CIT v. CPR Capital Services Ltd.

331 ITR 483High Court2011#4113 most cited

What is CIT v. CPR Capital Services Ltd. authority for?

If there is a change in the assessing officer, a new notice under section 143(2) should be issued, especially after a settlement application is filed or jurisdiction is transferred.

29

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Also referred to as

CIT v. CPR Capital Services Ltd. · notice u/s 143(2) · settlement application · transfer of jurisdiction · change in assessing officer · Hotel Blue Moon · Virendra Dev Dixit

Issues it is cited on

annual valuesettlement applicationannual letting valuepermanent account numbersection 24(a)onus of proofbogus long term capital gainsummons under section 131section 245dprice riggingsection 292bbpreponderance of probability

Judgments citing CIT v. CPR Capital Services Ltd.

Gautam Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Assessee allowed and appeal of Revenue dismissed

ITA 1942/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Rinku Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…scribed time. The appellant had failed to prove its case in this regard. Appeal does not raise any substantial question of law which requires our decision. Dismissed.” 9.1. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. CPR Capital Services Ltd., [2011] 330 ITR 43 (Del.) held as under : “The Tribunal held that no notice under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was prepared and served upon the assessee. On appeal: Held, dismissing the appeal, that mere noting in the order sheet would not suffice and the copy of the notice issued under section 143(2) of the Act was not available on record. Since the…

Rajsi Infin Consultants Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 21(1), New Delhi

In the result appeal of Assessee allowed

ITA 2785/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri O.P. Kant, A.M.

For Appellant: Ms. Rano Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. D.R
Section 129Section 143(2)Section 148

…[2010] 321 ITR 362 (SC). 9. Rajender Kumar Sehgal v. ITO, W.P. (c) 11255/2017, CM No.46017/2017, dt. 19.11.2018 10. Pr. CIT v. Gravity Systems Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 896/2017 & 899/2017 dt. 27.10.2017, Delhi High Court 11. CIT v. CPR Capital Services Ltd., [2011] 330 ITR 43, Delhi High Court. 12. M/s. Supersonic Technologies Pvt. Ltd., M/S. SPJ Hotels Prival Limited, M/S. Shiv Sai Infrastructure (P) Ltd. M/S. Superior Buildwell Private Limited v. PCIT ITA.No.2269/Del./201 2857/Del./2017, 2527/Del./ 2017, 3301/Del./2017, dt. 10.12.2018, ITAT Delhi. 13. A.C.I.T. v. M/s. Dimension Promoters Pvt. Ltd., ITA.No. 1105/Del/2…

M/S. Sri Balaji Forgings (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT- 8, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Assessee is allowed

ITA 3216/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri Prashant Maharishi, A.M.

For Appellant: Advocates &For Respondent: Shri S.S.Rana, CIT-D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…I.T. Act. The Ld. Pr. CIT, however, admitted that no formal notice under section 143(2) have been issued to the assessee before completion of the re-assessment proceedings. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. CPR Capital Services Ltd., (2011) 330 ITR 43 (Del.) held as under : 38 ITA.No.3216/Del./2017 Sri Balaji Forgings (P) Ltd., New Delhi. “The Tribunal held that no notice under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was prepared and served upon the assessee. On appeal: Held, dismissing the appeal, that mere noting in the order sheet would not suffice and the copy of the notice issued unde…

Superior Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. Pr. CIT- 8, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 3301/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri Prashant Maharishi, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri S.S.Rana, CIT-D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “G” : DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A.M. ITA.No.2269/Del./2017 Assessment Year 2007-2008 M/s. Supersonic Technologies Pvt. Ltd., A- 104, Panchal Complex, The PCIT-8, vs. Chand Vihar, IP Extension, New Delhi. Delhi – 110 092. PAN AAICS6245A (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Ved Jain, Advocate & Shri Ashish Chadha, C.A. For Revenue : Shri S.S.Rana, CIT-D.R. ITA.No.2857/Del./2017 Assessment Year 2007-2008 M/s. SPJ Hotels Private Limited, New Delhi-110017 The PCIT-8, PAN AAKCS7722C Room No.297, Central vs. C/o. Kapil…

M/S. Spj Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. Pr. CIT- 8, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2857/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri Prashant Maharishi, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri S.S.Rana, CIT-D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “G” : DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A.M. ITA.No.2269/Del./2017 Assessment Year 2007-2008 M/s. Supersonic Technologies Pvt. Ltd., A- 104, Panchal Complex, The PCIT-8, vs. Chand Vihar, IP Extension, New Delhi. Delhi – 110 092. PAN AAICS6245A (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Ved Jain, Advocate & Shri Ashish Chadha, C.A. For Revenue : Shri S.S.Rana, CIT-D.R. ITA.No.2857/Del./2017 Assessment Year 2007-2008 M/s. SPJ Hotels Private Limited, New Delhi-110017 The PCIT-8, PAN AAKCS7722C Room No.297, Central vs. C/o. Kapil…

M/S. Shiv Sai Infrastructure (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT- 8, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2527/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri Prashant Maharishi, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri S.S.Rana, CIT-D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “G” : DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A.M. ITA.No.2269/Del./2017 Assessment Year 2007-2008 M/s. Supersonic Technologies Pvt. Ltd., A- 104, Panchal Complex, The PCIT-8, vs. Chand Vihar, IP Extension, New Delhi. Delhi – 110 092. PAN AAICS6245A (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Ved Jain, Advocate & Shri Ashish Chadha, C.A. For Revenue : Shri S.S.Rana, CIT-D.R. ITA.No.2857/Del./2017 Assessment Year 2007-2008 M/s. SPJ Hotels Private Limited, New Delhi-110017 The PCIT-8, PAN AAKCS7722C Room No.297, Central vs. C/o. Kapil…

M/S. Supersonic Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. Pr. CIT- 8, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2269/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri Prashant Maharishi, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri S.S.Rana, CIT-D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “G” : DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A.M. ITA.No.2269/Del./2017 Assessment Year 2007-2008 M/s. Supersonic Technologies Pvt. Ltd., A- 104, Panchal Complex, The PCIT-8, vs. Chand Vihar, IP Extension, New Delhi. Delhi – 110 092. PAN AAICS6245A (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Ved Jain, Advocate & Shri Ashish Chadha, C.A. For Revenue : Shri S.S.Rana, CIT-D.R. ITA.No.2857/Del./2017 Assessment Year 2007-2008 M/s. SPJ Hotels Private Limited, New Delhi-110017 The PCIT-8, PAN AAKCS7722C Room No.297, Central vs. C/o. Kapil…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Demag Cranes & Components (I) Pvt. Ltd., Pune

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

ITA 1644/PUN/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.1644/Pun/2015 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 वष" अपीलाथ"/Appellant Dcit, Circle-1(2), Pune …. Vs. Terex India Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Known – Demag Cranes & Components (I) Pvt. Ltd.,) Gat No.33, 332, 333, 334, Nanekarwadi Chakan, Taluka Khed, Pune – 411 501 …. ""यथ" / Respondent Pan : Aabcm9351Q C.O.No.42/Pun/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1644/Pun/2015) A.Y. 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jha, JCIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…eld by the number of judgments viz., (1) CWT Vs. HUF of H.H. Late Shri J.M. Scindia 300 ITR 193 (Bombay High Court), Alpine Electronics Asia Pte Ltd. Vs. Director General of Income Tax and Others 341 ITR 247 (Delhi High Court), Virendra Dev Dixit Vs. ACIT 331 ITR 483 (Allahabad High Court), Pai Vinod Vs. DCIT 353 ITR 622 (Karnataka High Court) etc. Considering the same, we are of the view that the cross objection No.4 raised by the assessee is required to be allowed in favour of the assessee. Consequently, adjudication of other cross objections raised by the assessee as well as the grounds raised by the r…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-11(4), Bangalore vs. M/S Indo American Hybrid Seeds India P Ltd, Bangalore

ITA 1283/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raodeputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(4), Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. M/S.Indo American Hybrid Seeds India Pvt.Ltd. Pb No.7099, 7Th Km, Banashankari-Kengeri Link Road,Channasandra Village, Subramanyapura Po, Bangalore-560001. … Respondent Pa No.Aaaci 4027 J & Cross Objn.No.142/Bang/2015 (In Ita No.1283/Bang/2014) (Assessment Year: 2009-10) (By The Assessee)

For Appellant: Shri S.Annamalai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal,JCIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 292B

…tended that the assessment order passed was void ab initio placing reliance on the following decisions: i. CIT vs. Lunar Diamonds (2006) (281 ITR 1)(Del); ii. ACIT vs. Hotel Blue Moon (2010) 321 ITR 362)(SC); and iii. CIT vs. CPR Capital Services Ltd. (2011) (330 ITR 43)(Del) 9. The CIT(A), after considering the submissions of the assessee-company, called for a remand report from the AO. However it is stated that the AO had not furnished remand report and consequently drawn adverse inference that no notice was issued u/s 143(2) following the law laid down in the decisions cited supra. The CIT(A) held that the as…