CIT v. Eicher Ltd.

294 ITR 310High Court2007#567 most cited

What is CIT v. Eicher Ltd. authority for?

An assessment order cannot be considered erroneous for want of an inquiry, thus restricting revision under Section 263, if the Assessing Officer applied their mind to the issue and had all relevant facts before them. Additionally, disallowed expenditures are not to be included as part of an asset's cost for tax purposes.

171

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Eicher Ltd. · 294 ITR 310 · Delhi High Court · Section 263 · revisionary power · PCIT jurisdiction · erroneous and prejudicial to revenue · AO application of mind · lack of inquiry · disallowed expenditure · asset cost · Section 40A(3)

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 144CSection 263Section 144BSection 148Section 11Section 142(1)

Issues it is cited on

recognised provident fundsection 50bsection 43b(f)approved gratuity fundrelinquishment of rightsection 40a(9)test of enduring benefitsection 211section 10(2)(xv)business transfer agreementnon-compete feeslump sale

Judgments citing CIT v. Eicher Ltd.

Small Wonder Industries, Mumbai vs. CIT 24, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2464/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2009-10 Small Wonder Industries, Cit-24, 78, Virwani Indl. Estate, Mumbai बनाम/ Western Express Highway, Vs. Goregaon (East), Mumbai-400063 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aalfs6318Q "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Prakash Jotwani Shri Debasis Chandra Cit-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 23/02/2017 24/02/2017 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order:

Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80I

…ssessing Officer is concerned under the facts narrated in this order, reliance can be placed upon the ratio laid down in following cases:- i. CIT vs Gabriel India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (Bom.) ii. CIT vs. Ashish Rajpal (320 ITR 674)(Del.) iii. CIT vs. Eicher Ltd. (294 ITR 310) (Del.) iv. Hari Iron Trading Co. vs. CIT (263 ITR 437) (P&H) v. CIT vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd. (323 ITR 206) (Bom.) vi. RCI Ltd. vs. CIT (2010) 40 DTR Mum (Trb.) 186 vii. Reliance Gas Transportation Infrastructure Ltd. vs. CIT(2014) (100 DTR 1)(Mum.)(Trb.) and viii. CIT vs. Anil Kumar Sharma 335 ITR 83(Del.) ix. CIT vs Arvind Jewellers 259…

DCIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. Tata Steel Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5432/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Feb 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Sh. B.S. Bist -DRFor Respondent: Sh. Dinesh Vyas Advocate.)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 254(1)Section 293ASection 80G

…56 ITR 1 (Del) (FB) 3. CIT v Kelvinator of India Ltd [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC) 4. Associated Stone Industries (Kotah) Ltd v CIT [1997] 224 ITR 560 (SC) 5. Consolidated Photo & Finvest Ltd v ACIT [2006] 281 ITR 394 (Del) 6. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines v ADIT [2007] 294 ITR 310 (Del) 7. CIT v Eicher Ltd [2007] 294 ITR 310(Del) 8. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd v DCIT [2013] 351 ITR 23 (Del) 9. 3i Infotech Ltd v CIT [2010] 329 ITR 257 (Bom) 10. ACIT v ICICI Securities Primary Dealership Ltd [2002] 348 ITR 299 (SC) 11. Bedmutha Industries Ltd v DCIT [2013] 87 DTR 305 (Bom) 12. Titanor Components Ltd v ACIT [2012] 342 ITR 183 (B…

People Ineractive (I) P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 7, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3717/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 10ASection 147Section 263

…n'ble High Court held that the ld. Commissioner was not justified. Identical is the situation from Hon'ble High Court Punjab & Haryana in Hari Iron Trading Company vs. CIT (263 ITR 437) order dated 23/5/2003. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CIT vs. Eicher (294 ITR 310) (Del.) wherein the entire material was placed by the assessee before the Assessing Officer at the time of original assessment, the Assessing Officer applied his mind to the material and accepted the view canvassed by the assessee. Identically, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CIT vs. Ashish Rajpal (320 ITR 674) vide order dt.14/5/2009, decided…

People Ineractive (I) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 7, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3558/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 10ASection 147Section 263

…n'ble High Court held that the ld. Commissioner was not justified. Identical is the situation from Hon'ble High Court Punjab & Haryana in Hari Iron Trading Company vs. CIT (263 ITR 437) order dated 23/5/2003. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CIT vs. Eicher (294 ITR 310) (Del.) wherein the entire material was placed by the assessee before the Assessing Officer at the time of original assessment, the Assessing Officer applied his mind to the material and accepted the view canvassed by the assessee. Identically, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CIT vs. Ashish Rajpal (320 ITR 674) vide order dt.14/5/2009, decided…

DCIT 1(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Intelnet Global Services P. Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7428/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit-1(2)(1), M/S Intelnet Global Services R. No.535, 5Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Intelnet Towers, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Mindspace, Malad West, Vs. M. K. Road, Mumbai-400064 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aaaci7387P C.O. No.99/Mum/2016 (Arising Out Of Ita No.7428/Mum/2014) Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Intelnet Global Services Dcit-1(2)(1), Pvt. Ltd. Intelnet Towers, R. No.535, 5Th Floor, बनाम/ Mindspace, Malad West, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400064 M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaaci7387P

Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147

…v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 191 (SC) (para 45) CIT v. A. Raman and Co. [1968] 67 ITR 11 (SC) (paras 9, 34) CIT v. Chase Bright Steel Ltd. (No. 1) [1989] 177 ITR 124 (Bom) (para 21) CIT v. DLF Power Ltd. [2012] 345 ITR 446 (Delhi) (para 14) CIT v. Eicher Ltd. [2007] 294 ITR 310 (Delhi) (paras 10, 28) CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2002] 256 ITR 1 (Delhi) [FB] (paras 2, 12, 20, 48) CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC) (paras 2, 28) CIT v. Khemchand Ramdas [1938] 6 ITR 414 (PC) (para 50) CIT v. P. V. S. Beedies P. Ltd. [1999] 237 ITR 13 (SC) (para 18) CIT (Asst.) v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd…

Asst CIT 4(3), Mumbai vs. Muimbai Stock Brokers P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed”

ITA 6369/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2006-07 Acit-4(3), M/S Mumbai Stock 6Th Floor, R. No.649, बनाम/ Brokers Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, R No.10A, 1St Floor, 7/10, Vs. M.K. Road, Botwala Building, Mumbai-4020 Horniman Circle, Fort, Mumbai-400023 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aabcm4133A

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 88E

…v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 191 (SC) (para 45) CIT v. A. Raman and Co. [1968] 67 ITR 11 (SC) (paras 9, 34) CIT v. Chase Bright Steel Ltd. (No. 1) [1989] 177 ITR 124 (Bom) (para 21) CIT v. DLF Power Ltd. [2012] 345 ITR 446 (Delhi) (para 14) CIT v. Eicher Ltd. [2007] 294 ITR 310 (Delhi) (paras 10, 28) CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2002] 256 ITR 1 (Delhi) [FB] (paras 2, 12, 20, 48) CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC) (paras 2, 28) CIT v. Khemchand Ramdas [1938] 6 ITR 414 (PC) (para 50) CIT v. P. V. S. Beedies P. Ltd. [1999] 237 ITR 13 (SC) (para 18) CIT (Asst.) v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd…

DCIT Cir - 3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, ITA No. 4373/Mum/2005 is partly allowed

ITA 570/MUM/2007[1998-1999]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2016AY 1998-1999

Bench: Shri R.C Sharma & Shri Pawan Singh

Section 115Section 253Section 254(1)Section 80

…ase of Carborandum vs. JCIT in ITA No.244 of 2006 as held that the “payment of non compete fees for fruitful exercise of business is a commercial decision and hence should be treated as a revenue expenditure”. Further in the case of CIT vs. Eicher Ltd. (2008) 302 ITR 249 (Del)it has been held “payment of non compete fees has not resulted in acquisition of capital asset. But merely eliminated competition for a while and restrictive covenant was neither permanent nor ephemeral. Hence, the advantage was not of an enduring nature.” 6.1 In addition to the above we also found that similar grounds were also considered i…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Canon India Private Ltd., Haryana

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 4040/DEL/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Oct 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita No. 4040/Del/2010 : Asstt. Year : 2002-03 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs M/S Canon India Pvt. Ltd., 2Nd Floor, Tower A & B, Cyber Income Tax, Circle-3(1), New Delhi Green, Dlf Phase-Iii, Gurgaon , Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacc4175D Assessee By : Sh. S. K. Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Neeraj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.07.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.10.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Department Against The Order Dated 10.06.2010 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Vi, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Neeraj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…tax in the subsequent year when the related advertisement expenditure had been incurred. Therefore, there was no justification for the reassessment 5 Canon India Pvt. Ltd. proceedings. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " CIT Vs Eicher Ltd. 294 ITR 310 (Del) " CIT Vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. 256 ITR 1 (Del) " KLM Royal Dutch Air Lines Vs ACIT 292 ITR 49 (Del) 6. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee observed that the only reason for reopening of the case was that the amount of Rs.53,15,240/- had not be credited in the subsequent year. The ld. CIT(A) categorically stat…

The Phoenix Mills Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

ITA 52/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…dated January 18, 2010 reported In 11 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. [2010], 320 ITR 561, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has affirmed the two decisions of the Delhi High Courts - CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2002) 256 ITR 1 (Delhi) and CIT Vs. Eicher Ltd. (2007) 294 ITR 310 (Delhi) and held that the Assessing Officer can reopen an assessment only on the basis of some tangible material to form reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment. A mere change of opinion could not be a valid ground for issuing a notice u/s. 148 of the Act. 19. The Supreme Court in the case of CIT v/s. Foramer France (264 ITR 666) he…

The Phoenix Mills Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

ITA 51/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…dated January 18, 2010 reported In 11 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. [2010], 320 ITR 561, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has affirmed the two decisions of the Delhi High Courts - CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2002) 256 ITR 1 (Delhi) and CIT Vs. Eicher Ltd. (2007) 294 ITR 310 (Delhi) and held that the Assessing Officer can reopen an assessment only on the basis of some tangible material to form reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment. A mere change of opinion could not be a valid ground for issuing a notice u/s. 148 of the Act. 19. The Supreme Court in the case of CIT v/s. Foramer France (264 ITR 666) he…

The Phoenix Mills Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

ITA 50/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…dated January 18, 2010 reported In 11 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. [2010], 320 ITR 561, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has affirmed the two decisions of the Delhi High Courts - CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2002) 256 ITR 1 (Delhi) and CIT Vs. Eicher Ltd. (2007) 294 ITR 310 (Delhi) and held that the Assessing Officer can reopen an assessment only on the basis of some tangible material to form reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment. A mere change of opinion could not be a valid ground for issuing a notice u/s. 148 of the Act. 19. The Supreme Court in the case of CIT v/s. Foramer France (264 ITR 666) he…

The Phoenix Mills Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

ITA 49/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…dated January 18, 2010 reported In 11 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. [2010], 320 ITR 561, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has affirmed the two decisions of the Delhi High Courts - CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2002) 256 ITR 1 (Delhi) and CIT Vs. Eicher Ltd. (2007) 294 ITR 310 (Delhi) and held that the Assessing Officer can reopen an assessment only on the basis of some tangible material to form reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment. A mere change of opinion could not be a valid ground for issuing a notice u/s. 148 of the Act. 19. The Supreme Court in the case of CIT v/s. Foramer France (264 ITR 666) he…

The Phoenix Mills Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

ITA 48/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…dated January 18, 2010 reported In 11 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. [2010], 320 ITR 561, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has affirmed the two decisions of the Delhi High Courts - CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2002) 256 ITR 1 (Delhi) and CIT Vs. Eicher Ltd. (2007) 294 ITR 310 (Delhi) and held that the Assessing Officer can reopen an assessment only on the basis of some tangible material to form reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment. A mere change of opinion could not be a valid ground for issuing a notice u/s. 148 of the Act. 19. The Supreme Court in the case of CIT v/s. Foramer France (264 ITR 666) he…

The Phoenix Mills Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

ITA 47/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…dated January 18, 2010 reported In 11 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. [2010], 320 ITR 561, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has affirmed the two decisions of the Delhi High Courts - CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2002) 256 ITR 1 (Delhi) and CIT Vs. Eicher Ltd. (2007) 294 ITR 310 (Delhi) and held that the Assessing Officer can reopen an assessment only on the basis of some tangible material to form reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment. A mere change of opinion could not be a valid ground for issuing a notice u/s. 148 of the Act. 19. The Supreme Court in the case of CIT v/s. Foramer France (264 ITR 666) he…

The Phoenix Mills Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

ITA 46/MUM/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…dated January 18, 2010 reported In 11 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. [2010], 320 ITR 561, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has affirmed the two decisions of the Delhi High Courts - CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2002) 256 ITR 1 (Delhi) and CIT Vs. Eicher Ltd. (2007) 294 ITR 310 (Delhi) and held that the Assessing Officer can reopen an assessment only on the basis of some tangible material to form reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment. A mere change of opinion could not be a valid ground for issuing a notice u/s. 148 of the Act. 19. The Supreme Court in the case of CIT v/s. Foramer France (264 ITR 666) he…

Asst CIT CC 8(4), Mumbai vs. Phoenix Mills Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

ITA 242/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…dated January 18, 2010 reported In 11 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. [2010], 320 ITR 561, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has affirmed the two decisions of the Delhi High Courts - CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2002) 256 ITR 1 (Delhi) and CIT Vs. Eicher Ltd. (2007) 294 ITR 310 (Delhi) and held that the Assessing Officer can reopen an assessment only on the basis of some tangible material to form reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment. A mere change of opinion could not be a valid ground for issuing a notice u/s. 148 of the Act. 19. The Supreme Court in the case of CIT v/s. Foramer France (264 ITR 666) he…

Asst CIT CC 8(4), Mumbai vs. Phoenix Mills Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

ITA 241/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…dated January 18, 2010 reported In 11 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. [2010], 320 ITR 561, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has affirmed the two decisions of the Delhi High Courts - CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2002) 256 ITR 1 (Delhi) and CIT Vs. Eicher Ltd. (2007) 294 ITR 310 (Delhi) and held that the Assessing Officer can reopen an assessment only on the basis of some tangible material to form reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment. A mere change of opinion could not be a valid ground for issuing a notice u/s. 148 of the Act. 19. The Supreme Court in the case of CIT v/s. Foramer France (264 ITR 666) he…

Forbes & Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 7349/MUM/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainm/S. Forbes & Company Ltd. Dcit, Circle 1(1) (Formerly Forbes Gokak Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan Ground Floor, Forbes Bldg. Vs. M.K. Road Charanjit Rai Marg Mumbai 400020 Fort, Mumbai 400001 Pan - Aaacf1765A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Milin ThakoreFor Respondent: Shri Dipak Kumar Sinha
Section 271(1)(c)

…after the decision of the Special Bench of the 8 M/s. Forbes & Company Ltd. ITAT Delhi in the case of Tecumseh India (P.) Ltd. (127 ITD 1) (Del), certain subsequent decisions have held that non-compete fee is revenue in nature like, CIT vs. Eicher Ltd. (2008) 302 ITR 249 (Del), etc. It was prayed that merely because the assessee’s contentions and claims are not accepted, penalty cannot be levied. In support of this proposition, the learned A.R., inter alia, placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC). 6.2 Per contra, the learned D.R. sup…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Hcl Comnet Ltd., New Delhi

In the result this ground is dismissed

ITA 6142/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri C.M. Garg :

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha CIT(DR) &
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 263Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…ment order is drafted is not within the assessee’s control. He relied on the decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Hari Iron Trading Co. Vs. CIT 263 ITR 437 (P&H). He further relied on the decision in the case of CIT Vs. Eicher Ltd. 294 ITR 310 (Del.), wherein it was held that when all the material facts were disclosed by assessee and AO applied his mind then failure to record finding in assessment order does not entitle the AO to issue notice for reassessment. Ld. counsel referred to page 28 of the PB, wherein the assessee’s reply dated 3.12.2008 to the AO in connection with the quer…

Hcl Comnet Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result this ground is dismissed

ITA 5898/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri C.M. Garg :

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha CIT(DR) &
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 263Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…ment order is drafted is not within the assessee’s control. He relied on the decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Hari Iron Trading Co. Vs. CIT 263 ITR 437 (P&H). He further relied on the decision in the case of CIT Vs. Eicher Ltd. 294 ITR 310 (Del.), wherein it was held that when all the material facts were disclosed by assessee and AO applied his mind then failure to record finding in assessment order does not entitle the AO to issue notice for reassessment. Ld. counsel referred to page 28 of the PB, wherein the assessee’s reply dated 3.12.2008 to the AO in connection with the quer…