ACIT v. ICICI Securities Primary Dealership Ltd.

348 ITR 299Supreme Court of India2012#1498 most cited

What is ACIT v. ICICI Securities Primary Dealership Ltd. authority for?

Reopening assessment based on a mere re-look of accounts already furnished and assessed under section 143(3) is not permissible if there was no failure on the part of the assessee to make a true and full disclosure. The assessment cannot be reopened on the ground that income has escaped assessment merely by re-examining previously filed accounts.

76

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,459 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

ACIT v. ICICI Securities Primary Dealership Ltd. · section 147 · section 143(3) · reopening of assessment · mere re-look of accounts · true and full disclosure · escaped income · assessment completed

Also reported as

24 Taxmann.com 310

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 14ASection 35(1)(ii)

Issues it is cited on

amp expendituretrue and full disclosuresection 92bafresh tangible materialsanction under section 151material facts necessary for assessmentsection 55(2)transfer pricing orderfirst proviso to section 147section 139(9)kelvinatorsection 49

Judgments citing ACIT v. ICICI Securities Primary Dealership Ltd.

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-17(1), Hyderabad vs. Drs Logistics Private Limited, Secunderabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1718/HYD/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Oct 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri KC DevdasFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan. Sr. AR
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…of fresh evidence on the basis of which reopening can be made. Based on such material the Assessing Officer should form an opinion with respect to escapement of income. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs. ICICI Securities dealership reported in 348 ITR 299 held that where accounts were furnished by assessee when called upon and thereafter the assessment was completed u/s. 143(3), subsequently on a mere re-look of the said account earlier furnished by the assessee it is not permissible u/s.147 to reopen the assessment. Similarly, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Hindustan Lever Ltd vs. R.B. Wadker r…

Eci Engineering & Construction Company Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2), Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 968/HYD/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 May 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2006-07 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Eci Engineering & Income Tax, Construction Co., Ltd., Circle 17(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita 968/Hyd/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 M/S. Eci Engineering & Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Construction Co., Ltd., Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy. Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.05.2023 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Respectively, Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 5, Hyderabad Dated 30.03.2016 For The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The Abridged Grounds Raised By The Assessee In Ita No.968/Hyd/2016 Read As Under : “1. The Order Of Ld.Cit(A) - 5 Is Erroneous In Law In Facts & In Law. 2. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Decision Of The Ld.Ao In Treating Sale Of Partly Paid Up Shares As Fully Paid & Confirming The Addition Of Rs.50,14,625/- As Long Term Capital Gain. 3. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.27,69,422/- Towards Difference In Interest. 4. Further, The Ld.Cit(A) Failed To Observe That The Notes To Financial Statements Clearly Mentioned The Interest Income Which Pertained To The Previous Year & Accordingly Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Ld.Ao In Assessing The Difference In Interest Of Rs.27,69,422/-. 5. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Difference Of Prior Period Income Of Rs.1,26,71,371/-.”

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40

…ecisions, he submitted that reopening based on mere change of opinion is bad in law. i. CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (FB) (256 ITR 1) (Del.HC) ii. CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd (320 . ITR 561) (SC) iii. ACIT vs. ICICI Securities Primary . Dealership Ltd. (348 ITR 299) (SC) iv. Ganga Saran & Sons (P.) Ltd. v. ITO 1 [(1981) 130 ITR 1] (SC) v. Kohinoor Hatcheries (P.) 1 Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [2016] 76 taxmann.com 150 (AP.HC) vi. OHM Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. v. 1 CIT (351 ITR 443) (bom.HC) vii. Runwal Realty (P.) Ltd.v.DCIT 1 (107 taxmann.com 284) (bom.HC) viii. Arvind Remedies (378 ITR 547) (M…

DCIT, Circle-17(1), Hyd, Hyderabad vs. Eci Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 930/HYD/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 May 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2006-07 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Eci Engineering & Income Tax, Construction Co., Ltd., Circle 17(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita 968/Hyd/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 M/S. Eci Engineering & Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Construction Co., Ltd., Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy. Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.05.2023 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Respectively, Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 5, Hyderabad Dated 30.03.2016 For The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The Abridged Grounds Raised By The Assessee In Ita No.968/Hyd/2016 Read As Under : “1. The Order Of Ld.Cit(A) - 5 Is Erroneous In Law In Facts & In Law. 2. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Decision Of The Ld.Ao In Treating Sale Of Partly Paid Up Shares As Fully Paid & Confirming The Addition Of Rs.50,14,625/- As Long Term Capital Gain. 3. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.27,69,422/- Towards Difference In Interest. 4. Further, The Ld.Cit(A) Failed To Observe That The Notes To Financial Statements Clearly Mentioned The Interest Income Which Pertained To The Previous Year & Accordingly Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Ld.Ao In Assessing The Difference In Interest Of Rs.27,69,422/-. 5. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Difference Of Prior Period Income Of Rs.1,26,71,371/-.”

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40

…ecisions, he submitted that reopening based on mere change of opinion is bad in law. i. CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (FB) (256 ITR 1) (Del.HC) ii. CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd (320 . ITR 561) (SC) iii. ACIT vs. ICICI Securities Primary . Dealership Ltd. (348 ITR 299) (SC) iv. Ganga Saran & Sons (P.) Ltd. v. ITO 1 [(1981) 130 ITR 1] (SC) v. Kohinoor Hatcheries (P.) 1 Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [2016] 76 taxmann.com 150 (AP.HC) vi. OHM Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. v. 1 CIT (351 ITR 443) (bom.HC) vii. Runwal Realty (P.) Ltd.v.DCIT 1 (107 taxmann.com 284) (bom.HC) viii. Arvind Remedies (378 ITR 547) (M…

Glen Propbuild Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 10(1), New Delhi

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2752/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Apr 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

…48 ITR 485 (Del) [FB] 4. CIT Vs. Prima paper and Engineering Industry, 364 ITR 222 (Bom) 5. Parixit Industries P. Ltd.Vs. ACIT, 352 ITR 349 (Guj.) 6. ACIT Vs. Parixit Industries P. Ltd.: 25 Taxmann.com 301 7. ACIT Vs. ICICI Securities Primary Dealership Ltd., 348 ITR 299 (SC) 8. Jindal Photo Films Ltd. Vs. DCIT, [1998] 234 ITR 170 (Del.) 9. Rose Serviced Apartments (P.) Ltd. Vs. DCIT, [2012] 348 ITR 452 (Del.) 10. Asian Paints Ltd. Vs. DCIT: [20091 308 ITR 195 (Bom) 11. Indu Lata Rangwala Vs. DCIT, [20161 384 ITR 337 (Del.) 12. CIT Vs. CIT Vs. Central Warehousing Corporation, [2015] 371 IT 81 (Del.) 13. CIT Vs. C…

Shri Ravi Prakash Langer Prop M/S Langer Auto Sales & Sevices, Ujjain vs. ACIT 2 (1), Ujjain

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 106/IND/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Apurva Mehta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 54B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE (CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT) BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.106/Ind/2020 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Ravi Prakash Langer Vs. ACIT-2(1), Langer Auto Sales & Ujjain, Services, 1, Dewas Road, Madhya Pradesh Ujjain, M.P. 456010 PAN No.AAOPL7857L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Apurva Mehta, C.A. Respondent by : Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing 12.01.2023 16 .01.2023 Date of Pronouncement O R D E R PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE - JM: This appeal is filed by th…

Commissioner of Income Tax -II, Guwahati vs. M/S. Arihant International Limited, Guwahati

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

ITA 275/GTY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati19 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 43(5)Section 73

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण गुवाहाटी 'डीबी' पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL GUWAHATI ‘DB’ BENCH AT KOLKATA [वर्ुअल कोटु] [Virtual Court] डॉ. मनीष बोरड, लेखा सदस्य एवं श्री संजय शमाु, न्याधयक सदस्य के समक्ष Before DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.: 275/Gau/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 ACIT, Circle-3, Guwahati……………..........................Appellant Vs. M/s. Arihant International Limited...………………..Respondent [PAN: AAECA 5555 B] Appearances by: Sh. N.T. Sherpa, JCIT, appeared on behalf of the Revenue. Sh. Akkal Dudhwewala, Adv., appeared on behalf of the…

Jubilee Mission Hospital, Kakkanad vs. The DCIT, Kochi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 91/COCH/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sri Surendranath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 148

…ITA Nos.88 TO 91/Coch/2022 Jubilee Mission Hospital, Thrissur IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH: KOCHIN BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.88 to 91/Cochin/2022 Assessment Year: 2008-09 to 2010-11 & 2013-14 Jubilee Mission Hospital Deputy Commissioner of Bishop Alappat Road Income-tax Thrissur 680 005 Vs. Exemption Circle Kochi PAN NO : AAAAJ1080J APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Sri Surendranath Rao, A.R. Respondent by : Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 14.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 14.09.2022 O R D E R PER CHAN…

Jubilee Mission Hospital., Thrissur vs. The DCIT, Kochi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 90/COCH/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sri Surendranath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 148

…ITA Nos.88 TO 91/Coch/2022 Jubilee Mission Hospital, Thrissur IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH: KOCHIN BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.88 to 91/Cochin/2022 Assessment Year: 2008-09 to 2010-11 & 2013-14 Jubilee Mission Hospital Deputy Commissioner of Bishop Alappat Road Income-tax Thrissur 680 005 Vs. Exemption Circle Kochi PAN NO : AAAAJ1080J APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Sri Surendranath Rao, A.R. Respondent by : Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 14.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 14.09.2022 O R D E R PER CHAN…

Jubilee Mission Hospital, Thrissur vs. The DCIT, Kochi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 89/COCH/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sri Surendranath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 148

…ITA Nos.88 TO 91/Coch/2022 Jubilee Mission Hospital, Thrissur IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH: KOCHIN BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.88 to 91/Cochin/2022 Assessment Year: 2008-09 to 2010-11 & 2013-14 Jubilee Mission Hospital Deputy Commissioner of Bishop Alappat Road Income-tax Thrissur 680 005 Vs. Exemption Circle Kochi PAN NO : AAAAJ1080J APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Sri Surendranath Rao, A.R. Respondent by : Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 14.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 14.09.2022 O R D E R PER CHAN…

Jubilee Mission Hospital, Thrissur vs. The DCIT, Thrissur

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 88/COCH/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sri Surendranath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 148

…ITA Nos.88 TO 91/Coch/2022 Jubilee Mission Hospital, Thrissur IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH: KOCHIN BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.88 to 91/Cochin/2022 Assessment Year: 2008-09 to 2010-11 & 2013-14 Jubilee Mission Hospital Deputy Commissioner of Bishop Alappat Road Income-tax Thrissur 680 005 Vs. Exemption Circle Kochi PAN NO : AAAAJ1080J APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Sri Surendranath Rao, A.R. Respondent by : Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 14.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 14.09.2022 O R D E R PER CHAN…

Gmr Air Cargo & Aerospace Engineering Ltd(Successor to Gmr Hyderabad Air Cargo & Logistics Pvt Ltd), Shamshabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 183/HYD/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 Gmr Air Cargo & Vs. Ito,Ward-2(3) Aerospace Engineering Signature Towers Ltd.(Successor To Gmr Kondapur, Kothaguda Hyderabad Air Cargo & Opp. Botanical Gardens Logistics Pvt Ltd.) R.R.District Rajiv Gandhi International Hyderabad-500 084 Airport, Samshabad Hyderabad-500 409

For Appellant: Shri K.C.DevdasFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, Sr.AR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 37

…cisions, he submitted that reopening based on mere change of opinion is bad in law. i. CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (FB) (256 ITR 1) (Del.HC) ii. CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd (320 . ITR 561) (SC) iii. ACIT vs. ICICI Securities Primary . Dealership Ltd. (348 ITR 299) (SC) iv. Ganga Saran & Sons (P.) Ltd. v. ITO 1 [(1981) 130 ITR 1] (SC) v. Kohinoor Hatcheries (P.) 1 Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [2016] 76 taxmann.com 150 (AP.HC) vi. OHM Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. v. 1 CIT (351 ITR 443) (bom.HC) vii. Runwal Realty (P.) Ltd.v.DCIT 1 (107 taxmann.com 284) (bom.HC) viii. Arvind Remedies (378 ITR 547) (M…

Goel Ganga Construction, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 7(3), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 2138/PUN/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Mar 2022AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Rajiv ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri M. Jasnani
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

…s necessary for the purpose of making the assessment. In support of the this contention, the assessee had relied upon the following judgments :- (i) CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd., 187 Taxman 312 (SC). (ii) ACIT vs. ICICI Securities Primary Dealership Ltd., 348 ITR 299 (SC). (iii) Crompton Greaves Ltd. vs. ACIT, 55 taxmann.com 59 (Bom.). (iv) Lupin Ltd. vs. ACIT, 46 taxmann.com 369 (Bom.). 5. On merits, it was contended that the funds borrowed from HUDCO were utilized for the purpose of advancing loans to the group concerns for business purpose, no borrowed funds have been utilized for the purpose of utilizing…

ACIT, Jammu vs. Sh Vikramaditya Singh, Jammu

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 269/ASR/2007[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl
Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

…and Dattaram Shridhar Bhosale vs. ITO and UOI xvii) 324 ITR 289 (Del) Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd. vs. CIT xviii) SCA 858 of 2006 Inductotherm (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (Guj) xix) 252 CTR 316 Puri Brothers vs. CIT xx) 246 CTR 308 (MP) CIT vs. Trimurti Builders xxi) 348 ITR 299 (SC) ACIT vs. ICICI Securities Primary Dealership Ltd. xxii) [2008] 300 ITR 276 (Bom) Sanghvi Swiss Refills (P.) Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT 81 ITA.Nos.263/Asr/2003, 267 to 269/Asr/2007 & C.O.Nos.43 to 45/Asr/2007 Shri M.K. Ajatshatru, Jammu & Others, xxiii) [2007] 213 CTR 193 (Raj) CIT vs. Manohar Lai Gupta xxiv) W.P. (C) 7660/2012 dated 28.1.2014 (Del)…

ACIT, Cir-II, Jammu vs. Smt. Yashorajya Laxmi, Jammu

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 268/ASR/2007[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl
Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

…and Dattaram Shridhar Bhosale vs. ITO and UOI xvii) 324 ITR 289 (Del) Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd. vs. CIT xviii) SCA 858 of 2006 Inductotherm (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (Guj) xix) 252 CTR 316 Puri Brothers vs. CIT xx) 246 CTR 308 (MP) CIT vs. Trimurti Builders xxi) 348 ITR 299 (SC) ACIT vs. ICICI Securities Primary Dealership Ltd. xxii) [2008] 300 ITR 276 (Bom) Sanghvi Swiss Refills (P.) Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT 81 ITA.Nos.263/Asr/2003, 267 to 269/Asr/2007 & C.O.Nos.43 to 45/Asr/2007 Shri M.K. Ajatshatru, Jammu & Others, xxiii) [2007] 213 CTR 193 (Raj) CIT vs. Manohar Lai Gupta xxiv) W.P. (C) 7660/2012 dated 28.1.2014 (Del)…

ACIT, Jammu vs. Dr Karan Singh, Jammu

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 267/ASR/2007[1998-99\u005cu005cu005cu005cu005cu005cu005cu005c]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl
Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

…and Dattaram Shridhar Bhosale vs. ITO and UOI xvii) 324 ITR 289 (Del) Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd. vs. CIT xviii) SCA 858 of 2006 Inductotherm (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (Guj) xix) 252 CTR 316 Puri Brothers vs. CIT xx) 246 CTR 308 (MP) CIT vs. Trimurti Builders xxi) 348 ITR 299 (SC) ACIT vs. ICICI Securities Primary Dealership Ltd. xxii) [2008] 300 ITR 276 (Bom) Sanghvi Swiss Refills (P.) Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT 81 ITA.Nos.263/Asr/2003, 267 to 269/Asr/2007 & C.O.Nos.43 to 45/Asr/2007 Shri M.K. Ajatshatru, Jammu & Others, xxiii) [2007] 213 CTR 193 (Raj) CIT vs. Manohar Lai Gupta xxiv) W.P. (C) 7660/2012 dated 28.1.2014 (Del)…

ACIT, Jammu vs. Sh M.K. Ajat Shatru, Jammu

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 263/ASR/2003[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl
Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

…and Dattaram Shridhar Bhosale vs. ITO and UOI xvii) 324 ITR 289 (Del) Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd. vs. CIT xviii) SCA 858 of 2006 Inductotherm (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (Guj) xix) 252 CTR 316 Puri Brothers vs. CIT xx) 246 CTR 308 (MP) CIT vs. Trimurti Builders xxi) 348 ITR 299 (SC) ACIT vs. ICICI Securities Primary Dealership Ltd. xxii) [2008] 300 ITR 276 (Bom) Sanghvi Swiss Refills (P.) Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT 81 ITA.Nos.263/Asr/2003, 267 to 269/Asr/2007 & C.O.Nos.43 to 45/Asr/2007 Shri M.K. Ajatshatru, Jammu & Others, xxiii) [2007] 213 CTR 193 (Raj) CIT vs. Manohar Lai Gupta xxiv) W.P. (C) 7660/2012 dated 28.1.2014 (Del)…

DCIT, C-1, (E), Chandigarh vs. M/S Manav Mangal Society, Chandigarh

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 30/CHANDI/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR
Section 13(3)

….2017 (Pages 130-1411 relevant pages 140 & 141 of judgment set) n) ACIT vs Tata Chemicals Ltd, In ITA No. 6647/Mum/2013 order dated 23 12.2016 (Pages 185-213, Relevant page 185,202 & 2017 of judgment set) o) ACIT vs ICICI Securities Primary Dealership Ltd. 348 ITR 299 (SC) p) CIT Vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. (SC) as reported in (2010) 320 ITR 561 88 ITA 02/Chd/2020 & 7 Ors. M/s Manav Mangal Society Vs DCIT(E) Keeping in view the details and facts given above, it is dear that complete details were submitted by the assessee society at the time of filing of Income Tax return and than during the assessment proce…

M/S Manav Mangal Society, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, C-1, (E), Chandigarh

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 3/CHANDI/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR
Section 13(3)

….2017 (Pages 130-1411 relevant pages 140 & 141 of judgment set) n) ACIT vs Tata Chemicals Ltd, In ITA No. 6647/Mum/2013 order dated 23 12.2016 (Pages 185-213, Relevant page 185,202 & 2017 of judgment set) o) ACIT vs ICICI Securities Primary Dealership Ltd. 348 ITR 299 (SC) p) CIT Vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. (SC) as reported in (2010) 320 ITR 561 88 ITA 02/Chd/2020 & 7 Ors. M/s Manav Mangal Society Vs DCIT(E) Keeping in view the details and facts given above, it is dear that complete details were submitted by the assessee society at the time of filing of Income Tax return and than during the assessment proce…

DCIT, C-1, (E), Chandigarh vs. M/S Manav Mangal Society, Chandigarh

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 29/CHANDI/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR
Section 13(3)

….2017 (Pages 130-1411 relevant pages 140 & 141 of judgment set) n) ACIT vs Tata Chemicals Ltd, In ITA No. 6647/Mum/2013 order dated 23 12.2016 (Pages 185-213, Relevant page 185,202 & 2017 of judgment set) o) ACIT vs ICICI Securities Primary Dealership Ltd. 348 ITR 299 (SC) p) CIT Vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. (SC) as reported in (2010) 320 ITR 561 88 ITA 02/Chd/2020 & 7 Ors. M/s Manav Mangal Society Vs DCIT(E) Keeping in view the details and facts given above, it is dear that complete details were submitted by the assessee society at the time of filing of Income Tax return and than during the assessment proce…

DCIT, C-1, (E), Chandigarh vs. M/S Manav Mangal Society, Chandigarh

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 28/CHANDI/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR
Section 13(3)

….2017 (Pages 130-1411 relevant pages 140 & 141 of judgment set) n) ACIT vs Tata Chemicals Ltd, In ITA No. 6647/Mum/2013 order dated 23 12.2016 (Pages 185-213, Relevant page 185,202 & 2017 of judgment set) o) ACIT vs ICICI Securities Primary Dealership Ltd. 348 ITR 299 (SC) p) CIT Vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. (SC) as reported in (2010) 320 ITR 561 88 ITA 02/Chd/2020 & 7 Ors. M/s Manav Mangal Society Vs DCIT(E) Keeping in view the details and facts given above, it is dear that complete details were submitted by the assessee society at the time of filing of Income Tax return and than during the assessment proce…