CIT v. Hutchison Essar Telecom Ltd.

323 ITR 230High Court2010#5118 most cited

What is CIT v. Hutchison Essar Telecom Ltd. authority for?

An order for default committed under Section 206C of the Income Tax Act cannot be passed after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant financial year. This limitation period is considered reasonable, similar to Section 201(3) concerning tax deduction at source.

23

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2023.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Hutchison Essar Telecom Ltd. · Section 206C · Section 201(3) · tax collected at source · limitation period · four years · assessee in default · financial year · default committed

Issues it is cited on

section 206c(6)section 206c(6a)section 206c(7)section 201(3)section 153(1)(a)tax collected at sourcesection 206csection 206section 153(1)admission of additional evidencechildassessee in default

Judgments citing CIT v. Hutchison Essar Telecom Ltd.

SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 127/JODH/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur23 Aug 2023AY 2013-14
Section 206CSection 5

…C of the Act, unlike corresponding Section 201(3) of the Act in respect of ‘tax deduction at source’. The reference is made to the decision of the Honble Bench in Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. Vs. ITO 57 ITD 536 (Mum); CIT vs. Hutchison Essar Telecom Ltd. (2010) 323 ITR 230 (Del ); NHK Japan Broadcast ing Corporation 305 ITR 137 (Del ); State Bank of India vs. ACIT 106 ITD 589 (Mum) for the proposition that a period of four years was perceived as reasonable time limit by such judicial precedents. Thus such order under s. 206C of the Act cannot be passed after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant fin…

SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS , UDAIPU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 126/JODH/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur23 Aug 2023AY 2012-13
Section 206CSection 5

…C of the Act, unlike corresponding Section 201(3) of the Act in respect of ‘tax deduction at source’. The reference is made to the decision of the Honble Bench in Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. Vs. ITO 57 ITD 536 (Mum); CIT vs. Hutchison Essar Telecom Ltd. (2010) 323 ITR 230 (Del ); NHK Japan Broadcast ing Corporation 305 ITR 137 (Del ); State Bank of India vs. ACIT 106 ITD 589 (Mum) for the proposition that a period of four years was perceived as reasonable time limit by such judicial precedents. Thus such order under s. 206C of the Act cannot be passed after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant fin…

SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 125/JODH/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur23 Aug 2023AY 2011-12
Section 206CSection 5

…C of the Act, unlike corresponding Section 201(3) of the Act in respect of ‘tax deduction at source’. The reference is made to the decision of the Honble Bench in Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. Vs. ITO 57 ITD 536 (Mum); CIT vs. Hutchison Essar Telecom Ltd. (2010) 323 ITR 230 (Del ); NHK Japan Broadcast ing Corporation 305 ITR 137 (Del ); State Bank of India vs. ACIT 106 ITD 589 (Mum) for the proposition that a period of four years was perceived as reasonable time limit by such judicial precedents. Thus such order under s. 206C of the Act cannot be passed after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant fin…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTL TAXN) CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S COFFEEDAY ENTERPRISES LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2931/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muzzaffar Hussain, CIT (D.R)
Section 195

…re no limitation is prescribed, as in section 201 within a period of four years and not later. 5. The CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the ratio laid down by the High Court of Delhi in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Hutchison Essar Telecom Ltd. (2010) 323 ITR 230 (Del), wherein it is held that, the proceedings u/s. 201 and 201(1A) of the Act can be initiated within a period of four years from the end of the financial year and hence, proceedings initiated after that period were barred by limitation. 6. The CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the ratio laid down by the High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT, Delhi…

THE TATA POWER CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO (IT) (TDS) (2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1695/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri N.K. Pradhanthe Tata Power Co. Ltd. Income Tax Officer Corporate Center, (International Taxation)-Tds (2) Block „B‟, 5Th Floor, 34, Air India Building, Sant Tukaram Road, Vs. Mumbai - 21 Carnac Bunder, Mumbai-400 009

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nishant Samaiya, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 195Section 201(1)Section 201(3)

…fortify his aforesaid contention the ld. A.R had drawn support from the judgments of the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in viz. (i) CIT, Delhi XVII Vs. NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation (2008) 305 ITR 137 (Del); (ii) CIT Vs. Hutchinson Essar Telecom Ltd. (2010) 323 ITR 230 (Del); and (iii) Vodafone Essar Mobiles Services Ltd. Vs. Union of India. Also, support was drawn by the ld. A.R from the judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT (TDS) Vs. Anagram Wellington Assets Management Co. Ltd. (2016) 389 ITR 654 (Guj). In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled position of law so laid down by the Ho…

ADANI ENTERPRISES LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT TDS CIRCLE,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1805/AHD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasadआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1805/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri V. R. Chokshi, A.R
Section 206CSection 206C(7)Section 6A

…e Act, unlike corresponding Section 201(3) of the Act in respect of ‘tax deduction at source’. The reference was made to the decision of the co-ordinate bench in Raymond Woollen Mills Lted. Vs. ITO 57 ITD 536 (Mum); CIT vs. Hutchison Essar Telecom Ltd. (2010) 323 ITR 230 (Del); NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation 305 ITR 137 (Del); State Bank of India vs. ACIT 106 ITD 589 (Mum) for the proposition that a period of four years was perceived as reasonable time limit by such judicial precendents. Thus such order under s. 206C of the Act cannot ITA No. 1805/Ahd/17 [Adani Enterprise Ltd. vs. DCIT TDS] A.Y. 2009-10 - 5…

M/S. ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD ( EARLIER KNOWN AS INDIAN RAYON AND INDUSTRIES LTD AND NOW AMALGAMATED WITH GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED)),MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 671/MUM/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Shri S.H. Usmani
Section 195(1)Section 195(2)Section 201Section 201(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA no.671/Mum./2018 (Assessment Year : 2006–07) M/s. Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd. (Earlier known as Indian Rayon And Industries Ltd. and Now Amalgamated with Grasim Industries Ltd.) ……………. Appellant A–4, Aditya Birla Centre S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli Mumbai 400 030 PAN – AAACI1747H v/s Income Tax Officer (I.T) ……………. Respondent Ward–2(3)(2), Mumbai ITA no.836/Mum./2018 (Assessment Year : 2006–07) Income Tax Officer (I.T) ……………. Appellant Ward–2(3)(2), Mumbai v/s M/s. Aditya Birla Nuv…

MONARCH DYESTUFF INDUSTRIES & EXPORTS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT.CIT, RANGE-2(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 397/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.DR
Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271ESection 274

…time limit prescribed under statute for passing penalty order under section 271D, but must be passed within a reasonable time. On the strength of following decisions: • NHK Japan Broadcasting Corpn., 305 ITR 137 (Del); • CIT Vs. Hutchison Essar Telecom Ltd., 323 ITR 230 (Del); • ITO Vs. Vishal Fabrics P.Ltd., ITA No.448/A/2007; • Leela Ship Recycling P.Ltd., ITA No.2011/Ahd/2015; • H.Ajitbhai & Co., Vs. ACIT, 45 ITD 262 (Ahd) He contended that where no time limit has been prescribed in the Income Tax Act, for taking action by the authorities, then Hon’ble Courts have contemplated a reasonable time period of fou…

WIN CABLE & DATACOM P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (TDS) 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 3635/MUM/2016[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: S/Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Amarjit Singh (Jm) I.T.A. No. 3635/Mum/2016(Assessment Year 2001-02)

Section 191Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” Bench, Mumbai Before S/Shri R.C. Sharma (AM) & Amarjit Singh (JM) I.T.A. No. 3635/Mum/2016(Assessment Year 2001-02) I.T.A. No. 3636/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year 2002-03) I.T.A. No. 3637/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year 2003-04) I.T.A. No. 3638/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year 2004-05) Win Cable & Datacome ACIT-TDS- Private Limited Vs. 3(1) Rahejas, 4th Floor Mumbai. Corners of Main Avenue & V.P. Road, Santacruz (West) Mumbai-400 054. PAN No. AAACW2239G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Nitesh Joshi & Shri Manoj C. Dixit Department by Shri V. Vidhyadhar Date of Hearing 20.04.2018…

HATHWAY C NET P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. TRO (TDS) RG 1, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4112/MUM/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Hathway C-Net Private The Tax Recovery Officer Limited, Rahejas, 4Th Floor, (Tds)-1 Smt. K.G. Mittal बिधम/ Corners Of Main Avenue & Ayurvedic Hospital Bldg, Vs. V.P. Road, Santa Cruz (West) Charni Road-(West), Mumbai- 400054 Mumbai-400 002 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaach8338K (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, D.R
Section 133ASection 194CSection 201Section 201(1)

…Income Tax v/s NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation reported in (2008) 305 ITR 137 (Delhi), the Delhi High Court upheld the view of the Tribunal and dismissed the Revenue's Appeal [Commissioner of Income Tax v/s Hutchison Essar Telecome Ltd. reported in (2010) 323 ITR 230 (Delhi)]. 31 In the case of NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation (supra), the Honourable Mr. Justice Madan b. Lokur (as His Lordship then was) speaking for the Bench answered the question directly posed before us in the following terms: “There is no dispute that Section 201 of the Act does not prescribe any limitation period for the assessee being…

M/S. HAMIR REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO (TDS), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5799/DEL/2015[2009-10 (F.Y. 2008-09)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2017

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Shri Amit Shukla

For Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana,CIT (D.R.)
Section 201Section 201(3)

…h Court in this regard, for the sake of ready reference, are reproduced hereunder:- 10. The Petitioner relies on NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation (supra) and the ruling that followed it, i.e., Commissioner of Income Tax v Hutchison Essar Telecom Ltd, [2010] 323 ITR 230 (Del) to submit that proceedings under Section 201 cannot be initiated beyond the period of four years. The revenue characterises this position as untenable since the two cases did not make a distinction between payments made to residents and non- residents. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Finance (No. 2) Bill, 2009 in relation to the…

HATWAY NASIK CABLE NETWORK P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. TRO (TDS) 1, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby Allowed

ITA 5190/MUM/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. No.5190/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2003-04) बनाम/ Hathway Nasik Cable The Tax Recovery Officer Network Private Limited (Tds) Rg. -1 Vs. Rahejas, 4Th Floor, Corners Smt. K.G.Mittal Ayurvedic Of Main Avenue & V.P.Road, Hospital Bldg. Santacruz (West) Charni Road – West, Mumbai - 400054 Mumbai - 400002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaach9070Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi & Manoj DixitFor Respondent: Shri M. C. Omi Ningshen
Section 133Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई "ायपीठ “एच‘’ मुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL“H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. No.5190/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2003-04) बनाम/ Hathway Nasik Cable The Tax Recovery Officer Network Private Limited (TDS) Rg. -1 Vs. Rahejas, 4th Floor, Corners Smt. K.G.Mittal Ayurvedic of Main Avenue & V.P.Road, Hospital Bldg. Santacruz (West) Charni Road – West, Mumbai - 400054 Mumbai - 400002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AAACH9070Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) .. Assessee by: Shri Nitesh Joshi & Manoj…

HATHWAY C-NET P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. TAX RECOVERY (TDS) 1, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 4261/MUM/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Taneja

Section 201Section 201(1)

…Income Tax v/s NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation reported in (2008) 305 ITR 137 (Delhi), the Delhi High Court upheld the view of the Tribunal and dismissed the Revenue's Appeal [Commissioner of Income Tax v/s Hutchison Essar Telecome Ltd. reported in (2010) 323 ITR 230 (Delhi)]. 31 In the case of NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation (supra), the Honourable Mr. Justice Madan b. Lokur (as His Lordship then was) speaking for the Bench answered the question directly posed before us in the following terms: “There is no dispute that Section 201 of the Act does not prescribe any limitation period for the assessee being…

HATHWAY CABLE & DATACOM LTD,MUMBAI vs. TRO (TDS) RG 1, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 3512/MUM/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Taneja

Section 201Section 201(1)

…Income Tax v/s NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation reported in (2008) 305 ITR 137 (Delhi), the Delhi High Court upheld the view of the Tribunal and dismissed the Revenue's Appeal [Commissioner of Income Tax v/s Hutchison Essar Telecome Ltd. reported in (2010) 323 ITR 230 (Delhi)]. 31 In the case of NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation (supra), the Honourable Mr. Justice Madan b. Lokur (as His Lordship then was) speaking for the Bench answered the question directly posed before us in the following terms: “There is no dispute that Section 201 of the Act does not prescribe any limitation period for the assessee being…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. C.J. INTERNATIONAL HOTELS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the

ITA 21/DEL/2015[2006-07 (F.Y.- 2005-06)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Mar 2016

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Am & Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, CA
Section 133ASection 192Section 194CSection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)

…al year 205-06 and, hence, barred by limitation. In support of this contention, he relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court passed in the assessee’s own case (copy placed on record) and also CIT vs. Hutchison Essar Telecom Ltd. (2010) 323 ITR 230 (Del). Our attention was also drawn towards an order passed by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the financial year 2000-01 to 2002-03 (in ITA No.5204/Del/2011) in which a view favourable to the assessee has been taken, a copy of such order is available on page 54 onwards of the paper book. The ld. DR strongly opposed the contention rais…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. C.J. INTERNATIONAL HOTELS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the

ITA 5347/DEL/2011[2006-07 (F.Y. 2005-06)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Mar 2016

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Am & Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, CA
Section 133ASection 192Section 194CSection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)

…al year 205-06 and, hence, barred by limitation. In support of this contention, he relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court passed in the assessee’s own case (copy placed on record) and also CIT vs. Hutchison Essar Telecom Ltd. (2010) 323 ITR 230 (Del). Our attention was also drawn towards an order passed by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the financial year 2000-01 to 2002-03 (in ITA No.5204/Del/2011) in which a view favourable to the assessee has been taken, a copy of such order is available on page 54 onwards of the paper book. The ld. DR strongly opposed the contention rais…

M/S. CJ INTERNATIONAL HOTELS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the

ITA 4791/DEL/2011[2006-07 (F.Y. 2005-06)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Mar 2016

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Am & Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, CA
Section 133ASection 192Section 194CSection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)

…al year 205-06 and, hence, barred by limitation. In support of this contention, he relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court passed in the assessee’s own case (copy placed on record) and also CIT vs. Hutchison Essar Telecom Ltd. (2010) 323 ITR 230 (Del). Our attention was also drawn towards an order passed by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the financial year 2000-01 to 2002-03 (in ITA No.5204/Del/2011) in which a view favourable to the assessee has been taken, a copy of such order is available on page 54 onwards of the paper book. The ld. DR strongly opposed the contention rais…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS (P) LTD.,, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4853/DEL/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Feb 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Sri G.D. Agarwal, Hon’Blesri C.M.Garg

For Appellant: Sh. Rupesh Jain, CA, Ms. Bhavita Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anima Barnwal, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 153Section 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

…AO. 4. Replying to the above the Ld. AR placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation Ltd. 305 ITR 137(Delhi) and decision in the case of CIT vs. Hutchinson Essar Telecom Ltd. (2010) 323 ITR 230 (Delhi) submitted that when proceedings u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act was initiated after 4 years from the end of relevant FY then the same are barred by limitation. The Ld. AR strongly supporting the conclusion of the CIT(A) submitted that the Revenue authorities have no power to pass an order beyond prescribed limit and in the present case orde…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. CATHOLIC RELIEF SERVICES, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 506/DEL/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Sri C.M.Garg, Jm & Sri O.P. Kant, Am Ita No. 506/Del./2014 : Asstt. Year : 2002-03

For Appellant: Dr. Ram Sameyh, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR
Section 201Section 201(1)Section 201(3)

…s not pending as on 0l.04.2007. Hence, the 'Proviso' to section 201(3) in which the limitation is given upto 31.03.2011 is not applicable in this case. 4.3 I further find that Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Hutchison Essar Telecom Ltd. (2010) 323 ITR 230 (Del) has held the proceedings u/s 201 (1)/201(1A) for A.Y 2002-03 as barred by limitation because in that case proceedings was initiated beyond the period of four years from the end of the financial year. I further find that Hon'ble Delhi High Court has decided the aforesaid case vide order dated 15.04.2010 i.e. after insertion of new provision…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-TDS

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/93/2015HC Delhi13 Feb 2015
Section 201Section 201(1)Section 201(3)

…01 is belated. This contention was accepted by the CIT (A), who followed the Division Bench ruling of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation (2008) 305 ITR 137 (Del) and CIT vs. Hutchison Essar Telecome Ltd. (2010) 323 ITR 230 (Delhi) concludes the issue. In NHK Japan (Supra) the Court had said that even though no specific period of limitation was prescribed for action under Section 201, the Income Tax Authorities have to initiate proceedings within reasoned time as it was determined to be four years. 3. Learned counsel for the Revenue urges that the subsequent…

Showing 1–20 of 23 · Page 1 of 2