CIT v. Batra Bhatta & Co.

319 ITR 221High Court2009#5114 most cited

What is CIT v. Batra Bhatta & Co. authority for?

Reasons recorded for reassessment must be based on material that has a live nexus with the belief of escapement of income.

23

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Batra Bhatta & Co. · section 147 · section 148 · reasons recorded · validity of reopening · fresh tangible material · live nexus · escapement of income

Sections most often in play

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 153CSection 65B

Issues it is cited on

section 55(2)section 139(9)section 49fresh tangible materialsection 55going concernvaluation of sharesfull value of considerationtransfer of capital assetindexed cost of acquisitiondate of transfersection 48

Judgments citing CIT v. Batra Bhatta & Co.

BRIJ GOPAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 4800/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 1Section 143Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(2)(a)

…7 Taxman 378 (SC) v. S. Goyanka Lime & Chemical Ltd HIGH COURT i) ITA No. 335/2015 (Del) Pr. CIT vs M/s N.C. Cables Ltd. ii) 333 ITR 237 (Del) Central India Electric Supply Co. Ltd. vs ITO 27 iii) 258 ITR 317 (Del) United Electrical Co. P. Ltd. vs. CIT iv) 319 ITR 221 (Del) Shipra Srivastava vs. ACIT v) 338 ITR 51 (Del) Signature Hotels (P) Ltd. vs. ITO vi) 231 Taxman 73 (MP) CIT v. S. Goyanka Lime & Chemical Ltd. affirmed by the Apex Court in the case of CIT. reported in 237 Taxman 378 vii) 218 ITR 730 (MP) CIT v. Man Mohan Das viii) 400 ITR 397 (Chattisgarh) Maruti Clean Coal & Power Ltd. vs. ACIT ix) 267 IT…

SRI PREM PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-24(1), NEW DELHI, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 957/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Sri Prem Properties Private Limited, Vs. Acit, Circle 24 (1), A – 99, Bajghera Chowk, Delhi. New Palam Vihar, Gurgaon – 122 017 (Haryana). (Pan :Aaacs2554E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate Shri Skasham Agarwal, Ca Shri Deepesh Garg, Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Kirti Sankratyayan, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.09.2025 Date Of Order : 24.10.2025 Order Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-23, New Delhi [For Short ‘Ld. Cit (A)]Dated 04.01.2024 For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Its Original Return Of Income On 30.09.2012 Declaring An Income Of Rs.2,15,340/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny For The Year Under Consideration.

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Kirti Sankratyayan, CIT DR
Section 132Section 147Section 148

…submitted that validity of reopening is to be judged with reference to Reason recorded alone and this regard, he relied on the following decisions :- (i) Northern Exim (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT, (2013) 357 ITR 586(Del.) (ii) Shipra Srivastava &Anr. vs. ACIT, (2009) 319 ITR 221 (Del.) 7 Balkrishna Hiralal Wani vs. ITO, (2010) 321 ITR 519 (Bom.) Further he submitted that there is no material having any nexus much less live nexus based on which belief of escapement of income has been made. He further relied on the pages 102-108 of the paper book which is the written submissions made before ld. CIT(A). He submitted that…

STANDARD TELE TOWERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-24(2), NEW DELHI

ITA 9761/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh.Anubhav Sharma

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…judicial decisions for the propositioin that such reasons based on incorrect fact cannot lead to valid reason and to the belief that income has escaped assessment: • Dr. Ajit Gupta vs. ACIT, (2016) 383 ITR 361 (Del). • Shipra Srivastava & Anr vs. ACIT, (2009) 319 ITR 221 (Del). • Mumtaz Haji Mohmad Memon vs. ITO, (2018) 408 ITR 268, (Guj). • Vijay Harishchandra Patel vs. ITO, (2018) 400 ITR 167(Guj). • Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare India Ltd. vs. ACIT, (2014) 360 ITR 427(Guj). • Balkrishna Hiralal Wani vs. ITO (2010) 321 ITR 519 (Bom). • Prashant Joshi vs. ITO, (2010) 324 ITR 154 (Bom). 6.2 Furthermore, reliance…

ACIT, JAMMU vs. SH VIKRAMADITYA SINGH, JAMMU

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 269/ASR/2007[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl
Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

…me was an invalid order of assessment and, therefore vitiated in law. 41.2 Referring to the following decisions, he submitted that surfacing of fresh material is necessary even in a case, wherein the assessment was originally made u/s 143(1) of the Act: i) 319 ITR 221 (Del) Shipra Srivastava vs. ACIT ii) 292 ITR 49 (Del) KLM Royal Dutch Airlines vs. CIT A at page 63, placitum 19 iii) 289 ITR37 (Mad) Bapalal and Company Exports vs. JCIT. At page 45 Placitum 12 iv) 321 ITR526 (Del) CIT vs. Batra Bhatta Company. SLP dismissed in the case of CIT v Batra Bhatta Co. v) 220 CTR 369 (Raj) CIT vs. Bigbass Maheshwari Se…

ACIT, CIR-II, JAMMU vs. SMT. YASHORAJYA LAXMI, JAMMU

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 268/ASR/2007[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl
Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

…me was an invalid order of assessment and, therefore vitiated in law. 41.2 Referring to the following decisions, he submitted that surfacing of fresh material is necessary even in a case, wherein the assessment was originally made u/s 143(1) of the Act: i) 319 ITR 221 (Del) Shipra Srivastava vs. ACIT ii) 292 ITR 49 (Del) KLM Royal Dutch Airlines vs. CIT A at page 63, placitum 19 iii) 289 ITR37 (Mad) Bapalal and Company Exports vs. JCIT. At page 45 Placitum 12 iv) 321 ITR526 (Del) CIT vs. Batra Bhatta Company. SLP dismissed in the case of CIT v Batra Bhatta Co. v) 220 CTR 369 (Raj) CIT vs. Bigbass Maheshwari Se…

ACIT, JAMMU vs. DR KARAN SINGH, JAMMU

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 267/ASR/2007[1998-99\u005cu005cu005cu005cu005cu005cu005cu005c]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl
Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

…me was an invalid order of assessment and, therefore vitiated in law. 41.2 Referring to the following decisions, he submitted that surfacing of fresh material is necessary even in a case, wherein the assessment was originally made u/s 143(1) of the Act: i) 319 ITR 221 (Del) Shipra Srivastava vs. ACIT ii) 292 ITR 49 (Del) KLM Royal Dutch Airlines vs. CIT A at page 63, placitum 19 iii) 289 ITR37 (Mad) Bapalal and Company Exports vs. JCIT. At page 45 Placitum 12 iv) 321 ITR526 (Del) CIT vs. Batra Bhatta Company. SLP dismissed in the case of CIT v Batra Bhatta Co. v) 220 CTR 369 (Raj) CIT vs. Bigbass Maheshwari Se…

ACIT, JAMMU vs. SH M.K. AJAT SHATRU, JAMMU

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 263/ASR/2003[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl
Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

…me was an invalid order of assessment and, therefore vitiated in law. 41.2 Referring to the following decisions, he submitted that surfacing of fresh material is necessary even in a case, wherein the assessment was originally made u/s 143(1) of the Act: i) 319 ITR 221 (Del) Shipra Srivastava vs. ACIT ii) 292 ITR 49 (Del) KLM Royal Dutch Airlines vs. CIT A at page 63, placitum 19 iii) 289 ITR37 (Mad) Bapalal and Company Exports vs. JCIT. At page 45 Placitum 12 iv) 321 ITR526 (Del) CIT vs. Batra Bhatta Company. SLP dismissed in the case of CIT v Batra Bhatta Co. v) 220 CTR 369 (Raj) CIT vs. Bigbass Maheshwari Se…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. DR. PRANNOY ROY, NEW DELHI

ITA 2707/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Girish Dave, Adv
Section 147Section 148

…ulfils the criteria as laid down by the honourable Delhi High Court in the above judicial precedent relied upon by the learned authorised representative. The learned authorised representative also relied upon the decision of the honourable Delhi High Court in 319 ITR 221 in Shipra Srivastava V ACIT. In that particular decision the honourable Delhi High Court held that the reasons did not refer to any material which has come to the notice of the assessing officer subsequent to the finalization of the assessment u/s 143 (1). In the present case there is a definite information coming from the investigation wing whic…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. MRS. RADHIKA ROY, NEW DELHI

ITA 2706/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Girish Dave, Adv
Section 147Section 148

…ulfils the criteria as laid down by the honourable Delhi High Court in the above judicial precedent relied upon by the learned authorised representative. The learned authorised representative also relied upon the decision of the honourable Delhi High Court in 319 ITR 221 in Shipra Srivastava V ACIT. In that particular decision the honourable Delhi High Court held that the reasons did not refer to any material which has come to the notice of the assessing officer subsequent to the finalization of the assessment u/s 143 (1). In the present case there is a definite information coming from the investigation wing whic…

DR. PRANNOY ROY,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 2022/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Girish Dave, Adv
Section 147Section 148

…ulfils the criteria as laid down by the honourable Delhi High Court in the above judicial precedent relied upon by the learned authorised representative. The learned authorised representative also relied upon the decision of the honourable Delhi High Court in 319 ITR 221 in Shipra Srivastava V ACIT. In that particular decision the honourable Delhi High Court held that the reasons did not refer to any material which has come to the notice of the assessing officer subsequent to the finalization of the assessment u/s 143 (1). In the present case there is a definite information coming from the investigation wing whic…

DR. PRANNOY ROY,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 2021/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Girish Dave, Adv
Section 147Section 148

…ulfils the criteria as laid down by the honourable Delhi High Court in the above judicial precedent relied upon by the learned authorised representative. The learned authorised representative also relied upon the decision of the honourable Delhi High Court in 319 ITR 221 in Shipra Srivastava V ACIT. In that particular decision the honourable Delhi High Court held that the reasons did not refer to any material which has come to the notice of the assessing officer subsequent to the finalization of the assessment u/s 143 (1). In the present case there is a definite information coming from the investigation wing whic…

SMT. RADHIKA ROY,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 2020/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Girish Dave, Adv
Section 147Section 148

…ulfils the criteria as laid down by the honourable Delhi High Court in the above judicial precedent relied upon by the learned authorised representative. The learned authorised representative also relied upon the decision of the honourable Delhi High Court in 319 ITR 221 in Shipra Srivastava V ACIT. In that particular decision the honourable Delhi High Court held that the reasons did not refer to any material which has come to the notice of the assessing officer subsequent to the finalization of the assessment u/s 143 (1). In the present case there is a definite information coming from the investigation wing whic…

SMT. RADHIKA ROY,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 2019/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Girish Dave, Adv
Section 147Section 148

…ulfils the criteria as laid down by the honourable Delhi High Court in the above judicial precedent relied upon by the learned authorised representative. The learned authorised representative also relied upon the decision of the honourable Delhi High Court in 319 ITR 221 in Shipra Srivastava V ACIT. In that particular decision the honourable Delhi High Court held that the reasons did not refer to any material which has come to the notice of the assessing officer subsequent to the finalization of the assessment u/s 143 (1). In the present case there is a definite information coming from the investigation wing whic…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DSL SOFTWARE LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3723/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 80HSection 90

…oetze Ltd: 321 ITR 431 (Del) • Carlton Overseas (P) Ltd vs ITO: 318 ITR 295 (Del) • Jindal Photofilms Ltd vs DCIT: 234 ITR 170 (Del) • Northern Strips Ltd vs ITO: WP 8265 of 2008 (Del) • CIT vs Batra Bhatta & Co: 321 ITR 526 (Del) • Shipra Srivastava vs ACIT: 319 ITR 221 (Del) • CIT vs Mittal Casting Ltd: 124 Taxman 11 (Del) • ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co Ltd vs ACIT and UOI: 325 ITR 471 (Bom) • Rose Services Apartments (P) Ltd vs DCIT: 348 ITR 452 (Del) • Maruti Suzuki India Ltd vs DCIT: Writ petition No. 8562/2007 (Del) • Parveen P Bharucha vs DCIT and UOI: 348 ITR 325 (Bom) • Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd vs…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DSL SOFTWARE LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3722/DEL/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2019AY 2002-03

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 80HSection 90

…oetze Ltd: 321 ITR 431 (Del) • Carlton Overseas (P) Ltd vs ITO: 318 ITR 295 (Del) • Jindal Photofilms Ltd vs DCIT: 234 ITR 170 (Del) • Northern Strips Ltd vs ITO: WP 8265 of 2008 (Del) • CIT vs Batra Bhatta & Co: 321 ITR 526 (Del) • Shipra Srivastava vs ACIT: 319 ITR 221 (Del) • CIT vs Mittal Casting Ltd: 124 Taxman 11 (Del) • ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co Ltd vs ACIT and UOI: 325 ITR 471 (Bom) • Rose Services Apartments (P) Ltd vs DCIT: 348 ITR 452 (Del) • Maruti Suzuki India Ltd vs DCIT: Writ petition No. 8562/2007 (Del) • Parveen P Bharucha vs DCIT and UOI: 348 ITR 325 (Bom) • Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd vs…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DSL SOFTWARE LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2310/DEL/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 80HSection 90

…oetze Ltd: 321 ITR 431 (Del) • Carlton Overseas (P) Ltd vs ITO: 318 ITR 295 (Del) • Jindal Photofilms Ltd vs DCIT: 234 ITR 170 (Del) • Northern Strips Ltd vs ITO: WP 8265 of 2008 (Del) • CIT vs Batra Bhatta & Co: 321 ITR 526 (Del) • Shipra Srivastava vs ACIT: 319 ITR 221 (Del) • CIT vs Mittal Casting Ltd: 124 Taxman 11 (Del) • ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co Ltd vs ACIT and UOI: 325 ITR 471 (Bom) • Rose Services Apartments (P) Ltd vs DCIT: 348 ITR 452 (Del) • Maruti Suzuki India Ltd vs DCIT: Writ petition No. 8562/2007 (Del) • Parveen P Bharucha vs DCIT and UOI: 348 ITR 325 (Bom) • Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd vs…

AMBEY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,BATHINDA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 121/ASR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 121/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ambey Construction Company, Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of #21605, Street No. 7, Power House Income Tax, Circle-1, Road, Bathinda Bathinda (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aanfa7199K

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh GuptaFor Respondent: Sh. M. P. Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 282Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR Before Sh. N. S. Saini, Accountant Member And Sh. N. K. Choudhry, Judicial Member ITA No. 121/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ambey Construction Company, Vs Asstt. Commissioner of #21605, Street No. 7, Power House Income Tax, Circle-1, Road, Bathinda Bathinda (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AANFA7199K Assessee by : Dr. Rakesh Gupta Revenue by : Sh. M. P. Singh, CIT DR Date of Hearing :19.02.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 21.02.2019 ORDER Per N. S. Saini, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A), Bathinda dated…

RADIANCE STOCK TRADERS PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 20(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 4542/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. & Sh. LalitFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 234BSection 68

…Kapoor vs. CIT dated 31.8.2012 26. 357 ITR 24 (Del) CIT vs. Suren International (P) Ltd. dated 7.5.2013 27. 357 ITR 330 (Del) CIT vs. Insecticides (India) Ltd. dated 20.5.2013 28. 303 ITR 155 (Del.) CIT vs. Indian Sugar and Gen. Ind. Ex dated 30.07.2007 29. 319 ITR 221 (Del) Shipra Srivastava v CIT 30. 35 taxmann.com 215 (Del) CIT vs. Supreme Polypropolene (P.) Ltd. dated 26.04.2013 (introduction of share capital) 31. 393 ITR 157 (Del) Amsa India (P) Ltd. v. CIT 32. 375 ITR 460 (Del) Krown Agro Foods (P) Ltd. v. ACIT. 33. 378 ITR 421 (Del) Oriental Insurance Co. v. CIT 34. 382 ITR 443 (Del) Rustagi Engineerin…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. R.L. TRAVELS PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA.No.893/Del

ITA 5214/DEL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar &For Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr.D.R
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 69C

…see- company. He has submitted that there is no material available on record to justify reopening of the assessment in the case of the assessee-company. He has relied upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Shipra Srivastava vs. ACIT 319 ITR 221, CIT vs. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd., 325 ITR 285 and PCIT vs. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd., 395 ITR 677. 13 ITA.No.893/Del./2015 & ITA.No.5214/Del./2016 M/s. R.L. Travels Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. 6. On the other hand, Ld. D.R. relied upon the Orders of the authorities below and submitted that sufficient material is available on record to justify reopen…

RL TRAVELS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA.No.893/Del

ITA 893/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar &For Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr.D.R
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 69C

…see- company. He has submitted that there is no material available on record to justify reopening of the assessment in the case of the assessee-company. He has relied upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Shipra Srivastava vs. ACIT 319 ITR 221, CIT vs. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd., 325 ITR 285 and PCIT vs. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd., 395 ITR 677. 13 ITA.No.893/Del./2015 & ITA.No.5214/Del./2016 M/s. R.L. Travels Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. 6. On the other hand, Ld. D.R. relied upon the Orders of the authorities below and submitted that sufficient material is available on record to justify reopen…

Showing 1–20 of 23 · Page 1 of 2