Aggarwal and Modi Enterprises (Cinema Project) Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

381 ITR 469High Court2016#4319 most cited

What is Aggarwal and Modi Enterprises (Cinema Project) Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

The Assessing Officer must state in the reasons recorded for reopening an assessment that the appellant failed to disclose all material facts, that the AO had reasons to believe income had escaped assessment, and that there was fresh tangible material justifying the belief.

28

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Aggarwal and Modi Enterprises v CIT · section 147 · reasons recorded · escapement of income · failure to disclose material facts · tangible material · notice under section 148

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 35ABBSection 37(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 115AD

Issues it is cited on

section 80lacompensatory interestsection 35abbsection 80lsection 72acarry forward of lossessection 72related party transactionbusiness expediencyunabsorbed depreciationsection 41(1)computer software

Judgments citing Aggarwal and Modi Enterprises (Cinema Project) Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

BHARTI TELEMEDIA LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee are allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 624/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 35ASection 4

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.4960 & 624/Del/2024 [Assessment Year: 2020-21 & 2021-22] Bharti Telemedia Ltd. DCIT Bharti Crescent 1, Nelson Circle 4 (2) Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, Vs New Delhi Phase-II, New Delhi-110070 PAN No.AADCB0147R Appellant Respondent ITA No.4966 & 4868/Del/2024 [Assessment Year: 2020-21 & 2016-17] DCIT Bharti Telemedia Ltd. Circle 4 (2) Bharti Crescent 1, Nelson New Delhi Vs Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, Phase-II, New Delhi-110070 PAN No.AADCB0147R Appellant Responde…

DCIT, CIRCLE 4(2), NEW DELHI vs. M/S BHARTI TELEMEDIA LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee are allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4966/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 35ASection 4

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.4960 & 624/Del/2024 [Assessment Year: 2020-21 & 2021-22] Bharti Telemedia Ltd. DCIT Bharti Crescent 1, Nelson Circle 4 (2) Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, Vs New Delhi Phase-II, New Delhi-110070 PAN No.AADCB0147R Appellant Respondent ITA No.4966 & 4868/Del/2024 [Assessment Year: 2020-21 & 2016-17] DCIT Bharti Telemedia Ltd. Circle 4 (2) Bharti Crescent 1, Nelson New Delhi Vs Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, Phase-II, New Delhi-110070 PAN No.AADCB0147R Appellant Responde…

BHARTI TELEMEDIA LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee are allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4960/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 35ASection 4

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.4960 & 624/Del/2024 [Assessment Year: 2020-21 & 2021-22] Bharti Telemedia Ltd. DCIT Bharti Crescent 1, Nelson Circle 4 (2) Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, Vs New Delhi Phase-II, New Delhi-110070 PAN No.AADCB0147R Appellant Respondent ITA No.4966 & 4868/Del/2024 [Assessment Year: 2020-21 & 2016-17] DCIT Bharti Telemedia Ltd. Circle 4 (2) Bharti Crescent 1, Nelson New Delhi Vs Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, Phase-II, New Delhi-110070 PAN No.AADCB0147R Appellant Responde…

DCIT, CIRCLE 4(2), NEW DELHI vs. MS BHARTI TELEMEDIA LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee are allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4868/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 35ASection 4

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.4960 & 624/Del/2024 [Assessment Year: 2020-21 & 2021-22] Bharti Telemedia Ltd. DCIT Bharti Crescent 1, Nelson Circle 4 (2) Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, Vs New Delhi Phase-II, New Delhi-110070 PAN No.AADCB0147R Appellant Respondent ITA No.4966 & 4868/Del/2024 [Assessment Year: 2020-21 & 2016-17] DCIT Bharti Telemedia Ltd. Circle 4 (2) Bharti Crescent 1, Nelson New Delhi Vs Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, Phase-II, New Delhi-110070 PAN No.AADCB0147R Appellant Responde…

NARAYAN SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 6(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1077/KOL/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Sept 2025AY 2011-2012
Section 10(38)

…r of Income Tax-IV v. Independent Media P.\nLimited).\n8.\nOriental Insurance Company Limited v. Commissioner of\nIncome Tax (2015) 378 ITR 421.\n9.\n(Del), Rustagi Engineering Udyog (P.) Limited v. DCIT (2016)\n382 ITR 443 (Del).\n10.\nAgya Ram v. CIT (2016) 386 ITR 545 (Del).\n11.\nRajiv Agarwal v. ACIT (decision dated 16th March, 2016 in Writ\nPetition (Civil) No. 9659 of2015).\n12.\nCIT v. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. (2012) 248 CTR 33\n(Del)(HC).\n13.\nCIT v. Multiplex Trading & Industrial Co Ltd (2015) 128 DTR\n217 (Del) (HC).\n14.\nCIT vs. Fair Invest Ltd. (2013) 357 ITR 146 (Del.) (HC).\n15.\nPr. CIT vs.…

JAJOO RASHMI REFRACTORIES LIMITED,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4-JAIPUR,, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes

ITA 209/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Ms. Prabha Rana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT-DR
Section 131Section 145Section 147Section 69C

…13 (Commissioner\nof Income Tax-IV v. Independent Media P. Limited), Oriental\nInsurance Company Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax\n(2015) 378 ITR 421 (Del), Rustagi Engineering Udyog (P.)\nLimited v. DCIT (2016) 382 ITR 443 (Del), Agya Ram v. CIT\n(2016) 386 ITR 545 (Del) and Rajiv Agarwal v. ACIT (decision\ndated 16 March, 2016 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 9659 of 2015).\nb) Your honour, kindly see Ld. AO order page no. 2 table row no. 1\nwherein it appears that notice u/s 148 was issued on 29.03.2022\nand thereafter the Ld. AO had not taken any action till 09.12.2022,\ni.e. 256 days. The Ld. AO issued noti…

ITO, WARD-18(), NEW DELHI vs. NIVIA AGENCIES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1009/DEL/2021[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2025AY 2002-03

Bench: MS. MADHUMITA ROY (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 139(1)Section 142Section 143(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250(6)Section 68

…of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Best Cybercity (India) Ltd reported in 414 ITR 385 (Del.) dated 21.05.2019. Mere allegations in the reasons recorded cannot be treated as equivalent to material as per eyes of law. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Agya Ram vs CIT in 386 ITR 545 dated 01.08.2016. 1) In the reasons recorded by the AO as reproduced in para 7.4 (a) above, the AO has not mentioned the following mandatory aspects:-  Failure to disclose all material facts by the appellant is not mentioned by the AO in the reasons recorded.  AO had reasons to believe that income of appellant has escaped assessment is not ment…

ANISH GARG,PATIALA vs. ITO WARD-4, PATIALA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 739/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jan 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: \nShri Rajiv Saldi, C.AFor Respondent: \nShri Vivek Vardhan, Addl.CIT
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250(4)

…{ "clean_text": "आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, चण्डीगढ़ न्यायपीठ “एस.एम.सी”, चण्डीगढ़\nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCHES, “SMC”\nCHANDIGARH\nHEARING THROUGH: PHYSICAL MODE\nश्री विक्रम सिंह यादव, लेखा सदस्य\nBEFORE: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM\nआयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 739/CHD/2024\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2012-13\nAnish Garg\nThe ITO\n102, New Colony Sular,\nPatiala, Punjab-147001\nबनाम\nWard-4\nPatiala\nस्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO:AOCPG6331A\nअपीलार्थी/Appellant\nप्रत्यर्थी/Respondent\nनिर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee by :\nShri Rajiv Saldi, C.A\nराजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue by:\nShri Vivek Vardhan,…

AMAN EXPORTS INTERNATIONAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 147/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Tatiwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) &
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40A(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;arHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 147/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2012-13 cuke Aman Exports International DCIT, Vs. G-93 Epip Sitapura, Industrial Area Circle-01, Sitapura, Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAQFA 6304 F vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Manish Tatiwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj…

ACIT CENT. CIRCLE-4, THANE vs. M/S. ECA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1523/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 37

…: a) Bharat Earth Movers vs. CIT (2000) 245 ITR 428 (S.C) b) Rotork Controls India (P) Ltd vs. CIT (2009) 314 ITR 62 (S.C) c) CIT vs. Hewelett Packard India (P) Ltd 314 ITR 55 (Delhi) d) Aggarwal ad Modi Enterprises (Cinema Project) Co. (P) Ltd vs. CIT (2016) 381 ITR 469 (Del.) e) DCIT vs. Vs. First Solutions Ltd (2018) 168 DTR (Mumbai) (Trib.) 161 14. The learned DR, on the other hand placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Southern Technologies Ltd, reported in (2019) 187 Taxmann.com 346 (S.C). 15. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, we find t…

KUBER KHANPAN UDYOG PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30, NEW DELHI

In the result, both these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 580/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishikuber Khanpan Udyog Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, 1/8, West Patel Nagar, New Central Circle-30, Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Kuber Food Products India Pvt. Vs. Acit, Ltd, Central Circle-30, C/O. Ravi Gupta, Advocate, E- New Delhi 6A, Kailash Colony, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri PC Yadav, CAFor Respondent: Smt Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 153CSection 68

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “D”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Kuber Khanpan Udyog Pvt. Ltd, Vs. ACIT, 1/8, West Patel Nagar, New Central Circle-30, Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Kuber Food Products India Pvt. Vs. ACIT, Ltd, Central Circle-30, C/o. Ravi Gupta, Advocate, E- New Delhi 6A, Kailash Colony, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri PC Yadav, CA Shri Manish Garg, CA Shri Rajesh Jain, CA Smt Manju Bala, Adv Revenue by: Smt Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 21/08/2019 Date of pronouncement 22…

KUBER FOOD PRODUCTS INDIA P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-30, NEW DELHI

In the result, both these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 322/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Delhi22 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishikuber Khanpan Udyog Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, 1/8, West Patel Nagar, New Central Circle-30, Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Kuber Food Products India Pvt. Vs. Acit, Ltd, Central Circle-30, C/O. Ravi Gupta, Advocate, E- New Delhi 6A, Kailash Colony, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri PC Yadav, CAFor Respondent: Smt Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 153CSection 68

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “D”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Kuber Khanpan Udyog Pvt. Ltd, Vs. ACIT, 1/8, West Patel Nagar, New Central Circle-30, Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Kuber Food Products India Pvt. Vs. ACIT, Ltd, Central Circle-30, C/o. Ravi Gupta, Advocate, E- New Delhi 6A, Kailash Colony, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri PC Yadav, CA Shri Manish Garg, CA Shri Rajesh Jain, CA Smt Manju Bala, Adv Revenue by: Smt Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 21/08/2019 Date of pronouncement 22…

MOKAMA MUNGER HIGHWAY LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2146/HYD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri D.V. AnjaneyuluFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai, (CIT) DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…i.e., NHAI and concessionaire and also there is no power 1 right except to mandate the NHAI terms and therefore, it is a crystallized liability and is allowable u/s 37 of the Act as held in r20091 3 14 ITR 62 (SC) Rotork Controls India P Ltd vs CIT and r20161 381 ITR 469 (Delhi) Aggarwal and Modi Enterprises (Cinema Project) Co Pvt Ltd V CIT. 4. For these and other reasons that may be urged at the time of hearing, the appellant prays the Honorable Tribunal to kindly delete the addition made by AO and sustained by CIT(A)”. 5. The learned Counsel for the assessee, Shri D.V. Anjaneyulu, reiterated the submissions m…

MOKAMA MUNGER HIGHWAY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-16(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2145/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri D.V. AnjaneyuluFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai, (CIT) DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…i.e., NHAI and concessionaire and also there is no power 1 right except to mandate the NHAI terms and therefore, it is a crystallized liability and is allowable u/s 37 of the Act as held in r20091 3 14 ITR 62 (SC) Rotork Controls India P Ltd vs CIT and r20161 381 ITR 469 (Delhi) Aggarwal and Modi Enterprises (Cinema Project) Co Pvt Ltd V CIT. 4. For these and other reasons that may be urged at the time of hearing, the appellant prays the Honorable Tribunal to kindly delete the addition made by AO and sustained by CIT(A)”. 5. The learned Counsel for the assessee, Shri D.V. Anjaneyulu, reiterated the submissions m…

MOKAMA MUNGER HIGHWAY LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1729/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri D.V. AnjaneyuluFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai, (CIT) DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…i.e., NHAI and concessionaire and also there is no power 1 right except to mandate the NHAI terms and therefore, it is a crystallized liability and is allowable u/s 37 of the Act as held in r20091 3 14 ITR 62 (SC) Rotork Controls India P Ltd vs CIT and r20161 381 ITR 469 (Delhi) Aggarwal and Modi Enterprises (Cinema Project) Co Pvt Ltd V CIT. 4. For these and other reasons that may be urged at the time of hearing, the appellant prays the Honorable Tribunal to kindly delete the addition made by AO and sustained by CIT(A)”. 5. The learned Counsel for the assessee, Shri D.V. Anjaneyulu, reiterated the submissions m…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ONGC VIDESH LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3208/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jul 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2006-07 Ongc Videsh Ltd., Vs Addl. Cit, 601, 6Th Floor, Kailash Building, Range-13, 26, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaaco1230F Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Vs Ongc Videsh Ltd., 601, 6Th Floor, Kailash Circle 13(1), New Delhi Building, 26, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi. Pan: Aaaco1230F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate, Shri R.P. Mall, Advocate & Shri Madhur Aggarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Ms Pramita M. Biswas, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.07.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am:

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Pramita M. Biswas, CIT, DR
Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)Section 37Section 42

…incurred or liability in respect thereof has accrued even though it may have to be discharged at some future date. 33. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Aggarwal and Modi Enterprises (Cinema Project) Co. Pvt. Ltd. [2016]381 ITR 469 (Delhi), he submitted that the Hon'ble High court in the said decision has held that the question whether a liability is ascertained or contingent is dependent on facts of each case. Merely because a liability may be contractual or non-statutory that would not make it incapable of being ascertained. Where an assessee follows the mercantile syste…

ONGC VIDESH LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3150/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jul 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2006-07 Ongc Videsh Ltd., Vs Addl. Cit, 601, 6Th Floor, Kailash Building, Range-13, 26, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaaco1230F Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Vs Ongc Videsh Ltd., 601, 6Th Floor, Kailash Circle 13(1), New Delhi Building, 26, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi. Pan: Aaaco1230F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate, Shri R.P. Mall, Advocate & Shri Madhur Aggarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Ms Pramita M. Biswas, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.07.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am:

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Pramita M. Biswas, CIT, DR
Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)Section 37Section 42

…incurred or liability in respect thereof has accrued even though it may have to be discharged at some future date. 33. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Aggarwal and Modi Enterprises (Cinema Project) Co. Pvt. Ltd. [2016]381 ITR 469 (Delhi), he submitted that the Hon'ble High court in the said decision has held that the question whether a liability is ascertained or contingent is dependent on facts of each case. Merely because a liability may be contractual or non-statutory that would not make it incapable of being ascertained. Where an assessee follows the mercantile syste…

RADIANCE STOCK TRADERS PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 20(4), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 4542/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. & Sh. LalitFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 234BSection 68

…3 (introduction of share capital) 31. 393 ITR 157 (Del) Amsa India (P) Ltd. v. CIT 32. 375 ITR 460 (Del) Krown Agro Foods (P) Ltd. v. ACIT. 33. 378 ITR 421 (Del) Oriental Insurance Co. v. CIT 34. 382 ITR 443 (Del) Rustagi Engineering Ldyog(P)Ltd. v. DCIT 35. 386 ITR 545 (Del) Agya Ram v. CIT 36. ITA No. 108/2015 dated 19.11.2015 (Del) CIT v. Independent Media (P) Ltd. 37. 395 ITR 255 Rajiv Agarwal v. ACIT 38. 395 ITR 677 (Del) Pr. CIT v. Meenakshi Overseas (P) Ltd. v. ITO 39. 396 ITR 5 (Del) Pr. CIT v. RMG Plyvinyl (I) Ltd. 40. 398 ITR 198 Sabh Infrastructure Ltd. v. ACIT 41. W.P. (C) 7601/2017 dated 29.8.2017 (…

ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITA/57/2018HC Delhi17 Jan 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

…sioner Of Income Tax,(1971) 82 ITR 363. It is submitted that an identical question was urged and the assessee’s contention accepted by Page 5 of 13 ITA 57/2018 this court in Aggarwal and Modi Enterprise (Cinema Project) Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT, (2016) 381 ITR 469 (Del.). 7. Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra, learned counsel for Revenue urges that order impugned is merely one of remission and in no case, acts prejudicially against the appellant. It is argued that besides circumstances that the assessee is aware of the likely liability and is able to crystallize, it per se would not mean that it is an ascertain…

CIT vs. JAGDISH PRASAD GUPTA

ITA/933/2011HC Delhi18 Aug 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Section 260A

…as following the mercantile system. Therefore, the liability is not contingent but an accrued one. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on, inter alia, the decisions in Aggarwal and Modi Enterprises (Cinema Project) Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2016) 381 ITR 469 (Del) and Agya Ram v. CIT (2016) 386 ITR 545 (Del). 35. On the principle of accrual of income, Mr. Aggarwal relied on the decisions in CIT, Bombay City-I v. M/s. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. [1962] 46 ITR 144 (SC); Morvi Industries Ltd. v. CIT (Central), Calcutta [1971] 82 ITR 835 (SC); Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 225 ITR 746 (…

Showing 1–20 of 28 · Page 1 of 2