CIT v. Escorts Finance Ltd.

328 ITR 44High Court2010#1005 most cited

What is CIT v. Escorts Finance Ltd. authority for?

An assessee is liable to penalty under Section 271(1)(c) read with Explanation 1 if they make a claim that is incorrect in law, wholly without basis, and the explanation furnished for such a claim is not bona fide.

108

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Escorts Finance Ltd. · Escorts Finance Ltd. · Section 271(1)(c) · Explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c) · penalty for inaccurate particulars · incorrect claim · no bona fide explanation · claim without basis · levy of penalty · Section 54F

Also reported as

183 Taxmann 453226 CTR 105

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 54FSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250

Issues it is cited on

concealment of incomelevy of penaltysection 271(1)section 271(1)(c)section 271section 27section 143indiatotal incomecompanybusinesssection 14

Judgments citing CIT v. Escorts Finance Ltd.

New Mangalore Port Road Company Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-16(1), Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1053/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.1053/Del/2025, A.Y. 2015-16 New Mangalore Port Road Deputy Commissioner Of Company Limited, Income Tax, Circle-16(1), D-21, Corporate Park, Vs. C. R. Building, I P Estate, Sector-21, Dwarka, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aabcn9106E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ms. Khushboo Singhal, Ca Respondent By Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 21/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am This Appeal For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2015-16 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15.09.2022 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, New Delhi [‘Cit(A)’].

Section 271(1)(c)Section 32Section 36(1)(iii)

…r the VSVS Scheme. Thereafter, the Ld. AO, placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble New Mangalore Port Road Company Ltd. Delhi High Court in cases of Zoom Communications Pvt. Ltd. 327 ITR 510, Harprasad & Co. (P) Ltd., 328 ITR 53 and Escorts Finance Ltd. 328 ITR 44 levied the penalty of Rs.19,25,64,233/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the above mentioned disallowances of depreciation of Rs.60,67,90,274/- and interest of Rs.1,63,94,947/- observing as under: “7.1.1 On perusal of details filed during the course of assessment proceedings it is seen that the assessee has claimed huge depreciation of Rs.74…

DCIT, Circle 22(2), New Delhi vs. Sahil Vachani, Delhi

Appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2604/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice Presdient (), Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shriavdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.2604/िद"ी/2023(िन.व. 2016-17)

For Appellant: S/Shri Anuj Garg & Narpat Singh, Sr.DRFor Respondent: S/Shri Rohan Khare & Priyam
Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

…e bare facts about the status of construction of the residential property under reference ofdeduction under section 54F of the Act. 11. The case in hand is quite similar to that of the case of Zoom Communication (P.) Ltd. 327 ITR 510 and Escorts Finance Ltd. 328 ITR 44, wherein the Hon’ble Delhi High Cour theld that if the assessee makes a claim which is not only incorrect in law, but is also wholly without any basis and explanation furnished by him for making such a claim is not found to be bona fide, Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act would 15 come into play and assessee will be liable to penalty.…

Bipin Pranjivandas Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 27(1)(1), Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1661/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…/Mum/2024 Bipin Pranjivandas Shah 11. CIT vs. Rajiv Bhatara 360 ITR 121 (P&H) 12. CIT vs. Reliance Petro products P. Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 158 (SC) 13. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Aero Traders(P.) Ltd., 322 ITR 316, Delhi HC. 14. CIT vs. Escorts Finance Ltd 328 ITR 44 (Delhi) 15. CIT vs. SSP. Ltd. 328 ITR 643 (P & H.) 16. CIT vs. Suresh Chand Bansal 329 ITR 330(Calcutta) 17. Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd., 171 Taxman 320 (Punajb & Haryana) 18. Harigopal Singh vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 125 Taxman 242 (Punjab & Haryana) 19. CIT vs. Ravail Singh 254 ITR 191(P&H) 20. Hari…

Neel Kanth Gum and Chemicals, Jhunjhunu vs. ACIT, Circle Jhunjhunu, Income Tax Office, Jhunjhunu

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

ITA 805/JPR/2023[A.Y. 2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Apr 2024

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 801Section 80I

…1 आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Mk0 ehBk yky ehuk] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & DR MITHA LAL MEENA, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 805/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2012-13 M.s, Neelkanth Gum and Chemicals cuke The ACIT Vs. Near Railway Station Circle-Jhunjhunu Sardarshahar,Churu – 331403 (Raj) Jhunjhunu LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAEFN 6786C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri G.S. Mehta, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@R…

M/S.Enrica Enterprises Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(4), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1165/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 271ASection 274

…he decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd., v. State of Orissa [1972] 83 ITR 26 and also the ITA Nos.1164 & 1165/Chny/2023 :: 16 :: decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Escorts Finance Ltd. [2009] 226 CTR 105 (Del) submitted that penalty cannot be levied merely because amount taxed as income. In the instant case, quantum assessment is completed based on ad-hoc disallowance on estimating portion of marketing expenses and based on surrender of income by the assessee, but not backed by any incriminating material which would neither mean that the assess…

M/S Enrica Enterprises Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(4), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1164/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 271ASection 274

…he decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd., v. State of Orissa [1972] 83 ITR 26 and also the ITA Nos.1164 & 1165/Chny/2023 :: 16 :: decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Escorts Finance Ltd. [2009] 226 CTR 105 (Del) submitted that penalty cannot be levied merely because amount taxed as income. In the instant case, quantum assessment is completed based on ad-hoc disallowance on estimating portion of marketing expenses and based on surrender of income by the assessee, but not backed by any incriminating material which would neither mean that the assess…

Vivaan Infotel Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 26(4), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5549/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 217(1)(c)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

…(supra) and held that the penalty leviable u/s 271(1)(c) was neither criminal nor quasi criminal in nature. 4 It was a civil liability and therefore, presence of mens rea was not essential. 5.9 Reference can be made to the case of CIT vs. Escorts Finance Ltd. 226 CTR 105 (Del) Where the jurisdictional High Court hold that, "Even if there is no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, but on the basis thereof the claim which is made is ex facie bogus, it may still attract penalty provisions. Cases of bogus hundi loans or bogus sales or purchases have been treated as that of concealment or ina…

Yuvraj Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-27(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 9233/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.9233/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 बनाम Yubraj Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd. Acit C-177, Fateh Nagar, Vs. Circle 27(2) Jail Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No. Aaccn5302P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 133(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 41(1)Section 68

…(supra) and held that the penalty leviable u/s 271 (1 )(c) was neither criminal nor quasi criminal in nature. It was a civil liability and therefore, presence of mens rea was not essential. 5.6 Reference can be made to the case of CIT vs. Escorts Finance Ltd. 226 CTR 105 (Del), Where the jurisdictional High Court held that "Even if there is no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particular s, but on basis thereof the claim which is made is ex facie bogus, it may still attract penalty provisions. Cases of bogus hundi loans or bogus sales or purchases have been treated as that of concealment or inaccu…

Vinod Ratan Patil, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 3, Kalyan

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4246/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 68

…at levy of penalty was confirmed on the fact that the assessee had made bogus claim of investment allowance and depreciation in respect of machinery, which was not purchased installed or commissioned. c) CIT Vs Escorts Finance Ltd, 813 Taxman 453 (delhi)/2010 328 ITR 44 (Delhi) / 2009 226 CTR 105, wherein it was held that if the claim made in return of income appears to be ex facie bogus, it would be treated as a case of concealment of particulars and penalty would be justified. d) CIT VS Zoom Communication (P) Ltd, 191 Taxmann 179 (delhi)/[2010] 327 ITR 510 (Delhi)/[2010] 233 CTR 465 wherein it was held that if…

Addl.CIT, Special Range-6, New Delhi vs. Ntpc Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2800/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedia N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Ms. Supriya Mehta, C. AFor Respondent: Ms. Rinku Singh
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…aking a patently incorrect and unsubstantially claim and the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High court in case of CIT Vs Zoom Communication Pvt. Limited (2010) 327 ITR 510, CIT vs NG Technologies Limited (2015) ITR 7, CIT Vs Escorts Finance Limited (2010) 328 ITR 44 and CIT Vs Harparshad and Company Limited (2010) 328 ITR 53? “ I.T.A. No. 2800/Del/2018 3. Both the parties placed copy of the ITAT order in ITA. No. 4083/Del/2014 dated 5.08.2022 and submitted that the Tribunal deleted the quantum addition made in the assessment order by the Assessing Officer. 4. We have perused the order of the ld. CIT (Appea…

ACIT Circle-11(1), New Delhi vs. Hello Retail India Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

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

ITA 3049/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M. Baranwal, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…leted the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer. 14. Before us, the ld. DR strongly supported the findings of the Assessing Officer and relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 295 ITR 244, Hon'ble Delhi High Court decision in 328 ITR 44 and 105 ITR 708. 15. We have carefully considered the orders of the authorities below. There is no dispute that the expenses incurred by the assessee on the rented premises were written off as loss on surrender of the rented property on discontinuance of running business. 16. It is also not in dispute that all the entries were duly recorded in…

George Kutty, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-13(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3788/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] George Kutty, Vs Dcit, C/O-M/S. Oasis Tours India (P.) Circle-13(1), Ltd., C-40, Middle Circle, Dwarka New Delhi. Sadan, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001. Pan-Aajpk4005H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Manish Malik, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 11.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24.08.2022

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 276CSection 68

…] where Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court held that in case of concealment of true income chargeable to tax by making bogus claim, levy of penalty u/s 271(1 )(c) read with Explanation 1 is justified 8. CIT Vs Escorts Finance Ltd [183 Taxman 453 (Delhi)/[2010] 328 ITR 44 (Delhi)/[2009] 226 CTR 105] where Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that if claim made in return of income appears to be ex facie bogus, it would be treated as a case of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars and penalty proceeding would be justified 9. CIT Vs R.M.P. Plasto (P.) Ltd H84 Taxman 372 (SC)/[2009] 313 ITR 397 (SC)/[2009] 227 C…

M/S Om Plantation, 22, Path No.6, Vijay Bari, Teen Dukan, Sikar Road, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-4(3), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 158/JPR/2021[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Jul 2022AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Ms Runi Pal (Addl.CIT) a
Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)

…hya Pradesh High Court held that in case of concealment of true income chargeable to tax by making bogus claim, levy of penalty u/s 271 (1)( c) read with Explanation 1 is justified. 7.15 In the case of CIT Vs Escorts Finance Ltd [183 Taxman 453 (Delhi)/[2010] 328 ITR 44 (Delhi)/[2009] 226 CTR 105] the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that if claim made in return of income appears to be ex facie bogus, it would be treated as a case of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars and penalty proceeding would be justified. 7.16 In the case of K.P. Madhusudhanan Vs CIT [2001] 118 Taxman 324 (SC)/[2001] 251 ITR 99…

DCIT, Circle- 16(2), New Delhi vs. Minerals Managements Services India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5478/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmathe Dcit Vs. M/S. Minerals Managements Circle 16(2), Services India Pvt. Ltd. 1104, 11Th Floor, New Delhi Hemkunt Chamber, Nehru Place Pan : Aaacm6334J New Delhi-110019 (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 32

…ng a patently incorrect and unsubstantially claim and the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT Vs Zoom communication Pvt. Limited (2010) 327 ITR 510, CIT vs NG Technologies Limited (2015)370 ITR 7, CIT Vs Escorts Finance Limited (2010) 328 ITR 44 and CIT Vs Harparshad and Company Limited (2010) 328 ITR 53? 7. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or forgo any Minerals Managements Services India P. Ltd. 6 ground/(s) of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of the appeal. 4. Heard and perused the record. 5. On behalf of the assessee in application under Rule 27 of…

M/S. United Airlines Inc., New Delhi vs. DDIT, New Delhi

ITA 958/DEL/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 1996-97 & Assessment Year: 1997-98 & Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-00 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 United Airlines, Vs. Dcit/Ddit Amba Deep Building, Non-Resident Circle, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aaacu4427C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)(i)Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘D’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 1996-97 And Assessment Year: 1997-98 And Assessment Year: 1998-99 And Assessment Year: 1999-00 And Assessment Year: 2000-01 And Assessment Year: 2001-02 And Assessment Year: 2002-03 United Airlines, Vs. DCIT/DDIT Amba Deep Building, Non-resident Circle, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi New Delhi PAN : AAACU4427C (Appellant) (Respondent) And Assessment Year: 1998-99 And Assessment Year: 1999-00 2 ITA Nos.216 & 217/Del/2000; 1691 to 1695/Del/2008; 954…

M/S. United Airlines Inc., New Delhi vs. DDIT, New Delhi

ITA 957/DEL/2014[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 1996-97 & Assessment Year: 1997-98 & Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-00 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 United Airlines, Vs. Dcit/Ddit Amba Deep Building, Non-Resident Circle, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aaacu4427C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)(i)Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘D’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 1996-97 And Assessment Year: 1997-98 And Assessment Year: 1998-99 And Assessment Year: 1999-00 And Assessment Year: 2000-01 And Assessment Year: 2001-02 And Assessment Year: 2002-03 United Airlines, Vs. DCIT/DDIT Amba Deep Building, Non-resident Circle, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi New Delhi PAN : AAACU4427C (Appellant) (Respondent) And Assessment Year: 1998-99 And Assessment Year: 1999-00 2 ITA Nos.216 & 217/Del/2000; 1691 to 1695/Del/2008; 954…

M/S. United Airlines Inc., New Delhi vs. DDIT, New Delhi

ITA 956/DEL/2014[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2022AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 1996-97 & Assessment Year: 1997-98 & Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-00 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 United Airlines, Vs. Dcit/Ddit Amba Deep Building, Non-Resident Circle, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aaacu4427C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)(i)Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘D’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 1996-97 And Assessment Year: 1997-98 And Assessment Year: 1998-99 And Assessment Year: 1999-00 And Assessment Year: 2000-01 And Assessment Year: 2001-02 And Assessment Year: 2002-03 United Airlines, Vs. DCIT/DDIT Amba Deep Building, Non-resident Circle, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi New Delhi PAN : AAACU4427C (Appellant) (Respondent) And Assessment Year: 1998-99 And Assessment Year: 1999-00 2 ITA Nos.216 & 217/Del/2000; 1691 to 1695/Del/2008; 954…

M/S. United Airlines Inc., New Delhi vs. DDIT, New Delhi

ITA 955/DEL/2014[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2022AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 1996-97 & Assessment Year: 1997-98 & Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-00 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 United Airlines, Vs. Dcit/Ddit Amba Deep Building, Non-Resident Circle, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aaacu4427C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)(i)Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘D’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 1996-97 And Assessment Year: 1997-98 And Assessment Year: 1998-99 And Assessment Year: 1999-00 And Assessment Year: 2000-01 And Assessment Year: 2001-02 And Assessment Year: 2002-03 United Airlines, Vs. DCIT/DDIT Amba Deep Building, Non-resident Circle, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi New Delhi PAN : AAACU4427C (Appellant) (Respondent) And Assessment Year: 1998-99 And Assessment Year: 1999-00 2 ITA Nos.216 & 217/Del/2000; 1691 to 1695/Del/2008; 954…

M/S. United Airlines Inc., New Delhi vs. DDIT, New Delhi

ITA 954/DEL/2014[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 1996-97 & Assessment Year: 1997-98 & Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-00 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 United Airlines, Vs. Dcit/Ddit Amba Deep Building, Non-Resident Circle, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aaacu4427C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)(i)Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘D’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 1996-97 And Assessment Year: 1997-98 And Assessment Year: 1998-99 And Assessment Year: 1999-00 And Assessment Year: 2000-01 And Assessment Year: 2001-02 And Assessment Year: 2002-03 United Airlines, Vs. DCIT/DDIT Amba Deep Building, Non-resident Circle, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi New Delhi PAN : AAACU4427C (Appellant) (Respondent) And Assessment Year: 1998-99 And Assessment Year: 1999-00 2 ITA Nos.216 & 217/Del/2000; 1691 to 1695/Del/2008; 954…

United Airlines vs. DDIT Non- Resident, Circle

ITA 1695/DEL/2008[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2022AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 1996-97 & Assessment Year: 1997-98 & Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-00 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 United Airlines, Vs. Dcit/Ddit Amba Deep Building, Non-Resident Circle, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aaacu4427C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)(i)Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘D’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 1996-97 And Assessment Year: 1997-98 And Assessment Year: 1998-99 And Assessment Year: 1999-00 And Assessment Year: 2000-01 And Assessment Year: 2001-02 And Assessment Year: 2002-03 United Airlines, Vs. DCIT/DDIT Amba Deep Building, Non-resident Circle, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi New Delhi PAN : AAACU4427C (Appellant) (Respondent) And Assessment Year: 1998-99 And Assessment Year: 1999-00 2 ITA Nos.216 & 217/Del/2000; 1691 to 1695/Del/2008; 954…

CIT v. Escorts Finance Ltd. (328 ITR 44) — Cited in 108 Judgments | BharatTax