CIT v. Ansal Properties & Ind. Pvt. Ltd.

315 ITR 225High Court2009#9692 most cited
11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2024.

Issues it is cited on

section 45(5)(b)section 23(2)section 145a(b)section 45(5)section 57(iv)section 56(2)(viii)section 10(37)enhanced compensationinadequate enquirysection 145acompulsory acquisitionrevision u/s 263

Judgments citing CIT v. Ansal Properties & Ind. Pvt. Ltd.

VIATON ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-17(4), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1280/HYD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah &For Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, DR
Section 143(3)

…ought to tax under the head income from other sources. Assessee placed reliance on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Adani Power Ltd., 61 taxmann.com 355, Prayagraj Power Generation Company Ltd., 158 ITR 909, Indian Oil Panipat Power Consortium Ltd. 315 ITR 225 and also on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bokaro Steel Ltd., 236 ITR 315. Page 2 of 14 5. In respect of the disallowance of the interest and financial charges, the argument of the assessee was that the assessee borrowed the money and earned the interest from the fund not immediately required and, therefore, the interest ca…

SUBHASH CHAND DHINGRA ,GURGAON vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), GURGAON

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 1063/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmasubhash Chand Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Central Circle-3(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aarpd8652J Satish Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-4(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aanpd1971A Ashok Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Abupd6730B Giriraj Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Achpd9434E

For Appellant: Smt. Kavita Jha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 10(37)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 263Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

…. Reliance in this regard was placed on the following judgments:-  CIT v Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex: 395 ITR 1 (SC)  CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd: 332 ITR 231 (Del)  CIT v. DLF Limited: 350 ITR 555 (Del.)  CIT v. Ansal Properties & India (P.) Ltd.: 315 ITR 225 (Del.) 24. Relying the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT v. Cartier Leaflin Pvt Ltd: [2020] 286 Taxman 222 it was submitted that when records suggest that assessing officer has made due enquiry during assessment proceedings before allowing claim of the assessee and arrived at one of possible views, then proceedings under section 263 o…

ASHOK KUMAR DHINGRA ,GURGAON vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), GURGAON

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 1061/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmasubhash Chand Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Central Circle-3(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aarpd8652J Satish Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-4(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aanpd1971A Ashok Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Abupd6730B Giriraj Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Achpd9434E

For Appellant: Smt. Kavita Jha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 10(37)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 263Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

…. Reliance in this regard was placed on the following judgments:-  CIT v Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex: 395 ITR 1 (SC)  CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd: 332 ITR 231 (Del)  CIT v. DLF Limited: 350 ITR 555 (Del.)  CIT v. Ansal Properties & India (P.) Ltd.: 315 ITR 225 (Del.) 24. Relying the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT v. Cartier Leaflin Pvt Ltd: [2020] 286 Taxman 222 it was submitted that when records suggest that assessing officer has made due enquiry during assessment proceedings before allowing claim of the assessee and arrived at one of possible views, then proceedings under section 263 o…

SATISH KUMAR DHINGRA ,HARYANA vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4(1), GURGAON

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 1060/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmasubhash Chand Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Central Circle-3(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aarpd8652J Satish Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-4(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aanpd1971A Ashok Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Abupd6730B Giriraj Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Achpd9434E

For Appellant: Smt. Kavita Jha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 10(37)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 263Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

…. Reliance in this regard was placed on the following judgments:-  CIT v Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex: 395 ITR 1 (SC)  CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd: 332 ITR 231 (Del)  CIT v. DLF Limited: 350 ITR 555 (Del.)  CIT v. Ansal Properties & India (P.) Ltd.: 315 ITR 225 (Del.) 24. Relying the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT v. Cartier Leaflin Pvt Ltd: [2020] 286 Taxman 222 it was submitted that when records suggest that assessing officer has made due enquiry during assessment proceedings before allowing claim of the assessee and arrived at one of possible views, then proceedings under section 263 o…

VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, KARNAL

In the result, all the 03 Appeals i

ITA 718/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor & Ms. Ananya KapoorFor Respondent: Sh. S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)
Section 194JSection 201Section 201(3)Section 250(6)Section 263

…he interests of the Revenue, unless the view taken by the Income Tax Officer is unsustainable in law. Tthe same view has been reiterated by several Hon'ble High Courts including the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Ansal Properties & Ind. Pvt. Ltd., (2009) 315 ITR 225 (Del). In this case it has been noticed that: That at the time when the Commissioner issued the notice under section 263 and passed the order dated March 23, 2004, the question of surcharge on undisclosed income was a debatable one. When an issue was debatable, the provisions of section 263 could not be invoked. From the above discussion it is ax…

VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, KARNAL

In the result, all the 03 Appeals i

ITA 717/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor & Ms. Ananya KapoorFor Respondent: Sh. S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)
Section 194JSection 201Section 201(3)Section 250(6)Section 263

…he interests of the Revenue, unless the view taken by the Income Tax Officer is unsustainable in law. Tthe same view has been reiterated by several Hon'ble High Courts including the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Ansal Properties & Ind. Pvt. Ltd., (2009) 315 ITR 225 (Del). In this case it has been noticed that: That at the time when the Commissioner issued the notice under section 263 and passed the order dated March 23, 2004, the question of surcharge on undisclosed income was a debatable one. When an issue was debatable, the provisions of section 263 could not be invoked. From the above discussion it is ax…

VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, KARNAL

In the result, all the 03 Appeals i

ITA 716/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor & Ms. Ananya KapoorFor Respondent: Sh. S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)
Section 194JSection 201Section 201(3)Section 250(6)Section 263

…he interests of the Revenue, unless the view taken by the Income Tax Officer is unsustainable in law. Tthe same view has been reiterated by several Hon'ble High Courts including the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Ansal Properties & Ind. Pvt. Ltd., (2009) 315 ITR 225 (Del). In this case it has been noticed that: That at the time when the Commissioner issued the notice under section 263 and passed the order dated March 23, 2004, the question of surcharge on undisclosed income was a debatable one. When an issue was debatable, the provisions of section 263 could not be invoked. From the above discussion it is ax…

SH. VODAFONE DIGILINK LTD.,KARNAL vs. CIT (TDS), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the 03 Appeals i

ITA 3781/DEL/2013[2009-10 (F.Y. 2008-09)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2017

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

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor & Ms. Ananya KapoorFor Respondent: Sh. S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)
Section 194JSection 201Section 201(3)Section 250(6)Section 263

…he interests of the Revenue, unless the view taken by the Income Tax Officer is unsustainable in law. Tthe same view has been reiterated by several Hon'ble High Courts including the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Ansal Properties & Ind. Pvt. Ltd., (2009) 315 ITR 225 (Del). In this case it has been noticed that: That at the time when the Commissioner issued the notice under section 263 and passed the order dated March 23, 2004, the question of surcharge on undisclosed income was a debatable one. When an issue was debatable, the provisions of section 263 could not be invoked. From the above discussion it is ax…

SH. VODAFONE DIGILINK LTD.,KARNAL vs. CIT (TDS), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the 03 Appeals i

ITA 3780/DEL/2013[2008-09 (F.Y. 2007- 08)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2017

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

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor & Ms. Ananya KapoorFor Respondent: Sh. S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)
Section 194JSection 201Section 201(3)Section 250(6)Section 263

…he interests of the Revenue, unless the view taken by the Income Tax Officer is unsustainable in law. Tthe same view has been reiterated by several Hon'ble High Courts including the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Ansal Properties & Ind. Pvt. Ltd., (2009) 315 ITR 225 (Del). In this case it has been noticed that: That at the time when the Commissioner issued the notice under section 263 and passed the order dated March 23, 2004, the question of surcharge on undisclosed income was a debatable one. When an issue was debatable, the provisions of section 263 could not be invoked. From the above discussion it is ax…

SH. VODAFONE DIGILINK LTD.,KARNAL vs. CIT (TDS), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the 03 Appeals i

ITA 3779/DEL/2013[2007-08 (F.Y. 2006-07)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2017

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

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor & Ms. Ananya KapoorFor Respondent: Sh. S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)
Section 194JSection 201Section 201(3)Section 250(6)Section 263

…he interests of the Revenue, unless the view taken by the Income Tax Officer is unsustainable in law. Tthe same view has been reiterated by several Hon'ble High Courts including the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Ansal Properties & Ind. Pvt. Ltd., (2009) 315 ITR 225 (Del). In this case it has been noticed that: That at the time when the Commissioner issued the notice under section 263 and passed the order dated March 23, 2004, the question of surcharge on undisclosed income was a debatable one. When an issue was debatable, the provisions of section 263 could not be invoked. From the above discussion it is ax…

ABHIDEEP CHEMICALS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 14, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 797/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm M/S. Abhideep Chemicals Vs. Pr Cit – 14, Mumbai – 400 Pvt. Ltd., 503, Keshava Bkc 020 Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400051 Pan/Gir No. Aaaca5336N Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 263Section 50Section 50CSection 54

…rt. It is very likely that this issue may be pending for final hearing at the High Court stage in India and therefore until the Supreme Court decides this issue, the same will remain debatable. In the case of CIT V / s. Ansal Properties & Industries Pvt. Ltd. 315 ITR 225 (Delhi) it has been held that CIT cannot revise the assessment order when the AO has not levied surcharge on the amount of income tax in case of block assessment as the issue was debatable till it was settled by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT V / s. Suresh Gupta 297 ITR 322 where the Supreme Court held that surcharge is leviable on income t…

CIT v. Ansal Properties & Ind. Pvt. Ltd. (315 ITR 225) — Cited in 11 Judgments | BharatTax