CCE v. ITC Ltd.

2 SCC 38Supreme Court of India1995#11238 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,001 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 1961 Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 148 Section 68 Section 133A Section 139 Section 144

Issues it is cited on

section 133a income-tax officer section 133(6)undisclosed income reassessment proceedings assistant commissioner section 139 section 69a section 144 section 142(1)section 69 section 148

Judgments citing CCE v. ITC Ltd.

Neeraj Kumar Sethi, Delhi vs. ITO, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)

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

ITA 9/ASR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kalia, C.A

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

…by the Board ) , and cannot be termed as reasonable opportunity and clearly violates natural justice . 17. On this issue he relied upon the following decisions for support: “(1) Umanath Pandey v. State of UP (2009) 12 SCC 40-43 (ii) CCE v. ITC Ltd (1995) 2 SCC 38(SC) (iii) CIT v. Panna Devi Saraogi (1970) 78 ITR 728 (Cal) (iv) Smt. Ritu Devi v. CIT (2004) 141 Taxman 559 (Mad) (v) M. Mohd. Ishaq v. CIT (1995) 27 ITR 510, 513 (Punj) (vi) Ponkunnam Traders v. Addl. ITO (1972) 83 ITR 508 (Ker) (vii) Addl. ITO Ponkunnam Traders (1976) 102 ITR 366 (Ker) (viii) State of Kerala v. Shaduli Grocery Dealer (K.T.)…

Kailash Chand Maheshwari, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

ITA 1463/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR

Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 144Section 153ASection 57Section 68Section 69C

…in law. (3)Commissioner of Income tax Vs, Shamlal (1981) 127 ITR 0816 (Hon’ble P&H High Court) The Hon’ble High Court affirmed the action of the ITAT in annulling the assessment made in violation of principles of natural justice. (4) CCE Vs. ITC Ltd (1995) 2 SCC 38 (SS) Kailash Chand Maheshwari vs. DCIT The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that an assessee should be asked to show-cause as to why he should not be visited with higher tax before sucy levy. He must be given an opportunity of meeting those grounds. This is a requirement of the principles of natural justice. (5)AK Kraipuk Vs. Union of India (1969) 2 SCC…

Schneider Electric India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1076/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year : 2007-08] Schneider Electric India Vs Acit Pvt.Ltd., 9Th Floor, Tower C Circle-22(2) Building No.10, Dlf Cyber Room No. 226 City, Phase-Ii, Gurgaon C.R. Building Hartyana-122002 New Delhi-110002 Pan-Aabcs1642G Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Rohit Tiwari, Adv. & Tanya, Adv. Respondent By Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 17.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09.04.2025

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C(2)Section 92D

…the AO/TPO is bound to give opportunity of being heard to the assessee.  Indian & Eastern Newspaper Society vs. CIT (1979) (119 ITR 996)  Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India, (1981 1 SCC 664)  Collector of Central Excise v. ITC Ltd. (1995-SC) 2 SCC 38  C.B Gautham vs Union of India and Others (199 ITR 530) (SC) 14. In this backdrop, the broad contentions of the assessee are extracted hereunder:- “that following filters were applied by DRP in the first round of assessment, which were not applied by the TPO:- * Rejection of companies with less than 25% of operating revenue from software developme…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Faridabad, Income Tax Department vs. Ludhiana Sangrur Infra Road Private Limited, Hisar

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

ITA 3179/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurugram and the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, vide order dated 16/08/2023 decided the appeal and accepted the contention of the Assessee. Reference is drawn to para 4.4 at pg.98 of his order.

Section 132Section 133ASection 148Section 40A(3)

…CIT [2010] 192 Taxman 317(Delhi), it was held that a cryptic order sheet noting would not amount to a proper show cause notice to a party to defend his case. It would amount to failure to adhere to the principles of natural justice. In CCE v. ITC Ltd. (1995) 2 SCC 38 (SC), it has been held that an assessee should be asked to show cause as to why he DCIT vs. Ludhiana Sangrur Infra Road Private Ltd. should not be visited with higher tax before such levy. He must be given an opportunity of meeting those grounds. This is a requirement of the principles of natural justice. 21. Source of Funds - Rs. 2,64,00,000/- The…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Jaipur vs. Mukesh Kumar Soni, Jaipur

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

ITA 656/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

For Appellant: Sh. S. B. Natani (FCA)For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar (CIT)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148A

…of natural justice is so fundamental that failure to observe the principle of natural justice cannot be made good in appeal. Lack of opportunity before the A O cannot be rectified by the appellate authority by giving such opportunity. 3. CCE Vs ITC Ltd (1995) 2 SCC 38 (SC) Before an assessee is made liable for higher or enhanced tax he must to told on what ground he is sought to be made liable for additional tax and must be given an opportunity of meeting those grounds. This is the minimum requirement of the principles of natural justice. 4. C.B. Gautam v. Union of India and others (1993) 1 SCC78 (SC) Hon’ble Sup…

Kailash Chand Yadav, 100, Kalu Baba Ki Dhani, Sheoshinghpur, Akoda, Phulera-303338 vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 82/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar(Adv.)&For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Addl.CIT)

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 69A

…material to facilitate assessments even by private enquiry. But if he desired to use the materials so collected, the assessee must be informed of the materials collected and must be given an adequate opportunity of explaining it. (vii) CCE vs. ITC Ltd (1995) 2 SCC 38 (SC) 25 Kailash Chand Yadav vs. ITO Before an assessee is made liable for higher or enhanced tax he must be told on what ground he is sought to be made liable for additional tax and it must be given an opportunity of meeting those grounds. This is s the minimum requirement of the principles of natural justice. (viii) Swadeshi Cotton Miss Ltd. Vs.…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. M.N. Securities Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 3833/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 3832/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Ita No. 3833/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S M. N. Securities Pvt. Ltd., 8Th Floor, Statesman House, Tax, Central Circle-19, New Delhi Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcm0102D Assessee By : Sh. Shashi Tulsiyan, Adv. Revenue By : Smt. Shefali Swroop, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.02.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: These Two Appeals By The Department Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Each Dated 25.04.2014 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xii, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Shashi Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Shefali Swroop, CIT DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

…CIT Vs Gunvardhan Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 40 CCH 0164 (Del.) " All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. Vs DCIT, CC-44, Mumbai 137 ITD 287 (Mumbai S.B.) " CIT Vs Virgin Securities & Credits (P) Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 0396 (Del.) " Collector of Central Excise Vs ITC Ltd. 2 SCC 38 (SC) " CIT Vs Text Hundred India Pvt. Ltd. 351 ITR 57 (Del.) " Sarupchand Hukamchand 13 ITR 245 (Bom.) " CIT Vs Oasis Hospitalities P. Ltd. (2011) 333 ITR 119 (Del.) " Orient Trading Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (1963) 49 ITR 723 (Bom.) " CIT Vs Divine Leasing and Finance Ltd. (2008) 299 ITR 0268 (Del.) " CIT Vs Mamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. & Ors. (2014) 361 ITR…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. M.N. Securities Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 3832/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2018AY 2005-06

For Appellant: Sh. Shashi Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Shefali Swroop, CIT DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-6, New Delhi vs. Dhara Vegetable Oil & Foods Co. Ltd.(Now Merged With Mother Dairy Fruit & Vegetable Ltd.)

ITA/71/2018HC Delhi23 Jan 2018

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

Section 34

…the act of reappreciating the evidence as the first appellate court from a trial court decree. An arbitrator is a chosen Judge by the parties and it is on limited parameters can the award be interfered with. (Sudarsan Trading Co. v. State of Kerala,(1989) 2 SCC 38: (1989) 1 SCR 665; Harish Chandra & Co. v. State of U.P., (2016) 9 SCC 478: (2016)4 SCC (Civ) 526:AIR 2016 SC 4257 and Swan Gold Mining Ltd. v. Hindustan Copper Ltd. (2015) 5 SCC 739: (2015) 3 SCC (Civ) 27: (2014) 4 Arb LR 1)” 26. In view of the above, I find no merit in the present petition and the same is accordingly dismissed with no ord…