CIT v. Jagadhari Electric Supply & Industrial Co.

140 ITR 490High Court1983#5275 most cited
22

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2024.

Issues it is cited on

section 44afsection 262trade creditorsinadequate enquiryrevision u/s 263non application of mindsection 263(1)lack of enquirymalabar industrialsection 40a(3)section 194asection 44a

Judgments citing CIT v. Jagadhari Electric Supply & Industrial Co.

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

ITA 148/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

…a vs. CIT v) 137 TTJ 67 (Pat) Ramakant Singh vs. CIT ITA 146,147 & 148/CHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12, 2015-16 & 2016-17 59 16.6 Courts have also on to hold that proceedings u/s 263 of the Act have to be confined to the findings recorded by the AO, as follows : i) 140 ITR 490 (P&H) Jagadhri Electric and Supply Co. vs. CIT ii) 192 ITR 547 (Kar) CIT vs. L.F.D. Silva iii) 192 ITR 50 (Mad) CIT vs. LateT.S. Srinivasa Iyer iv) 60 ITD 295 (Del) Jagjit Industries Ltd vs. ACIT v) 61 ITD 307 (Ahd) Satishbhai Jayantilal Shah vs. ACIT vi) 125 Taxation 188 (AP) CIT vs. G.K. Kabra Cooperative Ind. Estate vii) 61 ITD 317 (Mad) Sanco…

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

ITA 147/CHANDI/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

…a vs. CIT v) 137 TTJ 67 (Pat) Ramakant Singh vs. CIT ITA 146,147 & 148/CHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12, 2015-16 & 2016-17 59 16.6 Courts have also on to hold that proceedings u/s 263 of the Act have to be confined to the findings recorded by the AO, as follows : i) 140 ITR 490 (P&H) Jagadhri Electric and Supply Co. vs. CIT ii) 192 ITR 547 (Kar) CIT vs. L.F.D. Silva iii) 192 ITR 50 (Mad) CIT vs. LateT.S. Srinivasa Iyer iv) 60 ITD 295 (Del) Jagjit Industries Ltd vs. ACIT v) 61 ITD 307 (Ahd) Satishbhai Jayantilal Shah vs. ACIT vi) 125 Taxation 188 (AP) CIT vs. G.K. Kabra Cooperative Ind. Estate vii) 61 ITD 317 (Mad) Sanco…

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

ITA 146/CHANDI/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

…a vs. CIT v) 137 TTJ 67 (Pat) Ramakant Singh vs. CIT ITA 146,147 & 148/CHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12, 2015-16 & 2016-17 59 16.6 Courts have also on to hold that proceedings u/s 263 of the Act have to be confined to the findings recorded by the AO, as follows : i) 140 ITR 490 (P&H) Jagadhri Electric and Supply Co. vs. CIT ii) 192 ITR 547 (Kar) CIT vs. L.F.D. Silva iii) 192 ITR 50 (Mad) CIT vs. LateT.S. Srinivasa Iyer iv) 60 ITD 295 (Del) Jagjit Industries Ltd vs. ACIT v) 61 ITD 307 (Ahd) Satishbhai Jayantilal Shah vs. ACIT vi) 125 Taxation 188 (AP) CIT vs. G.K. Kabra Cooperative Ind. Estate vii) 61 ITD 317 (Mad) Sanco…

KAUR KOOKIES (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. PR,CIT, DELHI-4, NEW DELHI

Appeal are allowed

ITA 1119/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 263Section 36

…) 125 TTJ 428 (Del) Rajiv Agnihotri vs. CIT iii) 131 ITD 58 (Jai) Rajiv Arora vs. CIT iv) 137 TTJ 67 (Pat) Ramakant Singh vs. CIT PROPOSITION VII: THAT PROCEEDINGS U/S 263 HAVE TO BE CONFINED TO FINDINGS RECORDED BY LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AND NOT BEYOND i) 140 ITR 490 (P&H) Jagadhri Electric and Supply Co. vs. CIT ii) 192 ITR 547 (Kar) CIT vs. L.F.D. Silva iii) 192 ITR 50 (Mad) CIT vs. Late T.S. Srinivasalyer iv) 60 ITD 295 (Del) Jagjit Industries Ltd vs. ACIT v) 61 ITD 307 (Ahd) SatishbhaiJayantilal Shah vs. ACIT vi) 125 Taxation 188 (AP) CIT vs. G.K. Kabra Cooperative Ind. Estate vii) 61 ITD 317 (Mad) Sanco…

TATA NYK SHIPPING PTE. LTD. ,SINGAPORE vs. CIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-3, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1067/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Tata Nyk Shipping Pte. Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ltd., International Taxation-3, 6, Shenton Way, #18-08B, New Delhi Oue Downtown 2, Singapore Pan :Aadct9945P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 263Section 92C

…edings were initiated. In case, it is done, it will amount to exercising revisionary jurisdiction to revise the order of CIT. In this regard, he relied upon the following decisions: 26 AY: 2016-17 1. CIT Vs. Jagadhri Electric Supply & Industrial Co. [1983] 140 ITR 490 (P&H) 2. DIT Vs. Shree Nashik Panchvati Panjrapole, 397 ITR 501 (Bom.) 14. He submitted, since, the Tribunal has no power to enhance the assessment and take back benefits granted by the Assessing Officer, the submissions made by the Revenue to modify the order of CIT to enlarge the scope of direction of CIT in the order passed under section 2…

SANJIV KUMAR MITTAL ,HARYANA vs. PCIT ROHTAK , HARYANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 663/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…no case has been made out by the Pr.CIT. As contended, the Tribunal cannot uphold the revisional action of the Pr.CIT on a different ground then what is alleged in the revisional proceedings as held in CIT vs. Jagadhri Electric Supply and Industrial Company, 140 ITR 490/P & H. We thus find traction in the contention that where Section 68 as alleged and invoked by the Pr.CIT is not applicable, Section 115BBE could not be triggered by modifying the premise of revisional directions. The revisional action of the Pr.CIT thus fails on this count also. 12. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order p…

ARM INFRA & UTILITIES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-6, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2212/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/wFor Respondent: Shri Rajiv Harit
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)

…r of the Pr.CIT and now question the genuineness of the transaction when the same has not been questioned by the Pr.CIT. [Refer Para 13 of the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jagadhri Electric Supply& Industrial Co. (140 ITR 490) cited at the time of hearing. Without prejudice to the above, we submit the nature and source of the credit stands explained in the course of assessment proceedings to the satisfaction of the AO on the following established parameters of identity of subscriber, creditworthiness of subscribed and genuineness of transaction from the various detail…

MUKESH GARG,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT - 16, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed considering the above two aspects and keeping the other aspects open

ITA 1206/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Gunjan Garg, Vs. Pr. Cit-16, C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates Ca, Room No. 101, Drum Shape L-7A(Lgf) South Exten. Part-Ii, New Building, New Delhi Delhi Pan: Aagpg5718B (Appellant) (Respondent) Mukesh Garg, Vs. Pr. Cit-16, C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates Ca, Room No. 101, Drum Shape L-7A(Lgf) South Exten. Part-Ii, New Building, New Delhi Delhi Pan: Aaapg2585Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Suniita Singh, CIT DR
Section 111Section 143Section 143(3)Section 245FSection 263Section 54B

…ed in order u/s 263 are without jurisdiction as same could not have been issued. For this proposition he relied on the decision of the honourable Delhi High Court in 295 CTR (Del) 181 as well as 22 DTR (Del) 158 and honourable Punjab and Haryana High Court in 140 ITR 490. d. Adverting to ground number 1, 3 and 4 he submitted that the order of the learned assessing officer is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue as the issue has been examined u/s 143 (3) of the act. He submitted that the original assessment order was passed u/s 143 (3) and the issue in the limited scrutiny case was comp…

GUNJAN GARG,DELHI vs. PR. CIT-16, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed considering the above two aspects and keeping the other aspects open

ITA 1205/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Gunjan Garg, Vs. Pr. Cit-16, C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates Ca, Room No. 101, Drum Shape L-7A(Lgf) South Exten. Part-Ii, New Building, New Delhi Delhi Pan: Aagpg5718B (Appellant) (Respondent) Mukesh Garg, Vs. Pr. Cit-16, C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates Ca, Room No. 101, Drum Shape L-7A(Lgf) South Exten. Part-Ii, New Building, New Delhi Delhi Pan: Aaapg2585Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Suniita Singh, CIT DR
Section 111Section 143Section 143(3)Section 245FSection 263Section 54B

…ed in order u/s 263 are without jurisdiction as same could not have been issued. For this proposition he relied on the decision of the honourable Delhi High Court in 295 CTR (Del) 181 as well as 22 DTR (Del) 158 and honourable Punjab and Haryana High Court in 140 ITR 490. d. Adverting to ground number 1, 3 and 4 he submitted that the order of the learned assessing officer is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue as the issue has been examined u/s 143 (3) of the act. He submitted that the original assessment order was passed u/s 143 (3) and the issue in the limited scrutiny case was comp…

GOLDMOHUR DESIGN AND APPAREL PARK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. COMM. OF INCOME TAX - 7, MUMBAI

ITA 3971/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Soodgoldmohar Design & Pr. Cit-7 R. No. 628, 6Th Floor, Apparel Park Ltd. 145, Goldmohar Mill, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Dada Saheb Phalke Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Dadar (E), Mumbai- 400 014 Pan – Aadcg1613M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: Shri. T. Kipgen &
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…e grounds which the Pr. CIT/CIT himself did not think proper to form the basis of his order. Our aforesaid observations are fortified by the judgments of the Hon‘ble High Court of Punjab in the case of CIT Vs. Jagadhari Electric Supply & Industrial Co. (1983) 140 ITR 490 (P&H) and Goldmohar Desine and Apparel Park Ltd. Vs. Pr. CIT-7 25 ITA No.3971/Mum/2017 A.Y 2012-13 that of the Hon‘ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Spectra Shares & Scrips Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2013) 354 ITR 35 (AP). In the backdrop of our aforesaid deliberations, the contention raised by the revenue before us, a well reasoned one, t…

SHUMA KALRA,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT- 12, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee failed on all five grounds raised before us

ITA 4128/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jun 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishishuma Kalra, Vs. Pr. Cit-12, A-28, Ashok Vihar, Phase-1, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaipk8142R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Chaoudhary, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54Section 54F

…he learned assessing officer is erroneous and more so prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Thus, he supported the order passed u/s 263 of the Act. 13. In the rejoinder the ld AR heavily relied on the decision of the Hon‟ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in 140 ITR 490 in CIT V Jagadhri Electric Supply and Industrial co and precisely at page 502 stating that revenue cannot rely on any other ground while defending order u/s 263 of the Act then what is mentioned in 263 order. He further relied upon CIT V L F Desilva [1992] 62 Taxman 161 (Karnataka)/[1991] 192 ITR 547 (Karnataka)/[1992] 101 CTR 152 (Karnataka) and…

SMT. SHARDABEN B. PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-5,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1026/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R
Section 143(3)Section 263

…No 2076/Mum/2010; order dated 31" March 2011], a coordinate bench had an occasion to deal with a materially identical situation. As held in this decision, following Maxpack Investments 13 SOT 67 (Del), G.K. Kabra 211 ITR 336 (AP) and Jagadhri Electric Supply 140 ITR 490 (P&H), if a ground of revision is not mentioned in the show-cause notice, it cannot be made the basis of the order for the reason that the assessee would have had no opportunity to meet the point . While learned Departmental Representative does not dispute this position and that decision of the coordinate bench squarely covers the issue, he urges…

SHILPA SHETTY,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC 13, MUMBAI

ITA 2445/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. R. C. Sharma, Am & Hon’Ble Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2445/Mum/2014 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri Arvind V. SondeFor Respondent: Shri V. Jenardhanan
Section 92ASection 92A(2)(j)Section 92CSection 92F

…t Note 55 at Pg. 2208 of Tenth Edition of "The Law and Practice of Income Tax" ii.) decision in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd v. R.B. Wadkar [2004] 268 ITR 332 (Born HC) iii.) decision in the case of CIT v. Jagadhri Electric Supply & Industrial Co. [1981] 140 ITR 490 (P&H HC) iv.) decision in the case of Equitable Investment Co. (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [1988] 174 ITR 714 (Cal HC) 5. Whereas on the contrary, Ld. DR relied upon the orders passed by the revenue authorities and submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) is not an ordinary Court of appeal such as ITAT or other appellate authorities and has more powers than them. In…

THE J.K. TRUST BOMBAY,MUMBAI vs. CIT (E), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3769/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S The J. K. Trust Cit (Exemption) Bombay, R. No.617, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ New Hind House, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Narottam Morrjee Marg, Lalbaug, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400001

Section 11Section 263

…ed upon the decision in 335 ITR 83(Del.) and other cases mentioned in the case laws paper book. A plea was raised whether the Ld. CIT(E) can invoked 7 M/s J.K. Trust Bombay section 263 on different views, for which reliance was placed upon the decision in 140 ITR 490 (P & H). A strong plea was raised by the Ld. counsel for the assessee that services are provided to the villagers and not to the government for which grants are given to the assessee by the government for which our attention was invited to page 4, clause-b of the agreement. 2.2. Before adverting further, now we shall analyze the relevant prov…

M/S. AMIRA ENTERPRISES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT (C), GURGAON

In the result, the stay application filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3206/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2017AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Aparna Karan, CIT- DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…IT is not tenable as the same is nowhere noted to have been invoked by the ld. PCIT in its order. Reliance is placed on the decision of the jurisdictional Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Jagadhari Electric Supply & Industrial Co. [[1983] 140 ITR 490] wherein the High Court while dealing with a similar situation. He also submitted that a specific query was raised by the AO in respect of disallowance U/s 14A and a reply dated 29.06.2016 was filed stating that the provision is not applicable as there is no exempt income and the view taken by AO is a possible view. Further reliance is also pl…

M/S. AMIRA PURE FOODS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT (C), GURGAON

In the result, the stay application filed by the assessee is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3205/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2017AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Aparna Karan, CIT- DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…CIT is not tenable as the same is nowhere noted to have been invoked by the ld. PCIT in its order. Reliance is placed on the decision of the jurisdictional Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Jagadhari Electric Supply & Industrial Co. [[1983] 140 ITR 490] wherein the High Court dealt with a similar situation. He also submitted that the case of the appellant has not been selected on TP risk parameters or on the basis of the second condition of Instruction no. 3 of 2016 and the contention of the Ld. DR that the case of the appellant was selected for scrutiny on the 30 basis of international tran…

MADHURIMA INTERNATIONAL P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 3, MUMBAI

ITA 421/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.421/Mum/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14) M/S Madhurima Principal Commissioner Of बनाम/ International Private Income Tax -3, V. Limited, 612, Aayakar Bhawan, 122, Maker Chamber-Iii, M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 021. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aafcm2533E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri N.P. Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 56(2)(viib)

…submitted to the A.O. from pages 90 to 116/paper book. Further, the ld. counsel relied on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. , (1993) 203 ITR 108(Bom.) , CIT v. Jagadhri Electric Supply & Industrial Co. ( 1981) 140 ITR 490(P&H HC) and submitted that specific questions were asked by the AO which were duly replied by the assessee. It is submitted that it is only after the consideration of replies of the assessee, the learned AO accepted the contentions of the assessee and no additions were made by the AO u/s 56(2)(viib) of the 1961 Act 6. The ld. CIT D.R. submitted…

JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, HISAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3128/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. C.M. Garg & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘D’: NEW DELH BEFORE SH. C.M. GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 3283/Del/2013 & 3128/Del/2014 Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s. Jindal Steel Power Ltd., Jindal Vs. CIT/ACIT, Hisar Centre, 12, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi (PAN: AAACJ7097D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate, Sh. Rohit Jain & Sh. Deepesh, Advocates Respondent by Sh. Ashok Manchanda, Standing Counsel and Sh. A.K. Arora, CIT(DR) Date hearing concluded on 07.03.2016 Date of pronouncement 31.03.2016 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: These two app…

JINDAL STEEL POWER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. CIT, HISAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3283/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. C.M. Garg & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘D’: NEW DELH BEFORE SH. C.M. GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 3283/Del/2013 & 3128/Del/2014 Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s. Jindal Steel Power Ltd., Jindal Vs. CIT/ACIT, Hisar Centre, 12, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi (PAN: AAACJ7097D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate, Sh. Rohit Jain & Sh. Deepesh, Advocates Respondent by Sh. Ashok Manchanda, Standing Counsel and Sh. A.K. Arora, CIT(DR) Date hearing concluded on 07.03.2016 Date of pronouncement 31.03.2016 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: These two app…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - IV vs. BEVERAGES PVT. LTD

ITA/1394/2010HC Delhi14 Jan 2011
Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 263Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)

…e; the true basis of depreciation allowance is the character of the asset not it‟s description.” 2011:DHC:219-DB 7. Thereafter, the tribunal referred to the decision cited by the revenue in CIT v. Jagadhari Electric Supply & Industrial Co., [1983] 140 ITR 490 (P&H) and proceeded to hold as follows: “As held by Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises (99 ITR 375), even an inertia of the Assessing Officer in examining a claim, when he ought to have examined the same, does render the assessment order erroneous. However, as far as situation before us is concerned, we have noted…

Showing 1–20 of 22 · Page 1 of 2