Acorus Unitech Wireless Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. DCIT

345 ITR 228High Court#14112 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2023.

Issues it is cited on

section 145(1)section 211section 10(1)section 42section 145(2)project completion methodsection 43cjdatrcpercentage completion methodsection 2(47)principal officer

Judgments citing Acorus Unitech Wireless Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. DCIT

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SAHARA INDIA POWER CORPORATION LTD., PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue for the AY 2005-06 in I

ITA 5067/DEL/2013[2005-06]Status: PendingITAT Delhi28 Apr 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Ajay VohraFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali

…ot time barred on the reason that the AO has not initiated the proceedings by issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. For this proposition, we rely on the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Acorus Unitech Wireless Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. DCIT reported in 345 ITR 228 (Del), wherein it is held as under:- “14. In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd., (2008) 14 SCC 208, it has been held as under:- "19. Section 147 authorizes and permits the assessing officer to assess or reassess income chargeable to tax if he has reason to believe that income for any assessment year…

SAHARA INDIA POWER CORPORATION LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue for the AY 2005-06 in I

ITA 1155/DEL/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Ajay VohraFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali

…ot time barred on the reason that the AO has not initiated the proceedings by issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. For this proposition, we rely on the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Acorus Unitech Wireless Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. DCIT reported in 345 ITR 228 (Del), wherein it is held as under:- “14. In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd., (2008) 14 SCC 208, it has been held as under:- "19. Section 147 authorizes and permits the assessing officer to assess or reassess income chargeable to tax if he has reason to believe that income for any assessment year…

SAHARA INDIA POWER CORPORATION LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue for the AY 2005-06 in I

ITA 109/PUN/2007[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Ajay VohraFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali

…ot time barred on the reason that the AO has not initiated the proceedings by issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. For this proposition, we rely on the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Acorus Unitech Wireless Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. DCIT reported in 345 ITR 228 (Del), wherein it is held as under:- “14. In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd., (2008) 14 SCC 208, it has been held as under:- "19. Section 147 authorizes and permits the assessing officer to assess or reassess income chargeable to tax if he has reason to believe that income for any assessment year…

PVR LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, RANGE-76, NEW DELHI

In the result, in the aforesaid terms, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2864/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar[Assessment Year: 2014-15]

Section 201(1)Section 250Section 271CSection 273BSection 274(1)

…attention was also invited to the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Coca Cola Beverage P. Ltd. vs. CIT, 293 ITR 226 (SC) and the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Jagran Prakashan Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (TDS) 345 ITR 228 (Alld) and 6 also various orders of the Tribunal, in which it has been held that wherein TDS was paid by the assessee or required tax was paid by the deductee, the assessee should not held to be in default. Only interest on delayed payment under section 201(1A) of the Act can be charged. In the light of these decisions where the assessee has made…

M/S. SAHARA CREDIT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY,LUCKNOW vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 16/LKW/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow07 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Sahara Credit Cooperative V. Jcit (Tds) Society Lucknow Kapoorthala Complex Aliganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Lknso9775D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri J.J. Mehrotra, C.A. & Shri Debashish Mehrotra, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Ajay Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 17 12 2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 07 01 2020 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri J.J. Mehrotra, C.A. and ShriFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 254Section 271CSection 273B

…part of the tax as required by or under (i) sub-section (2) of section 115- O, or (ii) the second proviso to section 194B. 10. In ‘Coca Cola Beverage P. Ltd. vs. CIT’, 293 ITR 226 (SC) and in ‘Jagran Prakashan Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (TDS)’, 345 ITR 228 (Alld) and also various orders of the Tribunal, it has been held that where TDS was paid by the assessee or the required tax was paid by the deductee, the assessee should not be held to be in default. Only interest on delayed payment under section 201(1A) of the Act can be charged. In the light of these decisions, where the assessee has made paym…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. SHRI RAJESH BHATIA, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 98/JPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Mar 2018AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Seema Meena (JCIT)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…lty u/s 271(1)(c) on the basis of the ITAT order whereby ITAT has quashed the reopening u/s 148 relying on decision of Sh. Loku ITO vs. Sh. Rajesh Bhatia Ram Malik v/s CIT ignoring the Hon’ble High Court’s order in Acorus Unitech Wireless (P) Ltd., v/s DCIT 345 ITR 228, MTNA v/s CBDT 246 ITR 172 and Hon’ble Allahaband High Court’s order in the case of CIT v/s Jora Singh 262 215 taxman 424 wherein it was held that AO can initiate reassessment action even when he has not exercised the option to scrutiny notice u/s 143(2)? 2. We have heard the ld. DR as well as ld. AR and considered the relevant material on recor…

RAJESH BHATIA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 551/JPR/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Nov 2017AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Shailendra Sharma (CIT)
Section 143(2)Section 148Section 234B

…otice for reopening can be issued notice u/s 148 during the period when the Assessing Officer could have issued a scrutiny notice u/s 143(2). The DR has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Acorus Unitech Wireless (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT 345 ITR 228 and submitted that the Hon’ble High Court observed that for issuing notice u/s 143(2) the AO is not required to record reasons to believe that income assessable to tax has escaped assessment and the power of the Assessing Officer to take up the return for scrutiny is much wider and the jurisdictional pre conditions stipulated u/s 147 are not requ…