Bajaj Allianz v. DCIT

355 ITR 188High Court2013#5888 most cited
20

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 147

Issues it is cited on

strategic investmentkelvinatorcommercial expediencytangible materialsection 28section 147companysection 143(3)indiabusinessdocumentinterest

Judgments citing Bajaj Allianz v. DCIT

GLOBAL GREEN COMPANY LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 10(1), NEW DELHI

ITA 3899/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: FixedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, Shri Ankit AggarwalFor Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

…as relied on the following:- i) CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2002) 256 ITR 1 (Del); ii) Rubix Trading (P) Ltd. vs. ITO, 108 taxmann.com 176 (Bom); iii) Bajaj Allianz vs. DCIT (2020) 113 taxmann.com 238 (Bom); iv) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs. DCIT (2013) 355 ITR 188 (Del); and 3 ITAs No.3910 to 3913/Del/2018 ITAs No.3898 & 3899/Del/2019 v) Tulsi Shipping P. Ltd. vs. ITO (2018) 169 ITD 629 (Mumbai Trib.) 3.1 It is further submitted that in the absence of any specific observations in the reopening that there was failure to furnish fully and truly all material relevant for assessment, reassessment could not…

GLOBAL GREEN COMPANY LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 10(1), NEW DELHI

ITA 3898/DEL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, Shri Ankit AggarwalFor Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

…as relied on the following:- i) CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2002) 256 ITR 1 (Del); ii) Rubix Trading (P) Ltd. vs. ITO, 108 taxmann.com 176 (Bom); iii) Bajaj Allianz vs. DCIT (2020) 113 taxmann.com 238 (Bom); iv) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs. DCIT (2013) 355 ITR 188 (Del); and 3 ITAs No.3910 to 3913/Del/2018 ITAs No.3898 & 3899/Del/2019 v) Tulsi Shipping P. Ltd. vs. ITO (2018) 169 ITD 629 (Mumbai Trib.) 3.1 It is further submitted that in the absence of any specific observations in the reopening that there was failure to furnish fully and truly all material relevant for assessment, reassessment could not…

GLOBAL GREEN COMPANY LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 10(1), NEW DELHI

ITA 3913/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, Shri Ankit AggarwalFor Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

…as relied on the following:- i) CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2002) 256 ITR 1 (Del); ii) Rubix Trading (P) Ltd. vs. ITO, 108 taxmann.com 176 (Bom); iii) Bajaj Allianz vs. DCIT (2020) 113 taxmann.com 238 (Bom); iv) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs. DCIT (2013) 355 ITR 188 (Del); and 3 ITAs No.3910 to 3913/Del/2018 ITAs No.3898 & 3899/Del/2019 v) Tulsi Shipping P. Ltd. vs. ITO (2018) 169 ITD 629 (Mumbai Trib.) 3.1 It is further submitted that in the absence of any specific observations in the reopening that there was failure to furnish fully and truly all material relevant for assessment, reassessment could not…

GLOBAL GREEN COMPANY LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 10(1), NEW DELHI

ITA 3912/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, Shri Ankit AggarwalFor Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

…as relied on the following:- i) CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2002) 256 ITR 1 (Del); ii) Rubix Trading (P) Ltd. vs. ITO, 108 taxmann.com 176 (Bom); iii) Bajaj Allianz vs. DCIT (2020) 113 taxmann.com 238 (Bom); iv) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs. DCIT (2013) 355 ITR 188 (Del); and 3 ITAs No.3910 to 3913/Del/2018 ITAs No.3898 & 3899/Del/2019 v) Tulsi Shipping P. Ltd. vs. ITO (2018) 169 ITD 629 (Mumbai Trib.) 3.1 It is further submitted that in the absence of any specific observations in the reopening that there was failure to furnish fully and truly all material relevant for assessment, reassessment could not…

GLOBAL GREEN COMPANY LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 10(1), NEW DELHI

ITA 3911/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: FixedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, Shri Ankit AggarwalFor Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

…as relied on the following:- i) CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2002) 256 ITR 1 (Del); ii) Rubix Trading (P) Ltd. vs. ITO, 108 taxmann.com 176 (Bom); iii) Bajaj Allianz vs. DCIT (2020) 113 taxmann.com 238 (Bom); iv) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs. DCIT (2013) 355 ITR 188 (Del); and 3 ITAs No.3910 to 3913/Del/2018 ITAs No.3898 & 3899/Del/2019 v) Tulsi Shipping P. Ltd. vs. ITO (2018) 169 ITD 629 (Mumbai Trib.) 3.1 It is further submitted that in the absence of any specific observations in the reopening that there was failure to furnish fully and truly all material relevant for assessment, reassessment could not…

GLOBAL GREEN COMPANY LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 10(1), NEW DELHI

ITA 3910/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, Shri Ankit AggarwalFor Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

…as relied on the following:- i) CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2002) 256 ITR 1 (Del); ii) Rubix Trading (P) Ltd. vs. ITO, 108 taxmann.com 176 (Bom); iii) Bajaj Allianz vs. DCIT (2020) 113 taxmann.com 238 (Bom); iv) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs. DCIT (2013) 355 ITR 188 (Del); and 3 ITAs No.3910 to 3913/Del/2018 ITAs No.3898 & 3899/Del/2019 v) Tulsi Shipping P. Ltd. vs. ITO (2018) 169 ITD 629 (Mumbai Trib.) 3.1 It is further submitted that in the absence of any specific observations in the reopening that there was failure to furnish fully and truly all material relevant for assessment, reassessment could not…

ACIT, UTTRAKHAND vs. M/S. UTTARANCHAL JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LTD., DEHRADUN

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

ITA 736/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun24 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadassessment Year: 2012-13 Acit, Vs. Uttaranchal Jal Vidyut Circle-2, Nigam Ltd., 13-A, Subhash Road, Ujjwal, Maharani Bagh, Uttarakhand. Gms Road, Dehradun. Pan: Aaacu6672R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate & Shri Somil Aggarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Poonam Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 22.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.12.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29Th December, 2016 Of The Cit(A), Dehradun, Relating To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Only Effective Ground Raised By The Revenue Reads As Under:- “1. The Ld.Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts By Allowing Depreciation On Assets For Which The Actual Cost As Per Section 43(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Was Nil. 2. The Order Of The Ld.Cit(Appeals) Be Set Aside & That Of The Assessing Officer Be Restored.”

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Smt. Poonam Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 32Section 43Section 43(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : B : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 ACIT, Vs. Uttaranchal Jal Vidyut Circle-2, Nigam Ltd., 13-A, Subhash Road, Ujjwal, Maharani Bagh, Uttarakhand. GMS Road, Dehradun. PAN: AAACU6672R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate & Shri Somil Aggarwal, Advocate Revenue by : Smt. Poonam Sharma, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 22.12.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 24.12.2021 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order…

ACIT, CIRCLE- 2, DEHRADUN vs. UTTRANCHAL JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LTD., DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 743/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun01 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukladr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Sh. SomilFor Respondent: Sh. N.S. Jangpangi, CIT- DR
Section 143(3)Section 32

…As per AO, a sum equal to the general reserve would be required to be reduced from the cost of the assets in terms of Explanation 10 of Section 43(1) of the Act. This has been negated by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 09th May 2013 reported in 355 ITR 188(Del) by observing as under: “26. The scheme of hiving off the business of telecom services by Government of India to a corporate entity entailed incorporation of a wholly owned government company (i.e, the petitioner company) and the transfer of the business as a going concern along with all its assets and liabilities to the company. The net ass…

ACIT, CIRCLE- 2, DEHRADUN vs. UTTARANCHAL JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LTD., DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5315/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun24 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukladr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Somil Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. N. S. Jangpangi, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 32

…As per AO, a sum equal to the general reserve would be required to be reduced from the cost of the assets in terms of Explanation 10 of Section 43(1) of the Act. This has been negated by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 09th May 2013 reported in 355 ITR 188(Del) by observing as under: 7 ITA No.5311 & Ors. “26. The scheme of hiving off the business of telecom services by Government of India to a corporate entity entailed incorporation of a wholly owned government company (i.e, the petitioner company) and the transfer of the business as a going concern along with all its assets and liabilities to t…

ACIT, CIRCLE- 2, DEHRADUN vs. UTTARANCHAL JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LTD., DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5314/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun24 Nov 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukladr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Somil Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. N. S. Jangpangi, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 32

…As per AO, a sum equal to the general reserve would be required to be reduced from the cost of the assets in terms of Explanation 10 of Section 43(1) of the Act. This has been negated by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 09th May 2013 reported in 355 ITR 188(Del) by observing as under: 7 ITA No.5311 & Ors. “26. The scheme of hiving off the business of telecom services by Government of India to a corporate entity entailed incorporation of a wholly owned government company (i.e, the petitioner company) and the transfer of the business as a going concern along with all its assets and liabilities to t…

ACIT, CIRCLE- 2, DEHRADUN vs. UTTARANCHAL JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LTD., DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5313/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun24 Nov 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukladr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Somil Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. N. S. Jangpangi, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 32

…As per AO, a sum equal to the general reserve would be required to be reduced from the cost of the assets in terms of Explanation 10 of Section 43(1) of the Act. This has been negated by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 09th May 2013 reported in 355 ITR 188(Del) by observing as under: 7 ITA No.5311 & Ors. “26. The scheme of hiving off the business of telecom services by Government of India to a corporate entity entailed incorporation of a wholly owned government company (i.e, the petitioner company) and the transfer of the business as a going concern along with all its assets and liabilities to t…

ACIT, CIRCLE-2, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. UTTARANCHAL JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LTD., DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5312/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun24 Nov 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukladr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Somil Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. N. S. Jangpangi, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 32

…As per AO, a sum equal to the general reserve would be required to be reduced from the cost of the assets in terms of Explanation 10 of Section 43(1) of the Act. This has been negated by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 09th May 2013 reported in 355 ITR 188(Del) by observing as under: 7 ITA No.5311 & Ors. “26. The scheme of hiving off the business of telecom services by Government of India to a corporate entity entailed incorporation of a wholly owned government company (i.e, the petitioner company) and the transfer of the business as a going concern along with all its assets and liabilities to t…

ACIT, CIRCLE-2, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. UTTARANCHAL JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LTD., DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5311/DEL/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun24 Nov 2021AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Amit Shukladr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Somil Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. N. S. Jangpangi, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 32

…As per AO, a sum equal to the general reserve would be required to be reduced from the cost of the assets in terms of Explanation 10 of Section 43(1) of the Act. This has been negated by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 09th May 2013 reported in 355 ITR 188(Del) by observing as under: 7 ITA No.5311 & Ors. “26. The scheme of hiving off the business of telecom services by Government of India to a corporate entity entailed incorporation of a wholly owned government company (i.e, the petitioner company) and the transfer of the business as a going concern along with all its assets and liabilities to t…

DCIT 9(2), MUMBAI vs. NESCO LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 5611/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…assessment and therefore the decision in the case of Direct Information Pvt.Ltd vs. ITO (2012) 349 ITR 150 (Bom), is applicable to the case under appeal Recently, Hon'ble 8 M/S. NESCO LTD. Delhi High Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam vs. CIT (2013) 355 ITR 188 (Del) has held that no such case can be reopened on the basis of change of opinion or without having fresh tangible material before initiating reopening proceeding. Further, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court (Full Bench), in the case of CIT vs. Kalvinator of India Ltd. 256 ITR 1 (Delhi), at para 12 to 15 has held as under :- "We may also notice that a…

BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6459/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2005-06 Ay: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Jain, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…f depreciation is concerned, we find that the quantum has been deleted by the ITAT in I.T.A. Nos. 2162/Del/2007 and 2176/Del/2008 by following the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the assessee’s own case for assessment year 2001-02 and reported in 355 ITR 188 (Del). Accordingly, penalty is not imposable on this issue and ground no. 1 of Department’s appeal is dismissed. Since the issue of 6 I.T.A.Nos. 2196, 6459/D/2012 5916, 6549/D/2012 Assessment Years: 2005-06, 2009-10 write off of the assets has been restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh examination, penalty is not imposable…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5916/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2005-06 Ay: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Jain, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…f depreciation is concerned, we find that the quantum has been deleted by the ITAT in I.T.A. Nos. 2162/Del/2007 and 2176/Del/2008 by following the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the assessee’s own case for assessment year 2001-02 and reported in 355 ITR 188 (Del). Accordingly, penalty is not imposable on this issue and ground no. 1 of Department’s appeal is dismissed. Since the issue of 6 I.T.A.Nos. 2196, 6459/D/2012 5916, 6549/D/2012 Assessment Years: 2005-06, 2009-10 write off of the assets has been restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh examination, penalty is not imposable…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2799/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2005-06 Ay: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Jain, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…f depreciation is concerned, we find that the quantum has been deleted by the ITAT in I.T.A. Nos. 2162/Del/2007 and 2176/Del/2008 by following the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the assessee’s own case for assessment year 2001-02 and reported in 355 ITR 188 (Del). Accordingly, penalty is not imposable on this issue and ground no. 1 of Department’s appeal is dismissed. Since the issue of 6 I.T.A.Nos. 2196, 6459/D/2012 5916, 6549/D/2012 Assessment Years: 2005-06, 2009-10 write off of the assets has been restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh examination, penalty is not imposable…

BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2196/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2005-06 Ay: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Jain, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…f depreciation is concerned, we find that the quantum has been deleted by the ITAT in I.T.A. Nos. 2162/Del/2007 and 2176/Del/2008 by following the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the assessee’s own case for assessment year 2001-02 and reported in 355 ITR 188 (Del). Accordingly, penalty is not imposable on this issue and ground no. 1 of Department’s appeal is dismissed. Since the issue of 6 I.T.A.Nos. 2196, 6459/D/2012 5916, 6549/D/2012 Assessment Years: 2005-06, 2009-10 write off of the assets has been restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh examination, penalty is not imposable…

BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2 (1),

In the result this ground is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3718/DEL/2006[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri J. Sudhakar Reddyay: 2003-04 Ay: 2004-05 Ay: 2005-06 Ay: 2006-07 Ay: 2007-08 Ay: 2008-09 Ay: 2008-09 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. Acit, Range 2 Taxation Section, 1St Floor New Delhi Bharat Sanchar Bhavan Janpath New Delhi Ay: 2003-04 Ay: 2008-09 Ay: 2005-06 Ay: 2006-07 Ay: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Anuradha Misra, CIT, D.R
Section 37

…lly allowed to the assessee. 6.2. On hearing the rival submissions, we find that this issue is no more res integra. The issue stands settled in favour of BSNL by way of order dated May 9, 2013, passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court for AY 2001-02 reported in 355 ITR 188(Del) , wherein the following observations were made: The Assessing Officer seems to have proceeded on an assumption that whereas the value of share capital, issued to the Government as part consideration for the transfer of business to the petitioner company, is limited only to the face value of the shares, the reserves represent a subsidy, grant…

DCIT CIRCLE 2 (1) vs. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD,

In the result this ground is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3440/DEL/2006[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri J. Sudhakar Reddyay: 2003-04 Ay: 2004-05 Ay: 2005-06 Ay: 2006-07 Ay: 2007-08 Ay: 2008-09 Ay: 2008-09 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. Acit, Range 2 Taxation Section, 1St Floor New Delhi Bharat Sanchar Bhavan Janpath New Delhi Ay: 2003-04 Ay: 2008-09 Ay: 2005-06 Ay: 2006-07 Ay: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Anuradha Misra, CIT, D.R
Section 37

…lly allowed to the assessee. 6.2. On hearing the rival submissions, we find that this issue is no more res integra. The issue stands settled in favour of BSNL by way of order dated May 9, 2013, passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court for AY 2001-02 reported in 355 ITR 188(Del) , wherein the following observations were made: The Assessing Officer seems to have proceeded on an assumption that whereas the value of share capital, issued to the Government as part consideration for the transfer of business to the petitioner company, is limited only to the face value of the shares, the reserves represent a subsidy, grant…