Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Alpine Electronics Asia Pte. Ltd. v. Director General of Income Tax come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(2), Section 147, Section 148, Section 143(3), Section 142(1), Section 144.

Alpine Electronics Asia Pte. Ltd. v. Director General of Income Tax

Q: How many judgments cite Alpine Electronics Asia Pte. Ltd. v. Director General of Income Tax?

91 judgments on BharatTax cite Alpine Electronics Asia Pte. Ltd. v. Director General of Income Tax (341 ITR 247), spanning 2015 to 2026.

341 ITR 247High Court2012#1238 most cited

What is Alpine Electronics Asia Pte. Ltd. v. Director General of Income Tax authority for?

A notice under Section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act is mandatory even in reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 or Section 148. The proviso to Section 148(1) specifically extends the period for issuance of such a notice, affirming its necessity.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Alpine Electronics Asia Pte. Ltd. v. DGIT · 341 ITR 247 · Section 143(2) notice mandatory · reassessment proceedings Section 147 · notice under Section 148 · mandatory notice for reassessment · assessment procedure · validity of reassessment proceedings

Sections most often in play

Section 143(2)Section 147 Section 148 Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 144 Section 292BB Section 144B

Issues it is cited on

section 144(1)(b)section 148(1)section 144(1)section 292bb section 158bc section 292b section 158bb section 292 section 29 section 158b section 158 service of notice

Judgments citing Alpine Electronics Asia Pte. Ltd. v. Director General of Income Tax

Kamlesh H Shah(HUF), Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-6(3)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 1626/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Dec 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year :2008-09

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Padmameenakshi, JCIT (DR)

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC-A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year :2008-09 M/s. Kamlesh H Shah (HUF), E-201, Renaissance Temple The Income Tax Bell, Officer, 25/1, Industrial Suburb, vs. Ward – 6 (3) (2), Yeshwantpur, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 022. PAN: AAEHK0217R APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Smt. Suman Lunkar, CA Respondent by : Smt. Padmameenakshi, JCIT (DR) Date of hearing : 06.12.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 21.12.2018 O R D E R Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member This appeal is filed by the assessee and the same is directed against…

Vipul Vijay Chopda, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer

In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2883/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri K. SrinivasanFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Garg

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ed on 8 ITA No. 2883/PUN/2016, A.Y. 2009-10 30-09-2014 and as per Revenue own admission no such notice was ever served on the assessee before the said date. 9. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Alpine Electronics Asia Pte Ltd. Vs. DGIT reported as 341 ITR 247 has held that notice u/s. 143(2) issued beyond time limit would rendered the assessment invalid. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of ACIT Vs. Geno Pharmaceuticals Ltd. reported as 214 Taxman 83 and in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Abacus Distribution Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra). 10. The…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Demag Cranes & Components (I) Pvt. Ltd., Pune

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

ITA 1644/PUN/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.1644/Pun/2015 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 वष" अपीलाथ"/Appellant Dcit, Circle-1(2), Pune …. Vs. Terex India Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Known – Demag Cranes & Components (I) Pvt. Ltd.,) Gat No.33, 332, 333, 334, Nanekarwadi Chakan, Taluka Khed, Pune – 411 501 …. ""यथ" / Respondent Pan : Aabcm9351Q C.O.No.42/Pun/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1644/Pun/2015) A.Y. 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jha, JCIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…he Act constitutes an incurable defect. Similar views are upheld by the number of judgments viz., (1) CWT Vs. HUF of H.H. Late Shri J.M. Scindia 300 ITR 193 (Bombay High Court), Alpine Electronics Asia Pte Ltd. Vs. Director General of Income Tax and Others 341 ITR 247 (Delhi High Court), Virendra Dev Dixit Vs. ACIT 331 ITR 483 (Allahabad High Court), Pai Vinod Vs. DCIT 353 ITR 622 (Karnataka High Court) etc. Considering the same, we are of the view that the cross objection No.4 raised by the assessee is required to be allowed in favour of the assessee. Consequently, adjudication of other cross objections r…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dimension Promoters Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 1105/DEL/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu. & Shri T.S. Kapoor

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148

…mentioned in paper book pages A to M, which are as under : (i). ACIT & Anr. Vs. Hotel Blue Moon, 321 ITR 362(SC) (ii). Directorate of Income Tax vs. VR Educational Trust, 2013(12) TMI 745 (Delhi High Court) (iii). Alpine Electronics Asia Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DGIT, 341 ITR 247 (Del.) (iv). Dalmia (R) vs. CIT, 236 ITR 480 (SC) (v). CIT vs. Pawan Gupta, 318 ITR 322 (Del.) (vi). DCIT vs. M/s. Silver Line 2014(10) TMI 141 ITAT Delhi (vii). CIT vs. Rajeev Sharma, 336 ITR 247 (Del.) (viii). ITO vs. Smt Sukhini P. Modi, 295 ITR (AT) 169 (Ahmedabad Bench) (ix). UKT Software Technologies Pvt Ltd vs. ITO, 2013 (1) TM 1678- ITAT…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Elymer International Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6158/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. L. P. Sahudcit Elymer International Pvt. Ltd. Circle – 11(1) 13, Rajpur Road, Civil Lines. New Delhi Vs. New Delhi

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Anil Kr. Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 10ASection 11BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 292BSection 80I

…issued during the assessment proceedings. Ld. CIT(A) relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs Hotel Blue Moon reported in 321 ITR 362 and others and decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Alpine Electornics Asia Pvt. Ltd., 341 ITR 247 in which it was held that service of notice u/s 143(2) within the statutory time limit is mandatory, Ld. CIT(A) held that the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act has not been issued in this case and omission on the part of the AO to issues notices u/s 143(2) of the Act cannot be procedural irregularities and is not curable. No assessment can be made wit…

Ramesh Salecha HUF, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3312/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri G.P. MehtaFor Respondent: Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 690

…eason that 11 ITA.No.3312/MUM/2015 (A.Y: 2011-12) Shri Ramesh Salecha Huf the AO thought it appropriate to issue the notice under Section 142 (1) of the Act. Relying on the decision in Alpine Electronics Asia Pte. Ltd. v. Director General of Income Tax (2012) 341 ITR 247, Mr. Sahni submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the failure of the AO to issue a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was not fatal to the reassessment proceedings. 11. Dr. Rakesh Gupta, learned counsel for the Assessee, pointed out that the requirement of issuance of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act prior to…

Ashwani Kumar, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 67(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3803/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain

For Appellant: Shri Gautam JainFor Respondent: Shri T. Vasanthan Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…ugned assessment. In such facts and circumstances of the case, assessment made is absolutely illegal and invalid. This settled legal position stands covered by various decisions of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi, few of which are as under: i) 341 ITR 247 Alpine Electronics Asia [P] Ltd Vs. DGIT ii) 323 ITR 249 DIT Vs. Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication. iii) ITA No. 696/2015 CIT Vs. Delhi Kalyan Samiti. iv) 383 ITR 455 Pr. CIT Vs. Silver Line and Anr v) 282 CTR 435 Pr. CIT Vs. Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders vi) 310 ITR 300 AT Kuber Tobacco Products [P] Ltd Vs. DCIT vii…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ravnet Solutions Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Cross Objection of the Assessee is allowed and Appeal of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 4889/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Sh. SomilFor Respondent: Sh. F.R. Meena, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…f the Act, we hold that there was total failure on the part of the Revenue from complying with the procedure laid down under Section 143(2) of the Act, which is mandatory one as held by the Apex Court.” Alpine Electronics Asia Pte Ltd. vs. DGIT & Ors: [(2012) 341 ITR 247 Alpine Electronics Asia Pte Ltd. vs. DGIT & Ors: [(2012) 341 ITR 247 Alpine Electronics Asia Pte Ltd. vs. DGIT & Ors: [(2012) 341 ITR 247 Alpine Electronics Asia Pte Ltd. vs. DGIT & Ors: [(2012) 341 ITR 247 (Del) (Del) (Del) (Del) Held: “The service of notice u/s 143(2) within the statutory time limit is mandatory and is not an inconsequential pr…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Gravity Systems Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed while the cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5626/DEL/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Mar 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri. P. K. Bansal & Shri K.N. Charry Assessment Year:2004-05

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amrit Lal, D.R

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”, DELHI BEFORE SHRI. P. K. BANSAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K.N. CHARRY , JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year:2004-05 ITO v. Gravity Systems Pvt. Ltd. Ward 12(2) 31, Gujranwala Town New Delhi Part II, GT Karnal Road Delhi TAN/PAN:AABCG0277B (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.319/DEL/2016 [Arising out of ITA No.5626/DEL/2012] Assessment Year:2004-05 Gravity Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO 31, Gujranwala Town Ward 12(2) Part II, GT Karnal Road New Delhi Delhi TAN/PAN:AABCG0277B (Cross Objector) (Respondent) Department by: Shri Amrit Lal, D.R. Assessee by: Shri P. C. Yada…

Paramount Biotech Industries Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 4100/DEL/2015[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Mar 2017AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. S.D. Kapila, Adv., Sh. PnayushFor Respondent: Sh. S.K. Jain, DR

Section 10(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 68

…f the Act, we hold that there was total failure on the part of the Revenue from complying with the procedure laid down under Section 143(2) of the Act, which is mandatory one as held by the Apex Court.” Alpine Electronics Asia Pte Ltd. vs. DGIT & Ors: [(2012) 341 ITR 247 Alpine Electronics As ia Pte Ltd. vs. DGIT & Ors: [(2012) 341 ITR 247 Alpine Electronics As Alpine Electronics As ia Pte Ltd. vs. DGIT & Ors: [(2012) 341 ITR 247 ia Pte Ltd. vs. DGIT & Ors: [(2012) 341 ITR 247 (Del) (Del) (Del) (Del) Held: “The service of notice u/s 143(2) within the statutory time limit is mandatory and is not an inconsequential…

Paramount Biotech Industries Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 4099/DEL/2015[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Mar 2017AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. S.D. Kapila, Adv., Sh. PnayushFor Respondent: Sh. S.K. Jain, DR

Section 10(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 68

…f the Act, we hold that there was total failure on the part of the Revenue from complying with the procedure laid down under Section 143(2) of the Act, which is mandatory one as held by the Apex Court.” Alpine Electronics Asia Pte Ltd. vs. DGIT & Ors: [(2012) 341 ITR 247 Alpine Electronics As ia Pte Ltd. vs. DGIT & Ors: [(2012) 341 ITR 247 Alpine Electronics As Alpine Electronics As ia Pte Ltd. vs. DGIT & Ors: [(2012) 341 ITR 247 ia Pte Ltd. vs. DGIT & Ors: [(2012) 341 ITR 247 (Del) (Del) (Del) (Del) Held: “The service of notice u/s 143(2) within the statutory time limit is mandatory and is not an inconsequential…

Sh. Ram Kumar, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 785/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhua.Y. : 2006-07 Sh. Ram Kumar Ito, Ward 35(4), House No. 135, Surya Niketan, Vs. New Delhi Delhi – 110 092 (Pan: Aggpk6375E) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Adv, ShFor Respondent: Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69A

Smt. Anita Kumari, Prop M/S Harre Krishana Chemical, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 5184/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Feb 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhua.Y. : 2007-08 Smt. Anita Kumari Income Tax Officer, Prop. M/S Hare Krishna Vs. Ward 1(1), Chemcial, Ghaziabad C-118, Vardhman Apartment-Iv, Shalimar Garden, Extension-Ii, Ghaziabad (Pan: (Appellant) (Appellant) (Appellant) (Appellant) (Respondent) (Respondent) (Respondent) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234B

Zakia Begum, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 3002/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Sh. WA Khan, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 44A

M/S. Civitech Housing India (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed with above direction

ITA 1293/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishicivitech Housing India P Ltd, 65, Dcit, Central Circle-3, Room No. 356, 3Rd Shrestha Vihar, New Delhi 110092 Vs. Pan:Aabcc1465B Floor, E-2, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 127Section 127(2)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…11.2010, therefore is barred by limitation. He further submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the order of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Alpine Electronics Asia PTE Ltd Vs. Director General of Income-tax and others 341 ITR 247 (Del) and further in the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Pr. CIT Vs. Shri Jay Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt. Ltd 383 ITR 448. He, therefore, submitted that failure to issue notice u/s 143(2) in accordance with the law invalidated the Assessment Year: 2006-07 Civitech Housing India P Ltd Vs. DCIT, Page 4 of 6 order of reassessment. On…

M/S Print-Fab (India) P. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5751/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2003-04 M/S. Print-Fab (India) P. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Ltd., 46/8, 1St Floor, East 14(4), New Delhi Patel Nagar, New Delhi Gir/Pan : Aaccp7299M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Satyen Sethi, Adv. Respondent By Sh. V. R. Sonbhadra, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 21.06.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 27.07.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Dated 12/08/2013 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Xvii, New Delhi, For Assessment Year 2003-04, Raising Following Grounds, Which Are Revised On 22.02.2016: 1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Xvii, New Delhi [Briefly "The Cit(A)"] Has Erred In Upholding The Reopening Of Assessment Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Briefly "The Act"). 2. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Appreciating That The Assessment Was Not Validly Reopened, For No Valid Notice

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…153A of the Act and in our view, the same is not applicable in the present case. This Court in several cases pertaining to proceedings under Section 147 has held that a notice under Section 143(2) is mandatory. [See: Alpine Electronics Asia (P.) Ltd. v. DGIT: 341 ITR 247 (Del), DIT v. Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication: 323 ITR 249 (Del), Pr. CIT v Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt. Ltd.: 282 CTR 435 (Del) and CIT v. Rajeev 336 ITR (All)}. It is also relevant to note that clause (b) of the proviso to Section 148(1) of the Act also specifically extends the period for issuance of notice und…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Shankar Radhey Finance & Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 143/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jul 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri P.K.Bansal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Mishra, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…3. Since the Ld. DR even though relied on the order of the AO could not brought to my knowledge any decision contrary to the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Alpine Electronics Asia Pte. Ltd. vs. Director General of Income Tax (2012) 341 ITR 247 (Delhi) I therefore do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and accordingly dismiss the appeal filed by revenue. 3 4. In the result, appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 14/07/2016. (P.K. BANSAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 14 /07/2016 ‘Veena ’…

CIT vs. Delhi Kalyan Samiti

ITA/697/2015HC Delhi22 Mar 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Section 1Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 260A

…A of the Act and in our view, the same is not applicable in the present case. This Court in several cases pertaining to proceedings under Section 147 has held that a notice under Section 143(2) is mandatory. [See: Alpine Electronics Asia (P.) Ltd. v. DGIT: 341 ITR 247 (Del), DIT v. Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication: 323 ITR 249 (De), Pr. CIT v Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt. Ltd.: 282 CTR. 435 (Del) and CIT v. Rajeev Verma: 336 ITR (All)]. It is also relevant to note that clause (b) of the proviso to Section 148(1) of the Act also specifically extends the period for issuanc…

CIT vs. Delhi Kalyan Samiti

ITA/696/2015HC Delhi22 Mar 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Section 1Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 260A

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Vishu Impex Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the

ITA 3703/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar Gupta, Adv

Section 275(1)(c)

…13 C.O. Nos.122, 109, 107 & 108 /Del/2013 6.3 Further, the learned D.R. has given a short written submission dated 06.08.2014 the content of the same is reproduced below:- "Note on applicability of Delhi High Court judgment in Alpine Electronics Asia P Ltd. (341 ITR 247 Del) in CO No. 122/D/2013 in ITA 1809/D/2013 filed by Silverline for AY 2008-09 Before discussing as to how the facts of the Delhi High Court judgment in Alpine Electronics Asia Pvt. Ltd. ( 341 ITR 247 Del) are distinguishable it will be relevant to keep in mind the provisions of section 292BB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which provide that after…