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.

DCIT, Circle-1(Exemption), Chandigarh vs. M/S Manav Mangal School( 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 27/CHANDI/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2013-14
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 2/CHANDI/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2010-11
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 137/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 136/CHANDI/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2010-11
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. the Karnataka State Co-Operative Apex Bank Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(2)(1), Bangalore

Accordingly, Ground No.3 raised by revenue for assessment years 2011-12 stands dismissed

ITA 1761/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT)For Respondent: Shri. S. Ramasubramanyan, CA
Section 147

…375 ITR 109 (P&H)  Ajay Oxychloride Floorings v. ACIT 283 ITR 169 (Bom)  Sri Sakthi Textiles Ltd v. JCIT 340 ITR 144 (Mad)  DIL Ltd v. ACIT 343 ITR 296 (Bom)  Sitara Diamond Pvt Ltd v. DCIT 345 ITR 91 (Bom)  ACIT v. ICICI Security Primary Dealership Ltd 348 ITR 299  CIT v. Ramakrishna Hegde [2010] 326 ITR 347 (Kar.)  CIT v. Standard Chartered Finance Ltd. [2012] 207 Taxman 136 (Kar.)  Parixit Industries (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT [2013] 352 1TR 349 (Gujarat) On the contrary, Ld.CIT.DR supported the order passed by the Ld.AO and submitted that information came to the knowledge of Ld.AO subsequently, would also for…

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range - 5, Bangalore vs. M/S. the Karnataka State Co-Operative Apex Bank Limited, Bangalore

Accordingly, Ground No.3 raised by revenue for assessment years 2011-12 stands dismissed

ITA 1327/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT)For Respondent: Shri. S. Ramasubramanyan, CA
Section 147

…375 ITR 109 (P&H)  Ajay Oxychloride Floorings v. ACIT 283 ITR 169 (Bom)  Sri Sakthi Textiles Ltd v. JCIT 340 ITR 144 (Mad)  DIL Ltd v. ACIT 343 ITR 296 (Bom)  Sitara Diamond Pvt Ltd v. DCIT 345 ITR 91 (Bom)  ACIT v. ICICI Security Primary Dealership Ltd 348 ITR 299  CIT v. Ramakrishna Hegde [2010] 326 ITR 347 (Kar.)  CIT v. Standard Chartered Finance Ltd. [2012] 207 Taxman 136 (Kar.)  Parixit Industries (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT [2013] 352 1TR 349 (Gujarat) On the contrary, Ld.CIT.DR supported the order passed by the Ld.AO and submitted that information came to the knowledge of Ld.AO subsequently, would also for…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(2)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S the Karnataka State Co-Operative Apex Bank Ltd, Bangalore

Accordingly, Ground No.3 raised by revenue for assessment years 2011-12 stands dismissed

ITA 2160/BANG/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT)For Respondent: Shri. S. Ramasubramanyan, CA
Section 147

…375 ITR 109 (P&H)  Ajay Oxychloride Floorings v. ACIT 283 ITR 169 (Bom)  Sri Sakthi Textiles Ltd v. JCIT 340 ITR 144 (Mad)  DIL Ltd v. ACIT 343 ITR 296 (Bom)  Sitara Diamond Pvt Ltd v. DCIT 345 ITR 91 (Bom)  ACIT v. ICICI Security Primary Dealership Ltd 348 ITR 299  CIT v. Ramakrishna Hegde [2010] 326 ITR 347 (Kar.)  CIT v. Standard Chartered Finance Ltd. [2012] 207 Taxman 136 (Kar.)  Parixit Industries (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT [2013] 352 1TR 349 (Gujarat) On the contrary, Ld.CIT.DR supported the order passed by the Ld.AO and submitted that information came to the knowledge of Ld.AO subsequently, would also for…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(2)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S the Karnataka State Co-Operative Apex Bank Ltd, Bangalore

Accordingly, Ground No.3 raised by revenue for assessment years 2011-12 stands dismissed

ITA 2150/BANG/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT)For Respondent: Shri. S. Ramasubramanyan, CA
Section 147

…375 ITR 109 (P&H)  Ajay Oxychloride Floorings v. ACIT 283 ITR 169 (Bom)  Sri Sakthi Textiles Ltd v. JCIT 340 ITR 144 (Mad)  DIL Ltd v. ACIT 343 ITR 296 (Bom)  Sitara Diamond Pvt Ltd v. DCIT 345 ITR 91 (Bom)  ACIT v. ICICI Security Primary Dealership Ltd 348 ITR 299  CIT v. Ramakrishna Hegde [2010] 326 ITR 347 (Kar.)  CIT v. Standard Chartered Finance Ltd. [2012] 207 Taxman 136 (Kar.)  Parixit Industries (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT [2013] 352 1TR 349 (Gujarat) On the contrary, Ld.CIT.DR supported the order passed by the Ld.AO and submitted that information came to the knowledge of Ld.AO subsequently, would also for…

Karnataka State Co-Operative Apex Bank Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(2)(1), Bangalore

Accordingly, Ground No.3 raised by revenue for assessment years 2011-12 stands dismissed

ITA 2082/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT)For Respondent: Shri. S. Ramasubramanyan, CA
Section 147

…375 ITR 109 (P&H)  Ajay Oxychloride Floorings v. ACIT 283 ITR 169 (Bom)  Sri Sakthi Textiles Ltd v. JCIT 340 ITR 144 (Mad)  DIL Ltd v. ACIT 343 ITR 296 (Bom)  Sitara Diamond Pvt Ltd v. DCIT 345 ITR 91 (Bom)  ACIT v. ICICI Security Primary Dealership Ltd 348 ITR 299  CIT v. Ramakrishna Hegde [2010] 326 ITR 347 (Kar.)  CIT v. Standard Chartered Finance Ltd. [2012] 207 Taxman 136 (Kar.)  Parixit Industries (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT [2013] 352 1TR 349 (Gujarat) On the contrary, Ld.CIT.DR supported the order passed by the Ld.AO and submitted that information came to the knowledge of Ld.AO subsequently, would also for…

M/S. Merck Life Science Pvt. Ltd vs. The Deputy Commissioner

The appeals are disposed of

ITA/113/2016HC Karnataka14 Dec 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 260Section 260ASection 80

…ly applicable to the fact situation of the case. In support of aforesaid submission, reliance has been placed on decision of the Supreme Court in 'CIT VS. KELVINATOR OF INDIA LTD', 320 ITR 561 and 'ACIT VS. ICICI SECURITIES PRIMARY DEALERSHIP LTD., 348 ITR 299. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue submitted that assessment for the Assessment Year 1997-98 was reopened under Section 148 of the Act on the basis of information regarding wrong claim 8 made by the assessee available and detected in the course of assessment proceedings for the Assessment Year 2000-01. It is further…

M/S. Merck Life Science Pvt. Ltd vs. The Deputy Commissioner

The appeals are disposed of

ITA/112/2016HC Karnataka14 Dec 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 260Section 260ASection 80

…ly applicable to the fact situation of the case. In support of aforesaid submission, reliance has been placed on decision of the Supreme Court in 'CIT VS. KELVINATOR OF INDIA LTD', 320 ITR 561 and 'ACIT VS. ICICI SECURITIES PRIMARY DEALERSHIP LTD., 348 ITR 299. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue submitted that assessment for the Assessment Year 1997-98 was reopened under Section 148 of the Act on the basis of information regarding wrong claim 8 made by the assessee available and detected in the course of assessment proceedings for the Assessment Year 2000-01. It is further…

M/S. Akshaya Souharda Credit Co-Operative Limited, Chikkaballapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1, Chikkaballapur

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

ITA 2574/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Mar 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Sri.Sandeep, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Council for DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC-B” BENCH, BANGALORE Before Shri Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member ITA No.2574/Bang/2019 : Asst.Year 2014-2015 M/s.Akshaya Souharda The Income Tax Officer Credit Cooperative Limited Vs. Ward 1 B H Road Cross, Chikkaballapur. Gauribidanur Chickaballapur– 561 208 PAN : AABAA2870N. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Sandeep, CA Respondent by :Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Council for DR Date of Pronouncement : 13.03.2020 Date of Hearing : 20.02.2020 O R D E R This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A) dated 31.10.2019. The r…

Price Waterhouse & Co., [Now Known As Price Waterhouse & Co. Chartered Accountants LLP], Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 22, Kolkata

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1985/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Vs. Dcit, Circle-22, Kolkata Price Waterhouse & Co, Kolkata (Now Versus Known As Price Waterhouse & Co Chartered Accountants Llp)

For Appellant: Shri C.S Agarwal, Sr. Adv., K.M. Gupta, Adv. & Bikash KumarFor Respondent: Dr. P. K. Srihari, CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 28Section 44A

…e the AO to reopen assessment. In the absence of surfacing of any fresh tangible material, initiation of proceedings u/s 147 of the Act is without jurisdiction as held by Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs. ICICI Securities Primary Dealership Ltd.., 348 ITR 299 (SC). Where no assessment had been made u/s 143(3), it cannot be concluded that the income has escaped assessment, for that ld Counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon`ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ved & Co., 302 ITR 328, wherein it was held as follows: “2. The assessee had filed its return of income on 29th Sept., 1994 declaring an inco…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Fiem Industries Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2048/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishiacit, M/S. Fiem Industries Ltd, Circle-9(1), Vs. D-34, Dsidc Packaging New Delhi Comples, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi – 110 015. Pan : Aaacf1034E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Date of HearingFor Respondent: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Adv
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148

…e has been prepared only on the basis of possibility of "Alternative Inference” from the same documents & facts placed before the A.O. during the assessment proceedings. We are also supported in our aforementioned contentions by the following judgements: i. 348 ITR 299 (SC) – ACIT & Ors. Vs. ICICI Securities Primary Dealership Ltd. ii. 320 ITR 561 (SC) – Kelvinator of India Ltd. Vs. CIT iii. 356 ITR 209 (Delhi) – Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Vs. CIT iv. 373 ITR 0596 (Delhi) – Prabhu Dayal Rangwala Vs. CIT v. 372 ITR 0762 (Bombay) – CIT Vs. Jet Speed Auto (P) Ltd. vi. 371 ITR 0179 (Delhi) – A. T. Kearney India Ltd.…

Shri Ayush Muralilal Agarwal, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(1), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2622/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2622/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Ayush Murarilal Agarwal, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Brijvilla Bunglow, Brijwasi Estate, Ward-1(3)(1) Surat B/H Gokul Row House, Parley Point Surat 395 007 [Pan: Acypa 9649 K] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala - Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Shri B. P. K. Panda, Sr. D.R.

Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 194CSection 40Section 44A

…Ayush M Agarwal v. ITO Wd-1(3)(1)Surat/ITA No.2622/AHD/2016 for A.Y. 2009-10 Page 1 of 13 आयकरअपील"यअ"धकरण,सुरत"यायपीठ,सुरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2622/AHD/2016 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Ayush Murarilal Agarwal, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Brijvilla Bunglow, Brijwasi Estate, Ward-1(3)(1) Surat B/h Gokul Row House, Parley Point Surat 395 007 [PAN: ACYPA 9649 K] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee by Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala - CA राज"वक"ओरसे /R…

Sanatan Dharam Shiksha Samittee, Haryana vs. ITO (Exemptions), Rohtak

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 871/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं././././I.T.A No.871/Del/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sanatan Dharam Shiksha Vs. Income Tax Officer Samittee, (Exemption), Rohtak. C/S. S. D. Public School, Narwana, Distt. Jind, Haryana- 126116. [Pan: Aaets 6172 P] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…on 148 of the Act has been issued. Hence, it amounted to mere change of opinion, which is not warranted and tenable under the Law. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Apex Court in the case of ACIT vs. ICICI Securities Primary Dealership Ltd. [2012] 348 ITR 299 (SC) wherein it was held that where the assessee had disclosed full details in the return of income in the matter of dealing on shares and the assessment was reopened after four years rejecting the assessee’s contention that the loss incurred was a business loss and not a speculative loss. It was clearly a change of opinion and the order of re…

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

…ion 148 of the Act and to the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer as well as at the time of survey conducted. - 18 - 15. In the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Others vs. ICICI Securities Primary Dealership LTD., [2012] 348 ITR 299 (SC), the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed thus: “The assessee had disclosed full details in the return of income in the matter of its dealing in stocks and shares. According to the Revenue, the loss incurred was a business loss, whereas, according to the Revenue, the loss incurred was a speculative loss. Rejection of the objections of the…

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

…ion 148 of the Act and to the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer as well as at the time of survey conducted. - 18 - 15. In the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Others vs. ICICI Securities Primary Dealership LTD., [2012] 348 ITR 299 (SC), the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed thus: “The assessee had disclosed full details in the return of income in the matter of its dealing in stocks and shares. According to the Revenue, the loss incurred was a business loss, whereas, according to the Revenue, the loss incurred was a speculative loss. Rejection of the objections of the…

M/S M.S. Associates, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, New Delhi

ITA 4364/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi & Shri SatyajeetFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr.D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 44A

…tries P. ltd. v. ITO [2016] 382 ITR 547 (Del) 4. Madhukar Khosla v. ACIT [2014] 367 ITR 165 (Del) 5. CIT v. Multuplex Trading & Industrial Co. ltd.[2015] 378 ITR 351 (Del) I.T.A. No.4364/DEL/2015 11 6. ACIT v. ICICI Securities Primary Dealership Ltd. [2012] 348 ITR 299 (SC) 52 - 53 7. Meadow Infradevelopers P. Ltd. v ITO [2018] 93 taxmann.com 397 (Del) 8. CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son [2013] 352 ITR 480 (SC) 9. Ms/.Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE (SC) 10. Bharti Infratel Ltd. v. DCIT [2019] 101 taxmann.com 285 (Delhi)” 10. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the relevant findings given in the impugned or…

The DCIT-3(1), Indore vs. Kumari Sheetal Garg, Indore

In the result Ground No. 1& 2 of the

ITA 254/IND/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2008-09 Dcit-3(1), Kumari Sheetal Garg, Indore Vs. 8/2, New Palasia, Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Afhpg9179G Revenue By Shri K.C. Selvamani, Sr.Dr Assessee By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ca Date Of Hearing 07.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 10.01.2019 O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2Section 53ASection 54F

…Sheetal Garg आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON'BLE MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year 2008-09 DCIT-3(1), Kumari Sheetal Garg, Indore Vs. 8/2, New Palasia, Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) PAN No.AFHPG9179G Revenue by Shri K.C. Selvamani, Sr.DR Assessee by Shri S.S. Solanki, CA Date of Hearing 07.01.2019 Date of Pronouncement 10.01.2019 O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, AM. The above captioned appeal is filed at the instance of Revenue pertaining to Assessment Year 2008-09 and is directed…