Banarsi Debi v. ITO

53 ITR 100Supreme Court of India1964#1801 most cited

What is Banarsi Debi v. ITO authority for?

For income-tax notices, particularly under Section 34(1) of the 1922 Act (corresponding to Sections 147/148 of the 1961 Act), there is no real distinction between the 'issue' and 'service' of a notice. The word 'issued' must be given a wider meaning, effectively encompassing 'served'.

63

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Banarsi Debi v. ITO · Section 34(1) 1922 Act · Section 147 · Section 148 · issue of notice · service of notice · meaning of 'issued' · validity of reassessment notice · no distinction between issue and service · 53 ITR 100 SC · income tax notice

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 143(3)Section 149Section 142(1)Section 69ASection 271(1)(c)Section 133(6)

Issues it is cited on

section 148(1)section 147(b)section 292bbsection 292bsection 149section 34section 292kelvinatormere change of opinionsection 29service of noticespecified authority

Judgments citing Banarsi Debi v. ITO

Mohan Clothing Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 4304/DEL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2020AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2002-03 & Ita No.4304/Del./2011 Assessment Year: 2003-04

Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘E’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2002-03 And ITA No.4304/Del./2011 Assessment Year: 2003-04 M/s. Mohan Clothing Co. Vs. ACIT, Pvt. Ltd, Circle-5(1), 2E/22, Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi New Delhi PAN :AAACM1374L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri K. Sampath, Adv. Shri Raja Kumar, Adv. Respondent by Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR Date of hearing 21.01.2020 Date of pronouncement 17.03.2020 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, AM: Out of the above two appeals, the appeal bearing ITA No. 6093/Del./2…

Shrimati Neetima Goyal, Ferozpur Cantt vs. Income Tax Officer, 3(2), Ferozpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal ground

ITA 184/ASR/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar03 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri L.P. Sahu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.184/Asr/2018 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2011-2012) Neetima Goyal, Vs. Ito, Ward-3(2), Ferozepur Prop. Raghav Sales, G.T.Road, Ferozepur Cantt., Pin-152001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Panno. : Aicpg 3586 H (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri I.P.Bansal, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Charan Dass, Dr

For Appellant: Shri I.P.Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Charan Dass, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151(2)Section 44A

…onferment of jurisdiction in the Income-tax Officer to deal with the matter but it is a condition precedent to making of the order of assessment. The High Court in our opinion lost sight of the distinction and under a wrong basis felt bound by the judgment in 53 ITR 100. As the Income-tax Officer had issued notice within limitations, the appeal is allowed and the order of the High Court is vacated. The Income-tax Officer shall now proceed to complete the assessment after complying with the requirements of law. On Objection to notice u/s 148 Even in case of order not passed, directions are to be issued to AO to re…

Mukand Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3670/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Blem/S. Mukund Limited V. Dy. Cit-3(2)(1) Aayakar Bhavan Bajaj Bhavan, 3Rd Floor M.K. Road 226 Nariman Point New Marine Lines Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaacm5008R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kirit Kamdar Department By : Shri Ajay K. Ojha

For Appellant: Shri Kirit KamdarFor Respondent: Shri Ajay K. Ojha
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…of notice within limitation was the foundation of jurisdiction. The same view has been taken by this Court in Janni v. Indu Prasad Bhat, 72 ITR 595 as also in C.I.T. v. Robert, 48 ITR 177. The High Court in our opinion went wrong in relying upon the ratio of 53 ITR 100 in disposing of the case in hand. The scheme of the 1961 Act so far as notice for reassessment is concerned is quite different. What used to be contained in section 34 of the 1922 Act has been spread out into three sections, being sections 147, 148 and 149 in the 45 1961 Act. A clear distinction has been made out between 'issue of notice' and 'ser…

Sakun Gems, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 3432/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Uttam Chand BothraFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Ojha
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 148Section 292B

…of notice within limitation was the foundation of jurisdiction. The same view has been taken by this Court in Janni v. Indu Prasad Bhat, 72 ITR 595 as also in C.I.T. v. Robert, 48 ITR 177. The High Court in our opinion went wrong in relying upon the ratio of 53 ITR 100 in disposing of the case in hand. The scheme of the 1961 Act so far as notice for reassessment is concerned is quite different. What used to be contained in section 34 of the 1922 Act has been spread out into three sections, being sections 147, 148 and 149 in the 45 1961 Act. A clear distinction has (A.Ys: 2008-09 & 2011-12) M/s. Sukun Gems been m…

Sakun Gems, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 3431/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri Uttam Chand BothraFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Ojha
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 148Section 292B

…of notice within limitation was the foundation of jurisdiction. The same view has been taken by this Court in Janni v. Indu Prasad Bhat, 72 ITR 595 as also in C.I.T. v. Robert, 48 ITR 177. The High Court in our opinion went wrong in relying upon the ratio of 53 ITR 100 in disposing of the case in hand. The scheme of the 1961 Act so far as notice for reassessment is concerned is quite different. What used to be contained in section 34 of the 1922 Act has been spread out into three sections, being sections 147, 148 and 149 in the 45 1961 Act. A clear distinction has (A.Ys: 2008-09 & 2011-12) M/s. Sukun Gems been m…

B.M. Land Developers and Builders, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(4), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1146/HYD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2019AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri V. Siva Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey, DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

…ed” u/s.143(2) is to be considered as the “date of issue of notice” by the AO, which supports the view point of the ld. DR. In reaching this conclusion, the Hon’ble High Court relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Banarasi Devi Vs. ITO (1964) 53 ITR 100 (SC) and dissented with its own judgment in CIT Vs. Avi- oil India Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 323 ITR 242 (P&H) in which it was held that notice u/s.143(2) should not only be issued but also served within the stipulated period and in the absence of such a valid service, the assessment is vitiated. :- 10 -: 21.3. Similarly, the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in…

M/S Manish Finlease (P) Ltd, Patna vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Patna

ITA 25/PAT/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Patna09 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2010-2011 Manish Finlease Pvt Ltd., Vs. Ito, Ward 2(1), Patna Chandi House Exhibition Road, Patna Pan/Gir No.Aaccm 6252 B (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K.Rastogi & Rakesh Kumar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Indrajeet Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/06/ 2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/08/ 2019 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-1, Patna Dated 27.9.2018 For The Assessment Year 2010-2011. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 51 Days. The Assessee Has Filed Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons For Not Filing The Appeal In Time Before The Tribunal. After Hearing The Submissions Of The Parties, We Are Satisfied That The Assessee Had A Bonafide Reason For Not Filing The Appeal In Time. Therefore, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Rastogi & Rakesh Kumar, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Indrajeet Singh, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148(1)Section 68

…sued or if the notice issued is shown to be invalid then the proceedings taken by the Income- tax Officer without a notice or in pursuance of an invalid notice would be illegal and void." This was also the basis for the decision in Banarasi Debi v. ITR (1964) 53 ITR 100. 3.7 However, under the Income-tax Act, 1961, the procedural requirement has been spread over three sections, being Sections 147, 148 and 149. The period of limitation within which notice under Section 148 has to be issued is specified in Section 149. Section 153 (2) of the Act stipulates that no order of re-assessment can be passed beyond the per…

Anil Kisanlal Marda, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Pune

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1763/PUN/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Vikas Awasthy

Section 143(2)

…"service of notice" or "issuance of notice" have no fixed connotation but are interchangeable and same meaning should be given to both the words used in ss. 148 and 149. In reaching this conclusion, their Lordships also relied on Banarsi Debi vs. ITO (1964) 53 ITR 100 (SC). The Revenue carried the matter before the Hon’ble Summit Court. In R. K. Upadhyaya, ITO vs. Shanabhai P. Patel (1987) 166 ITR 163 (SC), their Lordships highlighted the difference in the language of the 1922 Act under which the judgment in Banarsi Debi vs. ITO (supra) was rendered and the 1961 Act. It observed that : ‘A clear distinction…

ITO, New Delhi vs. Sh. Vishnu Goel, Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the learned assessing officer are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3932/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Shivir Bajaj, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.S.Rana, CIT DR
Section 133Section 133ASection 271

…is in the nature of a rehearing and the appellate authorities in moulding the relief to be granted are entitled to take into account even facts and circumstances and changes in law which happened after the AO completed the assessment (Banwari Debi Vs 1TO 1964 53 ITR 100, 105 SC) CIT Vs Dewan Bahadur Ramgopal Mills Ltd 1961 41 ITR 280, 290 (SC), Straw Products Ltd Vs ITO 1968 68 ITR 227 (SC). Kalaratic Devi Harlalka vs CIT (1967 66 ITR 680 SC), Ram PyafiDevi Sarogi vs CIT 1968 67 ITR 84(SC), Sankappa (s) v ITO 1968 68 ITR 760 (SC) Raja Bahadur Vs CIT 1954 26 ITR 563-570, 571 (Pat). State Raja Syed Mohammed Saddat…

ITO, New Delhi vs. Sh. Vishnu Goel, Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the learned assessing officer are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3931/DEL/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Shivir Bajaj, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.S.Rana, CIT DR
Section 133Section 133ASection 271

…is in the nature of a rehearing and the appellate authorities in moulding the relief to be granted are entitled to take into account even facts and circumstances and changes in law which happened after the AO completed the assessment (Banwari Debi Vs 1TO 1964 53 ITR 100, 105 SC) CIT Vs Dewan Bahadur Ramgopal Mills Ltd 1961 41 ITR 280, 290 (SC), Straw Products Ltd Vs ITO 1968 68 ITR 227 (SC). Kalaratic Devi Harlalka vs CIT (1967 66 ITR 680 SC), Ram PyafiDevi Sarogi vs CIT 1968 67 ITR 84(SC), Sankappa (s) v ITO 1968 68 ITR 760 (SC) Raja Bahadur Vs CIT 1954 26 ITR 563-570, 571 (Pat). State Raja Syed Mohammed Saddat…

ITO, New Delhi vs. Sh. Vishnu Goel, Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the learned assessing officer are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3930/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Shivir Bajaj, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.S.Rana, CIT DR
Section 133Section 133ASection 271

…is in the nature of a rehearing and the appellate authorities in moulding the relief to be granted are entitled to take into account even facts and circumstances and changes in law which happened after the AO completed the assessment (Banwari Debi Vs 1TO 1964 53 ITR 100, 105 SC) CIT Vs Dewan Bahadur Ramgopal Mills Ltd 1961 41 ITR 280, 290 (SC), Straw Products Ltd Vs ITO 1968 68 ITR 227 (SC). Kalaratic Devi Harlalka vs CIT (1967 66 ITR 680 SC), Ram PyafiDevi Sarogi vs CIT 1968 67 ITR 84(SC), Sankappa (s) v ITO 1968 68 ITR 760 (SC) Raja Bahadur Vs CIT 1954 26 ITR 563-570, 571 (Pat). State Raja Syed Mohammed Saddat…

ITO, New Delhi vs. Sh. Vishnu Goel, Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the learned assessing officer are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3929/DEL/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Shivir Bajaj, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.S.Rana, CIT DR
Section 133Section 133ASection 271

…is in the nature of a rehearing and the appellate authorities in moulding the relief to be granted are entitled to take into account even facts and circumstances and changes in law which happened after the AO completed the assessment (Banwari Debi Vs 1TO 1964 53 ITR 100, 105 SC) CIT Vs Dewan Bahadur Ramgopal Mills Ltd 1961 41 ITR 280, 290 (SC), Straw Products Ltd Vs ITO 1968 68 ITR 227 (SC). Kalaratic Devi Harlalka vs CIT (1967 66 ITR 680 SC), Ram PyafiDevi Sarogi vs CIT 1968 67 ITR 84(SC), Sankappa (s) v ITO 1968 68 ITR 760 (SC) Raja Bahadur Vs CIT 1954 26 ITR 563-570, 571 (Pat). State Raja Syed Mohammed Saddat…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Sudev Industries Ltd

ITA/805/2005HC Delhi31 May 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 230A(1)Section 260ASection 282(2)

…C 1742 : (1964) 7 SCR 539 : 72 ITR 595] as also in CIT v. Robert J. Sas [AIR 1964 SC 1742 : (1964) 7 SCR 539 : 48 ITR 177] . The High Court in our opinion went wrong in relying upon the ratio of Banarsi Debi v. ITO [AIR 1964 SC 1742 : (1964) 7 SCR 539 : 53 ITR 100] in disposing of the case in hand. The scheme of the 1961 Act so far as notice for reassessment is concerned is quite different. What used to be contained in Section 34 of the 1922 Act has been spread out into three sections, being Sections 147, 148 and 149 in the 1961 Act. A clear ITA No. 805 /2005…

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/S Sudev Industries Limited

ITA-805/2005HC Delhi31 May 2018
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 230A(1)Section 260ASection 282(2)

…C 1742 : (1964) 7 SCR 539 : 72 ITR 595] as also in CIT v. Robert J. Sas [AIR 1964 SC 1742 : (1964) 7 SCR 539 : 48 ITR 177] . The High Court in our opinion went wrong in relying upon the ratio of Banarsi Debi v. ITO [AIR 1964 SC 1742 : (1964) 7 SCR 539 : 53 ITR 100] in disposing of the case in hand. The scheme of the 1961 Act so far as notice for reassessment is concerned is quite different. What used to be contained in Section 34 of the 1922 Act has been spread out into three sections, being Sections 147, 148 and 149 in the 1961 Act. A clear 2018:DHC:3632-DB ITA No. 805 /2005…

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

…of notice within limitation was the foundation of jurisdiction. The same view has been taken by this Court in Janni v. Indu Prasad Bhat, 72 ITR 595 as also in C.I.T. v. Robert, 48 ITR 177. The High Court in our opinion went wrong in relying upon the ratio of 53 ITR 100 in disposing of the case in hand. The scheme of the 1961 Act so far as notice for reassessment is concerned is quite different. What used to be contained in section 34 of the 1922 Act has been spread out into three sections, being sections 147, 148 and 149 in the 45 1961 Act. A clear distinction has been made out between 'issue of notice' and 'ser…

Sourav Alloys and Steel Pvt. Ltd., Angul vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 233/CTK/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 Feb 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.S Saini & Shri Aby T. Varkeyassessment Year :2006-07

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Asit Kumar Mohapatra, CIT DR
Section 12Section 139Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 158

…of notice within limitation was the foundation of jurisdiction. The same view has been taken by this Court in Janni v. Indu Prasad Bhat, 72 ITR 595 as also in C.I.T. v. Robert, 48 ITR 177. The High Court in our opinion went wrong in relying upon the ratio of 53 ITR 100 in disposing of the case in hand. The scheme of the 1961 Act so far as notice for reassessment 19 is concerned is quite different. What used to be contained in section 34 of the 1922 Act has been spread out into three sections, being sections 147, 148 and 149 in the 45 1961 Act. A clear distinction has been made out between 'issue of notice' and '…

Renuka G., Bellary vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 416/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K. Garodiaassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri S. Venkatesan, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Sibichen K. Mathew, CIT-III(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 292B

…in limitation was the foundation of jurisdiction. Page 11 of 13 The same view has been taken by this Court in Janni v. Indu Prasad Bhat, 72 ITR 595 as also in C.I.T. v. Robert, 48 ITR 177. The High Court in our opinion went wrong in relying upon the ratio of 53 ITR 100 in disposing of the case in hand. The scheme of the 1961 Act so far as notice for reassessment is concerned is quite different. What used to be contained in section 34 of the 1922 Act has been spread out into three sections, being sections 147, 148 and 149 in the 45 1961 Act. A clear distinction has been made out between 'issue of notice' and 'ser…

Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-I vs. Chetan Gupta

The appeal is dismissed but, in the facts and circumstances of the

ITA/72/2014HC Delhi15 Sept 2015
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…the notice issued is shown to be invalid then the proceedings taken by the Income- tax Officer without a notice or in pursuance of an invalid notice would be illegal and void.” 26. This was also the basis for the decision in Banarasi Debi v. ITR (1964) 53 ITR 100. However, under the 1961 Act the procedural requirement has been spread over three sections, being Sections 147, 148 and 149. The period of limitation within which notice under Section 148 has to be issued is specified in Section 149. Section 153 (2) of the Act stipulates that no order of re-assessment can be passed beyond the period of one y…

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Mohan Clothing Co. Pvt. Ltd

ITA/317/2012HC Delhi29 Aug 2012

Bench: The Tribunal’S Decision Is That The Assessee Was Assessed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereafter “The Act”) For Ay 2002-03 On 31.12.2004. On 27.3.2009, Addl. Cit Range-14, Mumbai Received Information That The Assessee Had Used Accommodation Entries During The Financial Year 2001-02 In Respect Of 2012:Dhc:5305-Db

Section 143(3)Section 148

…ITA 317/2012 Page 1 $~13 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % DECIDED ON: 29.08.2012 + ITA 317/2012 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II ..... Appellant Through: Mr. N.P. Sahni, Sr. Standing Counsel. versus MOHAN CLOTHING CO. PVT. LTD. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. S. Krishnan, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) 1. The revenue is in appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short “the Tribu…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Three Dee Exim Pvt Ltd

ITA - 1604 / 2010HC Delhi25 Mar 2011
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 147Section 148

…ITA No.1604/2010 & 1778/2010 Page 1 of 20 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + I.T.A. No.1604/2010 & ITA No. 1778/2010 1. I.T.A. No.1604/2010 % Date of Decision: 25.03.2011 Reserved on : 04.03.2011 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – VI ... APPELLANT Through: Ms.Prem Lata Bansal, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Deepak Anand, Advocate Versus THREE DEE EXIM PVT. LTD. ...RESPONDENT Through: Dr.Rakesh Gupta with Dr.Raj K. Agarwal, Ms.Poonam Ahuja, Ms.Rani Kiyala and Mr.Johnson Bara, Advocates.…