

M/S.. UPKAR INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 6710/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jun 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kanta.Y. : 2003-04 Upkar International (P) Ltd., Dcit, Circle 18(1), C/O J.S. Kochar & Associates, Vs. Cr Building, 209, Sewak Bhawan, I.P. Estate, New Delhi 16/2, Wea Karol Bagh, New Delhi – 110 005

For Appellant: Sh. J.S. Kochar & Sh. Udai BirFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Jain, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80Section 801BSection 80I

…. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) (b) CIT vs Central Warehousing Corporation (2015) 371 ITR 81 Del) (c) Vodafone South Ltd. vs Union of India (2014) 363 ITR 388 (Del) (d) Madhukar Khosla vs ACIT (2014) 367 ITR 165 (Del) 4 A.Y. 2003-04 (e) BLB Ltd. vs ACIT (2012) 343 ITR 129 (Del) 6. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and stated that lower authorities have have passed a well reasoned order on the basis of the documentary evidences filed by the assessee as well as prevailing law. He further stated that Notice u/s. 148 has been issued after adopting the prescribed procedure under the…

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

…ras 32, 60, 61) Anandji Haridas and Co. P. Ltd. v. Kushare (S. P.), STO [1968] 21 STC 326 (SC) (para 35) Bankipur Club Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 831 (SC) (para 34) Barium Chemicals Ltd. v. CLB [1966] 36 Comp Cas 639 (SC) (para 56) BLB Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2012] 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. Ke…

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

…ras 32, 60, 61) Anandji Haridas and Co. P. Ltd. v. Kushare (S. P.), STO [1968] 21 STC 326 (SC) (para 35) Bankipur Club Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 831 (SC) (para 34) Barium Chemicals Ltd. v. CLB [1966] 36 Comp Cas 639 (SC) (para 56) BLB Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2012] 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. Ke…

DCIT 8(3), MUMBAI vs. SHREYA LIFE SCINIDA P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the ground of reopening is decided in favour of assessee, whereas ground of treating the non compete fee as revenue expenditure is decided in favour of Revenue

ITA 7071/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.7071/Mum/2010 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2002-03) Acit, Cc-44, Mumbai. Vs. Shreya Life Science Pvt. Ltd. Shreya House, 301-A, Pareira Hill Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400099 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aadcs 9890 C (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Rajneesh K. Arvind (Dr) ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Satish R Mody सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/10/2015 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 14/01/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A), For The Assessment Year 2002-03, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 147-13A Of The I.T. Act. 2. Following Grounds Taken By The Revenue :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Law In Holding That The Notice Issued U/S.147 Is Bad In Law & Reassessment Made Is Invalid Without Appreciating The Fact That The Ao Had Not Discussed This Issue At All In His Original Assessment Order. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Of Rs.2.50 Cr. Being 1/4Th Of Rs.10 Cr. Paid To M/S Rallies India Ltd As Non-Compete Fees Treated By The Ao As Capital Expenditure Without Appreciating The Facts Brought On Record By The Ao. The Appellant Prays That The Order Of Cit(A) On The Above Grounds Be Set Aside & That Of Assessing Officer Be Restored.”

For Appellant: Shri Satish R ModyFor Respondent: Shri Rajneesh K. Arvind (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ppeal No. 285 of 2013 dated 28th January, 2015 wherein it was held that reassessment on the basis of change of opinion are held to be not valid. Further reliance was placed on 7 the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of BLB Ltd. Vs. ACIT, (2012) 343 ITR 129 (Delhi) wherein it was observed that the payment of non-compete fee in the original assessment treated as a revenue expenditure by the A.O., the reassessment proceedings could not be initiated on the ground that the A.O. was legally wrong and had misapplied and wrongly understood the law/legal position. 12. Reliance was also placed on the decisi…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SMCC CONSTRUCTION INDIA LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4282/DEL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Oct 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri A.T. Varkey

For Appellant: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Advocate and Shri Saurabh Srivastava, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Bibhu Dutt Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194CSection 40

…ssessee. The requirement is that the assessee should have failed or omitted to make full and true disclosure of material facts. The assessee is not required to disclose, state or explain the law ... " BLB Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [2012]343 ITR 129 (Del) " ... Held, allowing the petition, that the assessee had disclosed fully and truly all material facts relevant for the assessment. The reasons recorded 9 did not disclose or state that there was failure or omission to disclose fully and truly all material facts. There was no indication and it was not alleged that there was some material o…