CIT v. Fair Finvest L

357 ITR 646High Court#5615 most cited
21

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 151Section 80ICSection 142(1)

Issues it is cited on

amp expendituresection 92batrue and full disclosuresanction under section 151transfer pricing orderfresh tangible materialsection 148(2)sanctioning authorityfirst proviso to section 147section 151(1)material facts necessary for assessmentspecified domestic transaction

Judgments citing CIT v. Fair Finvest L

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, DELHI vs. LOTUS HERBALS PVT. LTD, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 2445/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…R 5 (Del)  PCIT vs. G & G Pharma India Ltd. 384 ITR 147 (Del.)  CIT vs. Gulati Industrial Fabrication (P) Limited 217 CTR 494 (Del) [SLP Dismissed by SC in 1134/2009]  CIT vs. Fair Finvest L: 357 ITR 146 (Del)  CIT vs. Viniyas Finance & Investment Pvt Ltd 357 ITR 646 (Del) In view of the aforesaid, the reassessment proceedings having been initiated on the basis of documents already available on record, are invalid and bad in law. Re (d): Sanction under section 151 of the Act for initiation of reassessment proceedings accorded in a mechanical manner In the present case, in terms of sub-section (1) of section 1…

DCIT, CC-20, DELHI vs. LOTUS HERBALS PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 2444/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…R 5 (Del)  PCIT vs. G & G Pharma India Ltd. 384 ITR 147 (Del.)  CIT vs. Gulati Industrial Fabrication (P) Limited 217 CTR 494 (Del) [SLP Dismissed by SC in 1134/2009]  CIT vs. Fair Finvest L: 357 ITR 146 (Del)  CIT vs. Viniyas Finance & Investment Pvt Ltd 357 ITR 646 (Del) In view of the aforesaid, the reassessment proceedings having been initiated on the basis of documents already available on record, are invalid and bad in law. Re (d): Sanction under section 151 of the Act for initiation of reassessment proceedings accorded in a mechanical manner In the present case, in terms of sub-section (1) of section 1…

DCIT, CC-20, DELHI vs. LOTUS HERBALS PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 2443/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…R 5 (Del)  PCIT vs. G & G Pharma India Ltd. 384 ITR 147 (Del.)  CIT vs. Gulati Industrial Fabrication (P) Limited 217 CTR 494 (Del) [SLP Dismissed by SC in 1134/2009]  CIT vs. Fair Finvest L: 357 ITR 146 (Del)  CIT vs. Viniyas Finance & Investment Pvt Ltd 357 ITR 646 (Del) In view of the aforesaid, the reassessment proceedings having been initiated on the basis of documents already available on record, are invalid and bad in law. Re (d): Sanction under section 151 of the Act for initiation of reassessment proceedings accorded in a mechanical manner In the present case, in terms of sub-section (1) of section 1…

DCIT, CC-20, DELHI vs. LOTUS HERBALS PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 2442/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…R 5 (Del)  PCIT vs. G & G Pharma India Ltd. 384 ITR 147 (Del.)  CIT vs. Gulati Industrial Fabrication (P) Limited 217 CTR 494 (Del) [SLP Dismissed by SC in 1134/2009]  CIT vs. Fair Finvest L: 357 ITR 146 (Del)  CIT vs. Viniyas Finance & Investment Pvt Ltd 357 ITR 646 (Del) In view of the aforesaid, the reassessment proceedings having been initiated on the basis of documents already available on record, are invalid and bad in law. Re (d): Sanction under section 151 of the Act for initiation of reassessment proceedings accorded in a mechanical manner In the present case, in terms of sub-section (1) of section 1…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, NEW DELHI vs. LOTUS HERBALS P.LTD, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 200/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…R 5 (Del)  PCIT vs. G & G Pharma India Ltd. 384 ITR 147 (Del.)  CIT vs. Gulati Industrial Fabrication (P) Limited 217 CTR 494 (Del) [SLP Dismissed by SC in 1134/2009]  CIT vs. Fair Finvest L: 357 ITR 146 (Del)  CIT vs. Viniyas Finance & Investment Pvt Ltd 357 ITR 646 (Del) In view of the aforesaid, the reassessment proceedings having been initiated on the basis of documents already available on record, are invalid and bad in law. Re (d): Sanction under section 151 of the Act for initiation of reassessment proceedings accorded in a mechanical manner In the present case, in terms of sub-section (1) of section 1…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN vs. R.B. ENTERPRISES, DEHRADUN

ITA 4/DDN/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun27 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A(1)(b)

…so supports this view point; i. CIT Vs. Chaitanya Properties Pvt. Ltd (IA No. 205 of 2015) ii. M/s. T.T.K. Prestige Ltd. Vs. DCIT (W.P No. 30388/2015) iii. Signature Holdings P. Ltd Vs. ITO [2011] 338 ITR 0051 iv. CIT Vs. Vinyas Finance and Investment P. Ltd. 357 ITR 646 (Delhi HC) v. v) Sidhi Vinayak Transport Vs. ACIT 362 ITR 72” 7 | P a g e ITA Nos.3500 & 3501/Del/2017 and 6. The Revenue could hardly dispute the clinching facts, inter alia, emerging from the case file that the learned Assessing Officer had framed his first round regular assessment in assessee’s case on 21st March, 2013. There is further no in…

M/S. R.B. ENTERPRISES,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

ITA 3501/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun27 Jan 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A(1)(b)

…so supports this view point; i. CIT Vs. Chaitanya Properties Pvt. Ltd (IA No. 205 of 2015) ii. M/s. T.T.K. Prestige Ltd. Vs. DCIT (W.P No. 30388/2015) iii. Signature Holdings P. Ltd Vs. ITO [2011] 338 ITR 0051 iv. CIT Vs. Vinyas Finance and Investment P. Ltd. 357 ITR 646 (Delhi HC) v. v) Sidhi Vinayak Transport Vs. ACIT 362 ITR 72” 7 | P a g e ITA Nos.3500 & 3501/Del/2017 and 6. The Revenue could hardly dispute the clinching facts, inter alia, emerging from the case file that the learned Assessing Officer had framed his first round regular assessment in assessee’s case on 21st March, 2013. There is further no in…

M/S. R.B. ENTERPRISES,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

ITA 3500/DEL/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun27 Jan 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A(1)(b)

…so supports this view point; i. CIT Vs. Chaitanya Properties Pvt. Ltd (IA No. 205 of 2015) ii. M/s. T.T.K. Prestige Ltd. Vs. DCIT (W.P No. 30388/2015) iii. Signature Holdings P. Ltd Vs. ITO [2011] 338 ITR 0051 iv. CIT Vs. Vinyas Finance and Investment P. Ltd. 357 ITR 646 (Delhi HC) v. v) Sidhi Vinayak Transport Vs. ACIT 362 ITR 72” 7 | P a g e ITA Nos.3500 & 3501/Del/2017 and 6. The Revenue could hardly dispute the clinching facts, inter alia, emerging from the case file that the learned Assessing Officer had framed his first round regular assessment in assessee’s case on 21st March, 2013. There is further no in…

COSMIC INFORMATICS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 2444/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…R 5 (Del)  PCIT vs. G & G Pharma India Ltd. 384 ITR 147 (Del.)  CIT vs. Gulati Industrial Fabrication (P) Limited 217 CTR 494 (Del) [SLP Dismissed by SC in 1134/2009]  CIT vs. Fair Finvest L: 357 ITR 146 (Del)  CIT vs. Viniyas Finance & Investment Pvt Ltd 357 ITR 646 (Del) In view of the aforesaid, the reassessment proceedings having been initiated on the basis of documents already available on record, are invalid and bad in law. Re (d): Sanction under section 151 of the Act for initiation of reassessment proceedings accorded in a mechanical manner In the present case, in terms of sub-section (1) of section 1…

COSMIC INFORMATICS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 2443/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…R 5 (Del)  PCIT vs. G & G Pharma India Ltd. 384 ITR 147 (Del.)  CIT vs. Gulati Industrial Fabrication (P) Limited 217 CTR 494 (Del) [SLP Dismissed by SC in 1134/2009]  CIT vs. Fair Finvest L: 357 ITR 146 (Del)  CIT vs. Viniyas Finance & Investment Pvt Ltd 357 ITR 646 (Del) In view of the aforesaid, the reassessment proceedings having been initiated on the basis of documents already available on record, are invalid and bad in law. Re (d): Sanction under section 151 of the Act for initiation of reassessment proceedings accorded in a mechanical manner In the present case, in terms of sub-section (1) of section 1…

DEEPAK GARG,HARYANA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC, KRNAL, HARYANA

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

ITA 1046/DEL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Advocate
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 69

…hi High Court in the case of Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. vs CIT [2009] 308 ITR 38 (Del); State Bank of Patiala Vs. CIT reported in [(2015) 375 ITR 109 (P & H)]; JSRS Udyog Ltd. Vs. ITO [313 ITR 321 (Del.)]; CIT Vs. Viniyas Finance & Investment (P) Ltd. [357 ITR 646 (Del)]. Therefore, it is respectfully submitted, in the instant case also, the issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act and consequent assessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act deserve to be quashed. 10. The ld. DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below. The ld. DR referring to page 1 of the assessment order submits that it is the find…

RANJANA AGGARWAL ,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD-47(5), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 17/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. R. K. Pandaita No. 17/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Pulkit Saini, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…the material facts. In fact, in our view, the reasons recorded are quite general and vague as would be apparent from a plain reading of the same.” 9. I find the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Viniyas Finance & Investment (P) Ltd. reported in 357 ITR 646 and relied on by ld. Counsel for the assessee has observed as under: “7. On going through the purported reasons we find that there is no mention of the respondent-assessee not having made a full and true disclosure of the material facts necessary for assessment. On the contrary the purported reasons indicate that the amounts mentioned therein ha…

DEVKI NANDAN BINDAL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 46(3), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

ITA 4271/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 144Section 147Section 148

…od of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, in case where the original assessment has been framed under section 143(3) of the Act is illegal and invalid. He has relied upon Judgment in the case of Viniyas Finance and Investment (P) Ltd., 357 ITR 646 and Order of ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of M/s. Shiv Sai Infrastructure (P) Ltd., vs. Pr. CIT ITA.No.2527/Del./2017. He has submitted that since initiation of reassessment proceedings are based on non- application of mind and reasons are recorded on borrowed satisfaction, therefore, reassessment is invalid. In support of this proposition,…

DCIT, ROHTAK vs. M/S. KLA FOOD (INDIA) LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result Appeal of the Department is dismissed and the cross-objection of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2846/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Respondent: Smt. Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153C

…eriod of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, in case where the original assessment has been framed under section 143(3) of the Act is illegal and invalid. He has relied upon Judgment in the case of Viniyas Finance and Investment (P) Ltd., 357 ITR 646 and Order of ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of M/s. Shiv Sai Infrastructure (P) Ltd., vs. Pr. CIT ITA.No.2527/Del./2017. He has submitted that since initiation of reassessment proceedings are based on non- application of mind and reasons are recorded on borrowed satisfaction, therefore, reassessment is invalid. In support of this proposition, he h…

DCIT, ROHTAK vs. M/S. PARAM EXIM LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result Appeal of the Department is dismissed and the cross-objection of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2845/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Respondent: Smt. Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153C

…eriod of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, in case where the original assessment has been framed under section 143(3) of the Act is illegal and invalid. He has relied upon Judgment in the case of Viniyas Finance and Investment (P) Ltd., 357 ITR 646 and Order of ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of M/s. Shiv Sai Infrastructure (P) Ltd., vs. Pr. CIT ITA.No.2527/Del./2017. He has submitted that since initiation of reassessment proceedings are based on non- application of mind and reasons are recorded on borrowed satisfaction, therefore, reassessment is invalid. In support of this proposition, he h…

ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S KARAN POLYMERS(P) LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1849/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…i) DCIT Vs. Great Wall Marketing Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 660/Kol/2011 dated 03.02.2016, ii) ITO Vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das reported in 103 ITR 437, iii) S. P. Agarwalla Vs. ITO reported in 140 ITR 1010, iv) CIT Vs. Viniyas Finance & Investment Pvt. Ltd. reported in 357 ITR 646, v) PCIT Vs. G And G Pharma India Ltd. 384 ITR 147 and vi) Basesar Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO 59 ITR (Trib) 84 (Del). 5. Before us the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is running its factory at Kolkata and has no connection or relationship with Shri Surendra Kumar Jain and his brother Virendra Kumar Jain at Delhi. According to Ld. AR, the AO…

ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S KARAN POLYMERS(P) LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1848/KOL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Dec 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…i) DCIT Vs. Great Wall Marketing Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 660/Kol/2011 dated 03.02.2016, ii) ITO Vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das reported in 103 ITR 437, iii) S. P. Agarwalla Vs. ITO reported in 140 ITR 1010, iv) CIT Vs. Viniyas Finance & Investment Pvt. Ltd. reported in 357 ITR 646, v) PCIT Vs. G And G Pharma India Ltd. 384 ITR 147 and vi) Basesar Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO 59 ITR (Trib) 84 (Del). 5. Before us the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is running its factory at Kolkata and has no connection or relationship with Shri Surendra Kumar Jain and his brother Virendra Kumar Jain at Delhi. According to Ld. AR, the AO…

MOSER BAER INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5268/DEL/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2002-03

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 37(1)

…ing based on change of opinion. The ld. AR also relied on the following judgments : (i). Coperion Ideal Private Limited vs. CIT, 378 ITR 525 (Del) (ii). Xerox Modicorp Limited vs. DCIT, 350 ITR 308(Del) (iii). CIT vs. Viniyas Finance and Investment Pvt. Ltd., 357 ITR 646. He further submitted that in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2005-06, the coordinate bench of Tribunal had accepted that the payment made for technical knowhow is royalty payment to IP owners. He, therefore, submitted that the ld. Authorities below are not justified to initiate reassessment proceedings against the assessee and to mak…

SUNIL AGARWAL,HARIDWAR vs. ITO, WARD- 1(3)(3), HARIDWAR

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

ITA 988/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri N.K. Billaiyaassessment Year : 2008-09 Sunil Agarwal, Vs. Ito, Ward 1(3)(3), Haridwar Laxmi Niwas, Near Post Office, Kankhal, Haridwar Uttarakhand (Pan: Aanpa0687L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. & Sh. Piyush KrFor Respondent: Sh. K. Tiwari, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 292CSection 69B

…Signatures Hotels Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO reported in 338 ITR 51; 12. Copy of judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Titanor Components Ltd. vs. ACIT reported in 343 ITR 183. 13. Copy of judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the Ltd. reported in 357 ITR 646 (Del.) 14. Copy of judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Living Media India Ltd. reported in 359 ITR 106. 15. Copy of order of Hon’ble Delhi High court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. NC Cables Ltd. in ITA No. 335/2015. 16. Copy of judgment of Hon’ble Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of Maruti Clean Coal and Power Ltd. vs.…

ACIT (E), NEW DELHI vs. MAI KAMLIWALI JAN KALYAN CHARITABLE TRUST, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4762/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhua.Y. : 2007-08 Dcit(E) Mai Kamliwali Jan Kalyan Circle-1(1), Vs. Charitable Trust, Room No. 2418, 24Th Floor, J-12 Rajouri Garden, E-2, Block, Pratyakash Kar Community Centre, Bhawan, New Delhi Dr. Shyama Prasad (Pan: Aaaam0224H) Mukherjee Civic Centre, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, New Delhi – 110 002

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. & Sh. PiyushFor Respondent: Sh. S.K. JAIN, SR. DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 154

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC-II”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER A.Y. : 2007-08 DCIT(E) MAI KAMLIWALI JAN KALYAN CIRCLE-1(1), VS. CHARITABLE TRUST, ROOM NO. 2418, 24TH FLOOR, J-12 RAJOURI GARDEN, E-2, BLOCK, PRATYAKASH KAR COMMUNITY CENTRE, BHAWAN, NEW DELHI DR. SHYAMA PRASAD (PAN: AAAAM0224H) MUKHERJEE CIVIC CENTRE, JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU MARG, NEW DELHI – 110 002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Department by : Sh. S.K. JAIN, SR. DR Assessee by : Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. & Sh. Piyush Kumar Kamal, Adv. & MS. SAKSHI ARORA, CA ORDER The Revenue has filed the present appeal against…

Showing 1–20 of 21 · Page 1 of 2