CIT v. Contimeters Electricals (P.) Ltd.

Shri Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Meerut vs. ACIT, Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kamblesanjay Kumar Vs Cit Prop. Tyagi Associates Meerut H-45, Gandhi Nagar, Garh Road, (Respondent) Meerut Aczpk2030M (Applicant) Sanjay Kumar Tyagi Vs Acit H. No. 45, Gandhi Nagar, Circle-2, Gali No. 3, Garh Road Bhansali Ground Meerut Meerut Acapk2030M (Respondent) (Applicant) Acit Sanjay Kumar Tyagi Vs Circle-2, H. No. 45, Gandhi Nagar, Bhansali Ground Gali No. 3, Garh Road Meerut Meerut (Applicant) Acapk2030M (Respondent)

…provisions of Section 263 of the Act was not justified. The reliance was placed on the following case laws:- " CIT Vs Rashid Exports Industries and Ors. 389 ITR 293 (All.) " CIT Vs. Ashish Rajpal 320 ITR 674 (Del.) " CIT Vs. Contimeters Electricals Pvt. Ltd. 317 ITR 249 (Del.) " CIT Vs. G. K. Kabra 211 ITR 336, (A.P.) " CIT, Ghaziabad Vs M/s Raj Shyama Construction (P) Ltd. in ITA No.40 of 2011 order dated 04.10.2017 (All. HC) 15. In his rival submissions, the Ld. CIT DR strongly supported the order of the Ld. CIT and reiterated the observation made in the impugned order. It was further submitted that the A.O di…

Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Meerut vs. CIT, Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kamblesanjay Kumar Vs Cit Prop. Tyagi Associates Meerut H-45, Gandhi Nagar, Garh Road, (Respondent) Meerut Aczpk2030M (Applicant) Sanjay Kumar Tyagi Vs Acit H. No. 45, Gandhi Nagar, Circle-2, Gali No. 3, Garh Road Bhansali Ground Meerut Meerut Acapk2030M (Respondent) (Applicant) Acit Sanjay Kumar Tyagi Vs Circle-2, H. No. 45, Gandhi Nagar, Bhansali Ground Gali No. 3, Garh Road Meerut Meerut (Applicant) Acapk2030M (Respondent)

…provisions of Section 263 of the Act was not justified. The reliance was placed on the following case laws:- " CIT Vs Rashid Exports Industries and Ors. 389 ITR 293 (All.) " CIT Vs. Ashish Rajpal 320 ITR 674 (Del.) " CIT Vs. Contimeters Electricals Pvt. Ltd. 317 ITR 249 (Del.) " CIT Vs. G. K. Kabra 211 ITR 336, (A.P.) " CIT, Ghaziabad Vs M/s Raj Shyama Construction (P) Ltd. in ITA No.40 of 2011 order dated 04.10.2017 (All. HC) 15. In his rival submissions, the Ld. CIT DR strongly supported the order of the Ld. CIT and reiterated the observation made in the impugned order. It was further submitted that the A.O di…

M/S. Dayanand Contractor, Rohtak vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

In the result, original

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “B” : DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.2806 & 2807/Del./2016 Assessment Years 2009-2010 & 2010-2011 M/s. Dayanand Contractor The Pr. CIT V & PO Kharainti, Aayakar Bhavan, Delhi Road, Dist. Rohtak. vs. Rohtak – 124 001 PAN AADFD4239K Haryana. (Appellant) (Respondent) S/Shri Gautam Jain, Piyush For Assessee : Kumar Kamal & Lalit Mohan, Advocates For Revenue : Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT-D.R. Date of Hearing : 22.11.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 30.11.2017 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. Both the appeals b…

M/S. Dayanand Contractor, Rohtak vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

In the result, original

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “B” : DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.2806 & 2807/Del./2016 Assessment Years 2009-2010 & 2010-2011 M/s. Dayanand Contractor The Pr. CIT V & PO Kharainti, Aayakar Bhavan, Delhi Road, Dist. Rohtak. vs. Rohtak – 124 001 PAN AADFD4239K Haryana. (Appellant) (Respondent) S/Shri Gautam Jain, Piyush For Assessee : Kumar Kamal & Lalit Mohan, Advocates For Revenue : Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT-D.R. Date of Hearing : 22.11.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 30.11.2017 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. Both the appeals b…

Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT, New Delhi

In the result, impugned order dated 31

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Anadi N Mishra

…vs. ACIT 27 SOT 73 17. DIT vs. Jyoti Foundation ; 357 ITR 388 18. CIT vs. Leisure Wear Exports Ltd. 341 ITR 166 19. CIT vs. Hindustan Marketing and Advertising Ltd. 341 ITR 180 20. CIT vs. Ashish Rajpal 320 ITR 674 21. CIT vs. Contimeters Electricals (P) Ltd. 317 ITR 249 (D) Ld. CIT (DR) appearing for Revenue strongly supported the impugned order u/s 263 of the Act and relied on it heavily. He also drew our attention to order of apex court in the case of CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan 384 ITR 200 (SC) to support the impugned order u/s 263 of I.T. Act. (E) We have heard both sides and we have also perused the materia…

Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT Ltu, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishimahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd, Dcit Ltu, 9, Cgo Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi Vs. New Delhi Pan:Aaacm.828R (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit Ltu, Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd, New Delhi 9, Cgo Complex, Lodhi Road, Vs. New Delhi Pan:Aaacm.828R (Appellant) (Respondent)

…en furnished during the assessment proceedings and therefore on this ground the deduction cannot be rejected. He referred several decisions and amongst them prominently decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT Vs Centimeters Electrical Pvt Ltd. 317 ITR 249. 9. Ld DR vehemently relied on the orders of the lower authorities and submitted that there are no undertaking which are separate to existing composite undertaking which is in operation since 1986 and therefore, each exchange set up after specified date is not an eligible undertaking independent of its own existence income of which can be allowed…

Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, we direct the AO to reduce the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act by the amount of reversal of the provision of Rs

Bench: Sh. I. C.Sudhir Judicialmember & Sh. Prashant Maharishia.Y.: - 2008-09 Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs Acit 12Th Floor, Devika Tower, Range -15 6, Nehru Place New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aaacr0127N (Appellant) (Respondent)

…the return of income is directory, he relied on following decisions i. CIT vs. Nagpur Hotel Owner‘s Association: 247 ITR 201 (SC) ITA 196 Del 2013 Ranbaxy Laboratories limited V ACIT A.Y. 2008-09 Page 82 of 134 ii. CIT v. Centimeters Electricals (P.) Ltd.: 317 ITR 249 (Del) iii. CIT v. Axis Computers India P. Ltd.: 178 Taxman 143 (Del) iv. CIT vs. Web Commerce (India) (P.) Ltd.: 178 Taxman 310 (Del) – SLP of revenue dismissed in SLP No. SLP (C) No. 20057 of 2009 v. CIT v. Panama Chemical Works: 245 ITR 684 (MP) vi. CIT V. Berger Paints (India) Limited: 254 ITR 503 (Cal.) vii. CIT V. Punjab Financial Corporatio…

Sh. Harpreet Singh Puniani, Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishi Assessment Year: 2010-11 Harpreet Singh Puniani, Vs. Principal Cit, Prop. M/S. Broadband Technologies, Xvi, 84-B, Old Lajpat Rai Market, New Delhi. Delhi. (Pan: Aaipp2364E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Manoj Kumar Mittal, Adv. Department By: Shri A.K. Saroha, Cit( Dr) Date Of Hearing : 20.01.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 03 :03.2016 Order Per I.C. Sudhir:The Assessee Has Impugned The Revisional Order Passed Under Sec. 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 On Several Grounds Involving The Sole Issue Regarding The Validity Of The Order Passed Under Sec. 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Assessee Has Also Moved Application For Condonation Of Delay In Filing The Present Appeal Late By 15 Days. It Has Been Explained That The Assessee Had Engaged Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Learned Ca To Represent Its Case Before The Learned Cit Against The Show-Cause Notice Issued Under Sec. 263

…Learned CIT. He placed reliance on the following decisions: i) Electric Supply Co. Ltd., vs. CIT - 89 ITR 266; ii) CIT vs. Birla Gwalior Pvt. Ltd. - 57 ITR 521; iii) CIT vs. Excel Ind. Ltd. (SC) - 358 ITR 295; 7 iv ) CIT vs. Contimeters Electricals P. Ltd. - 317 ITR 249 (Del.); v ) CIT vs. Ashish Rajpal (2010) - 320 ITR 674 (Del.); & vi) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. - 332 ITR 167 (Del.) 8. Learned CIT(DR) on the other hand tried to justify the revisional order in question. He submitted that the Assessing Officer had not made any inquiry on the issues raised in the revisional order, hence, the assessment order was e…

Commissioner of Income Tax-VI vs. M/S Unitech Ltd

The appeal is dismissed in the above terms

Bench: The Due Date Specified Under Section 139(1)’, Which In This Case Meant On Or Before 31St October, 2008.

…ITA No. 239/2015 Page 1 of 5 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 10. + ITA 239/2015 & CM No. 6678/2015 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI ..... Appellant Through Mr Rohit Madan, Advocate. versus M/S UNITECH LTD. ..... Respondent Through Mr Salil Aggarwal and Mr Ravi Pratap Mall, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU O R D E R % 05.10.2015 CM No. 6678/2015…

M/S New Delhi Television Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

…e notices dated 21stJuly, 2011 and 10th August, 2011 issued by the Ld. CIT in the instant case do not put the assessee to show cause on this issue. In this regard we note that Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Contimeter Electrical Pvt. Ltd. reported in 317 ITR 249(Del) has held as under: “10. The Tribunal considered the rival contentions and referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Commissioner of Customs v. Toyo Engg. India Ltd. [2006] 7 SCC 592 wherein the Supreme Court noted that the department cannot travel beyond the show-cause notice. The Tribunal was of the view that the ground that t…

New Delhi Television Ltd., New Delhi vs. CIT, New Delhi

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

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

…e notices dated 21stJuly, 2011 and 10th August, 2011 issued by the Ld. CIT in the instant case do not put the assessee to show cause on this issue. In this regard we note that Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Contimeter Electrical Pvt. Ltd. reported in 317 ITR 249(Del) has held as under: “10. The Tribunal considered the rival contentions and referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Commissioner of Customs v. Toyo Engg. India Ltd. [2006] 7 SCC 592 wherein the Supreme Court noted that the department cannot travel beyond the show-cause notice. The Tribunal was of the view that the ground that t…

CIT vs. Gs Pharmbutor Pvt Ltd

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: The Tribunal Was Whether The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Apipeals) & The Assessing Officer Were Justified In Disallowing The Assessee'S Claim For Deduction Under Section 80Ib Only For The Reason That The Assessee Had Failed To Fiimish The Audit Report In Form Loccb Along With The Retum Ofincome Filed By The Assessee. The Tribunal Held In Favour Of The Assessee & Against The Revenue In The Following Manner:- "8. In The Present Case, The Auditreport In Form No.Loccb Was Filed By The Assessee During The Reassessment Proceedings Completed Under Sec. 147 Of The Act, During The Course Of Which, The Ao Disallowed The Assessee'S Claim Of Deduction Under Sec. Bo-Ib On The Ground That The Audit Report Was Not Digitally Signed By:Amulya Signature Not Verified

…$^1&2 • * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 134-/2013 + ITA 135/2013 ' %••• CIT Appellant Through: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr Puneet Gupta, Standing Counsel & Ms Gayatri Verma, Adv. versus GS PHARMBUTOR PVT LTD Respondent Through: Mr Salil Kapoor, Mr Vikas Jain, Mr Sanat Kapoor & Mr T^it Gupta, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR ORDER % 19.03.2013 These appeals, have been filed by the Revenue against the order dated 25.11.2011 in ITA Nos.4255 & 4256/Del/2011 relating to assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05. The question before the T…

CIT vs. Gs Pharmbutor Pvt Ltd

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: The Tribunal Was Whether The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Apipeals) & The Assessing Officer Were Justified In Disallowing The Assessee'S Claim For Deduction Under Section 80Ib Only For The Reason That The Assessee Had Failed To Fiimish The Audit Report In Form Loccb Along With The Retum Ofincome Filed By The Assessee. The Tribunal Held In Favour Of The Assessee & Against The Revenue In The Following Manner:- "8. In The Present Case, The Auditreport In Form No.Loccb Was Filed By The Assessee During The Reassessment Proceedings Completed Under Sec. 147 Of The Act, During The Course Of Which, The Ao Disallowed The Assessee'S Claim Of Deduction Under Sec. Bo-Ib On The Ground That The Audit Report Was Not 2013:Dhc:7851-Db

…$^1&2 • * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 134-/2013 + ITA 135/2013 ' %••• CIT Appellant Through: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr Puneet Gupta, Standing Counsel & Ms Gayatri Verma, Adv. versus GS PHARMBUTOR PVT LTD Respondent Through: Mr Salil Kapoor, Mr Vikas Jain, Mr Sanat Kapoor & Mr T^it Gupta, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR ORDER % 19.03.2013 These appeals, have been filed by the Revenue against the order dated 25.11.2011 in ITA Nos.4255 & 4256/Del/2011 relating to assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05. The question before the T…

CIT vs. Gs Pharmbutor Pvt Ltd

The appeals are dismissed

…147 of the Act. The Assessing Officer shall modify the assessment order accordingly.? . The Tribunal had arrived at the aforesaid conclusion after following decision of this Court in the case of CIT vs. Contimeters Electricals (P.) Ltd., (2009) 317 ITR 249 (Delhi). Though that decision was in respect of original assessment, its ratio equally applies to reassessment. Consequently, there is no merit in these appeals and no substantial question of law arises for our consideration. . The appeals are dismissed. . . . BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J . . . . . . .…